SIZEMORE v. STATE
485 P.3d 867
Okla. Crim. App.2021Background
- In July 2016 officers in Krebs, Oklahoma located Devin Sizemore and his 21‑month‑old daughter in/near a pond after family reported concerns; the daughter drowned and Sizemore struggled with officers and was arrested.
- Sizemore was tried in Pittsburg County and convicted of First Degree Murder (21 O.S. § 701.7) and Assault/Battery on a Police Officer (21 O.S. § 649); he received life without parole plus five years concurrent.
- After the U.S. Supreme Court decided McGirt v. Oklahoma, this Court remanded for an evidentiary hearing on (1) whether Sizemore is an "Indian" under federal law and (2) whether the crimes occurred in Indian Country (the Choctaw Reservation).
- Parties stipulated Sizemore has Indian blood, was an enrolled member of the Choctaw Nation on the offense date, and the Choctaw Nation is federally recognized; the district court found Sizemore is an Indian for federal purposes.
- The district court examined 19th‑century treaties (Dancing Rabbit Creek 1830 and subsequent treaties) and concluded Congress established a Choctaw reservation and never disestablished it; therefore the location is Indian country.
- Applying the Major Crimes Act and McGirt, this Court vacated the state judgment and sentence and remanded with instructions to dismiss for lack of state jurisdiction (federal jurisdiction applies at least as to murder).
Issues
| Issue | Sizemore's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Is Sizemore an "Indian" for federal jurisdiction? | Sizemore: he is an enrolled Choctaw Nation member and thus an Indian under federal law. | State: did not successfully contest the stipulation. | Held: Parties stipulated and court found Sizemore is an Indian for federal purposes. |
| 2. Did the crimes occur in Indian Country (Choctaw Reservation)? | Sizemore: treaties created a Choctaw reservation and Congress never disestablished it, so the land is Indian country. | State: presented no evidence showing disestablishment; effectively passive on the issue. | Held: Treaty history establishes a Choctaw reservation and Congress never clearly disestablished it; the location is Indian country. |
| 3. Does federal law (Major Crimes Act) preclude state prosecution (murder and possibly assault)? | Sizemore: Murder is an enumerated Major Crime committed by an Indian in Indian country, so exclusive federal jurisdiction applies; assault may also fall under §1153 or §1152. | State: prosecuted in state court but failed to overcome federal‑jurisdiction argument. | Held: Murder falls squarely within the Major Crimes Act; state lacked jurisdiction to prosecute (assault possibly covered too). |
| 4. Do Sizemore's other trial error claims require relief (ineffective assistance, sufficiency, confession, arrest, cumulative error)? | Sizemore: alleged multiple trial errors. | State: defended convictions on merits. | Held: Moot — jurisdictional ruling disposes; convictions vacated and case remanded with instructions to dismiss. |
Key Cases Cited
- McGirt v. Oklahoma, 140 S. Ct. 2452 (2020) (treaty‑based reservation boundaries persist absent clear congressional disestablishment)
- Solem v. Bartlett, 465 U.S. 463 (1984) (court will not lightly infer reservation disestablishment)
- Hagen v. Utah, 510 U.S. 399 (1994) (examples of statutory language that effect disestablishment)
- Nebraska v. Parker, 577 U.S. 481 (2016) (clear congressional intent required to disestablish reservation; explicit cession language common)
- State v. Klindt, 782 P.2d 401 (Okla. Crim. App. 1989) (Oklahoma lacks jurisdiction over crimes by or against Indians in Indian Country)