485 P.3d 867
Okla. Crim. App.2021Background
- In July 2016, Devin Warren Sizemore was arrested after his 21‑month‑old daughter drowned; officers struggled with him during the encounter. He was tried in Pittsburg County and convicted of First Degree Murder and Assault/Battery on a Police Officer and sentenced to life without parole plus five years concurrent.
- On direct appeal Sizemore raised six claims, foremost that Oklahoma lacked jurisdiction because he is an Indian and the offenses occurred in Indian country under federal law.
- After McGirt v. Oklahoma, the Court remanded for findings on (1) whether Sizemore is an Indian and (2) whether the crimes occurred in Indian country (Choctaw Reservation).
- The parties stipulated that Sizemore had Indian blood, was an enrolled Choctaw Nation member on the offense date, and that the Choctaw Nation is federally recognized; the district court so found.
- The district court (and this Court) concluded 19th‑century treaties established a Choctaw Reservation and Congress never disestablished it; the State presented no evidence of disestablishment.
- Holding McGirt controlling, the Court of Criminal Appeals vacated Sizemore’s convictions and remanded with instructions to dismiss for lack of state jurisdiction; other appellate claims were rendered moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| State jurisdiction under Major Crimes Act / Indian country | Sizemore: he is an Indian and offenses occurred in Indian country, so federal exclusive jurisdiction applies | State: (did not prove disestablishment; contested jurisdiction below but presented no evidence on disestablishment) | Court: McGirt controls; state lacked jurisdiction; convictions vacated and case dismissed |
| Whether Sizemore is an Indian | He is enrolled Choctaw and has Indian blood | State did not contest stipulation | Stipulation and district court finding accepted: Sizemore is an Indian for federal purposes |
| Whether crimes occurred in Indian country (Choctaw Reservation) | Crimes occurred within historical Choctaw boundaries and treaties established a reservation that was not disestablished | State presented no evidence Congress disestablished the reservation | Court adopted district court: treaties created a reservation and Congress never clearly disestablished it; area is Indian country |
| Other trial errors (IAC, sufficiency, admissibility, arrest quash, cumulative error) | Various appellate challenges to trial process and evidence | State defended convictions on merits below | Court: These claims are moot because jurisdictional defect requires dismissal |
Key Cases Cited
- McGirt v. Oklahoma, 140 S. Ct. 2452 (2020) (held Creek Reservation was not disestablished; land remains Indian country for federal criminal jurisdiction)
- Solem v. Bartlett, 465 U.S. 463 (1984) (disestablishment requires clear congressional intent)
- Hagen v. Utah, 510 U.S. 399 (1994) (examples of congressional language withdrawing reservations)
- Nebraska v. Parker, 577 U.S. 481 (2016) (explicit reference to cession or present surrender of tribal interests commonly required for disestablishment)
- Mattz v. Arnett, 412 U.S. 481 (1973) (disestablishment need not use a particular form of words but must show clear congressional intent)
- State v. Klindt, 782 P.2d 401 (Okla. Crim. App. 1989) (Oklahoma lacks jurisdiction over crimes by or against Indians in Indian country)