497 P.3d 686
Okla. Crim. App.2021Background
- Clifton Parish was convicted by jury of second-degree felony murder in 2012 and sentenced to 25 years; conviction became final in June 2014 after direct appeal.
- In August 2020 Parish filed a post-conviction application asserting the State lacked subject-matter jurisdiction under McGirt v. Oklahoma because the offense occurred in the Choctaw Reservation.
- Associate District Judge Jana Wallace granted relief on April 12, 2021, vacating Parish's conviction; the State obtained a stay and petitioned this Court for a writ of prohibition.
- The Court framed the dispositive question as whether McGirt and related decisions should be applied retroactively to void convictions that were final when McGirt was announced.
- Relying on Teague-style non-retroactivity principles (as adopted in Oklahoma law via Ferrell), and persuasive Tenth Circuit authority in United States v. Cuch, the Court held McGirt announced a new procedural rule and declined to apply it retroactively on state post-conviction review.
- The Court granted the writ of prohibition, reversed the order vacating Parish’s conviction, and overruled prior state decisions that had applied McGirt retroactively in collateral proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether McGirt applies retroactively on state post-conviction review to void convictions final before McGirt | State: McGirt should not apply retroactively; Teague/Ferrell bar collateral application | Parish: McGirt is a jurisdictional defect that can be raised anytime to void conviction | Court: McGirt is a new procedural rule and will not be applied retroactively to void final state convictions |
| Nature of McGirt—substantive or procedural/jurisdictional | State: McGirt is procedural (changes which sovereign prosecutes crimes) | Parish: McGirt implicates subject-matter jurisdiction and thus voids prior convictions | Court: McGirt is procedural (affects forum, not elements or immunity) and subject to non-retroactivity analysis |
| Whether extraordinary writ (prohibition) was proper remedy to halt enforcement of vacatur | State: Writ proper because vacatur of final conviction causes injury with no adequate appellate remedy | Parish: Regular post-conviction remedy would suffice / vacatur authorized | Court: No adequate appellate remedy; prohibition proper and granted |
Key Cases Cited
- McGirt v. Oklahoma, 140 S. Ct. 2452 (U.S. 2020) (recognized historic reservation and federal criminal jurisdiction)
- Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (U.S. 1989) (framework for retroactivity of new rules in collateral review)
- Edwards v. Vannoy, 141 S. Ct. 1547 (U.S. 2021) (eliminated Teague’s watershed exception)
- United States v. Cuch, 79 F.3d 987 (10th Cir. 1996) (Hagen jurisdictional ruling held non-retroactive on collateral attack; persuasive)
- Ferrell v. State, 902 P.2d 1113 (Okla. Crim. App. 1995) (Oklahoma’s adoption of non-retroactivity for new rules in post-conviction review)
- Gosa v. Mayden, 413 U.S. 665 (U.S. 1973) (jurisdictional limitation and discussion of retroactivity principles)