Magnan v. Trammell
719 F.3d 1159
10th Cir.2013Background
- Magnan pleaded guilty in Oklahoma to three counts of murder in the first degree and one count of shooting with intent to kill, receiving death sentences on the murder counts and a life term on the shooting count.
- The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals held the 1970 conveyance extinguished Indian land restrictions on the Tract’s surface estate and that remaining mineral restrictions were unobservable to deprive Oklahoma of jurisdiction over the surface.
- Magnan filed a federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging state jurisdiction on the basis that the crimes occurred in Indian country under 18 U.S.C. § 1151 and § 1153.
- The district court denied the petition but granted a certificate of appealability; the Tenth Circuit assumed AEDPA review applies and held the OCCA erred in finding jurisdiction compatible with Magnan’s argument.
- The panel concluded the Tract remained Indian country because the 1945 Act’s Secretarial-approval requirement was not met for the 4/5 purchased mineral interests, thus federal exclusive jurisdiction applied and state convictions were void.
- The concurrence discusses whether AEDPA deferential review applies to a state court ruling on exclusive federal jurisdiction and emphasizes jurisdiction as a core habeas issue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Tract was Indian country at Magnan’s crimes. | Magnan: surface/ownership kept Indian country; 1945/1947 acts require Secretarial approval. | OCCA: 1970 conveyance extinguished restrictions; surface not Indian country; state jurisdiction proper. | Yes, Indian country remained; federal exclusive jurisdiction applied. |
| Whether the state court's action satisfied Secretarial approval under the 1945 Act. | 1970 proceeding could not satisfy Secretarial approval for purchased interests. | OCCA found combined proceedings satisfied both Acts. | OCCA’s factual determination unreasonable; Secretarial approval not met. |
| What standard of review applies under AEDPA to jurisdictional determinations. | De novo review should apply due to exclusive federal jurisdiction issue. | AEDPA deferential review applies to merits determinations. | Court assumes AEDPA deferential review but ultimately reverses on de novo jurisdictional analysis. |
| Did the 1970 proceeding reasonably satisfy Secretarial approval for the 4/5 purchased interest? | Record shows no valid Secretarial approval for purchased interest. | Storts’ participation and court approval indicate approval. | Secretarial approval not met; Tract remained Indian country. |
Key Cases Cited
- Tiger v. Western Investment Co., 221 U.S. 286 (1909) (Secretary approval requirement tied to trust responsibility in Indian lands)
- Solem v. Bartlett, 465 U.S. 463 (1984) (exclusive federal jurisdiction over Indian allotments)
- Negonsott v. Samuels, 507 U.S. 99 (1993) (federal jurisdiction over Major Crimes Act offenses is exclusive)
- United States v. Pelican, 232 U.S. 442 (1914) (trust allotments retain Indian character for jurisdictional purposes)
- Navajo Nation v. United States, 537 U.S. 488 (2003) (recognizes Secretary approval as part of federal trust obligations)
- United States v. John, 437 U.S. 634 (1978) (Major Crimes Act jurisdiction in lands held in trust)