SIZEMORE v. STATE
485 P.3d 867
| Okla. Crim. App. | 2021Background
- July 2016: Officers in Krebs, OK located Devin Sizemore and his 21‑month‑old daughter in a pond; the child drowned and Sizemore was arrested after a physical struggle with police.
- Sizemore was convicted in Pittsburg County of First Degree Murder (21 O.S. §701.7) and Assault/Battery on a Police Officer (21 O.S. §649) and sentenced to life without parole plus five years concurrent.
- On direct appeal, Sizemore argued the State lacked jurisdiction because he is an “Indian” and the offenses occurred in Indian Country; he also raised several trial‑error claims.
- After McGirt v. Oklahoma, the case was remanded for an evidentiary determination on (1) Sizemore’s Indian status and (2) whether the crimes occurred within the Choctaw Reservation.
- The parties stipulated that Sizemore had Indian blood, was an enrolled Choctaw Nation member on the offense date, and the Choctaw Nation is federally recognized; the district court and this Court found he is an "Indian" for federal law purposes.
- The district court found the 19th‑century treaties created a Choctaw reservation and Congress never disestablished it; applying McGirt, the Court of Criminal Appeals vacated the convictions and remanded with instructions to dismiss for lack of state jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Sizemore's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Oklahoma had jurisdiction under federal Indian‑country law (Major Crimes Act) | State did not establish that the Choctaw Reservation was disestablished; proceeded to prosecute in state court | Sizemore argued he is an Indian and the offenses occurred in Indian Country, so federal law (18 U.S.C. §1153/§1152) precludes state jurisdiction | Held: Crimes occurred within Choctaw Reservation and Sizemore is an Indian; state lacked jurisdiction; convictions vacated and case remanded with instructions to dismiss |
| Whether Sizemore is an “Indian” under federal law | Parties effectively stipulated (State presented no contrary evidence) | Sizemore asserted Indian status and provided enrollment evidence | Held: Sizemore was an enrolled Choctaw Nation member and therefore an Indian for federal‑law purposes |
| Whether a Choctaw Reservation was established and disestablished by Congress | State presented no evidence of congressional disestablishment | Sizemore argued 19th‑century treaties established a reservation and Congress never clearly disestablished it | Held: Treaties established a Choctaw Reservation and Congress never expressly disestablished it; area is Indian Country for federal criminal law |
| Remaining trial‑error claims (ineffective assistance, sufficiency, recorded statement admissibility, motion to quash, cumulative error) | State defended convictions on the merits | Sizemore alleged multiple trial errors | Held: All other claims rendered moot by the jurisdictional ruling; reversal and dismissal required |
Key Cases Cited
- McGirt v. Oklahoma, 140 S. Ct. 2452 (2020) (holding historical reservation boundaries remain for federal criminal law absent clear congressional disestablishment)
- Solem v. Bartlett, 465 U.S. 463 (1984) (disestablishment of an Indian reservation requires clear congressional intent)
- Nebraska v. Parker, 136 S. Ct. 1072 (2016) (disestablishment commonly involves explicit reference to cession or total surrender of tribal interests)
- Hagen v. Utah, 510 U.S. 399 (1994) (examples of congressional language that accomplishes disestablishment)
- State v. Klindt, 782 P.2d 401 (Okla. Crim. App. 1989) (Oklahoma lacks jurisdiction over crimes committed by or against Indians in Indian Country)