517 P.3d 970
Okla. Crim. App.2021Background
- Clifton Merrill Parish was convicted by jury of second-degree felony murder (sentenced to 25 years) in March 2012; conviction became final on or about June 4, 2014.
- Parish filed for post-conviction relief in August 2020, invoking McGirt v. Oklahoma to challenge state subject-matter jurisdiction.
- Judge Jana Wallace found Parish is an Indian and the offense occurred within the Choctaw Reservation (as recognized in this Court’s Sizemore decision applying McGirt) and concluded the State lacked jurisdiction under the Major Crimes Act. She vacated and dismissed the murder conviction.
- Judge Wallace treated subject-matter-jurisdiction defects as nonwaivable and void ab initio and initially stayed enforcement of her order, later setting a status conference.
- The State (District Attorney Mark Matloff) petitioned this Court for a writ of prohibition; the Court granted a stay of proceedings and directed the State to file the record and the parties to submit supplemental briefs.
- The Court asked specific briefing on whether McGirt (and subsequent recognition of reservation jurisdiction) should be applied retroactively to void convictions that were final when McGirt and related decisions were announced.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether McGirt-based recognition of federal jurisdiction over crimes in the Creek/Choctaw Reservations should be applied retroactively to void convictions final before McGirt | State (Matloff): retroactivity should not apply to convictions already final; Teague and related precedents limit retroactive relief. | Parish: McGirt announces lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, which can be raised any time and renders convictions void. | Court did not decide; granted stay and ordered supplemental briefs on the retroactivity question. |
| Whether a state conviction is void and subject to collateral attack if the State lacked subject-matter jurisdiction under McGirt/Major Crimes Act | State: finality and collateral-review limits may preclude vacating final convictions. | Parish: subject-matter-jurisdiction defects are jurisdictional, nonwaivable, and void ab initio. | Lower judge concluded conviction void; CCA has stayed proceedings and requested briefing rather than affirming or reversing. |
| Whether the Court should stay trial-court proceedings and require supplemental briefing on the legal questions presented | State: requested stay and review via prohibition to prevent enforcement of dismissal and to resolve retroactivity. | Parish: opposing position implicit in relief sought; requested recognition of McGirt’s effect. | CCA granted a stay of proceedings and directed both parties and invited amici to file 20-page supplemental briefs within 20 days; ordered record filed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ferrell v. State, 902 P.2d 1113 (Okla. Crim. App. 1995) (treatment of jurisdictional defects and post-conviction relief in Oklahoma).
- United States v. Cuch, 79 F.3d 987 (10th Cir. 1996) (retroactivity and jurisdictional principles in federal criminal context).
- Edwards v. Vannoy, 593 U.S. (2021) (Supreme Court decision on retroactivity of new rule on federal habeas review).
- McGirt v. Oklahoma, 140 S. Ct. 2452 (2020) (holding much of eastern Oklahoma remains Indian Country for Major Crimes Act jurisdiction).
- Walker v. State, 933 P.2d 327 (Okla. Crim. App. 1997) (defining when a conviction is final for collateral-review purposes).
- Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989) (framework limiting retroactive application of new rules in habeas corpus proceedings).