STATE ex rel. MATLOFF v. WALLACE
2021 OK CR 21
| Okla. Crim. App. | 2021Background
- Clifton Parish was convicted by jury of second-degree felony murder in 2012 and his conviction became final in 2014 after direct review.
- In August 2020 Parish filed a post-conviction application arguing the State lacked subject-matter jurisdiction under McGirt v. Oklahoma because his crime occurred in Choctaw Reservation (Indian Country).
- Associate District Judge Jana Wallace granted post-conviction relief, vacating Parish’s conviction for lack of state jurisdiction; the order was initially stayed.
- The State (Dist. Atty. Matloff) petitioned the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals for a writ of prohibition and the Court stayed proceedings to consider whether McGirt should be applied retroactively to final convictions.
- The Court held McGirt announced a new rule of criminal procedure (not substantive), declined to apply it retroactively in state post-conviction proceedings to void final convictions, relied on Teague principles and United States v. Cuch, and granted the writ reversing the vacatur.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State/Matloff) | Defendant's Argument (Wallace/Parish) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether McGirt applies retroactively on state post-conviction to void convictions final before McGirt | McGirt is a new procedural rule and should not be applied retroactively to final convictions; Teague-based non‑retroactivity controls | McGirt announces a jurisdictional defect that is non-waivable and voids state convictions whenever discovered | McGirt is not applied retroactively in state post-conviction to void final convictions; the vacatur was unauthorized and reversed |
| Whether McGirt is substantive (affecting criminal liability) or procedural for retroactivity analysis | McGirt is procedural because it changes which sovereign may prosecute, not the criminality of conduct | McGirt is jurisdictional and therefore should render prior convictions void regardless of Teague | Court: McGirt is a new procedural rule (not substantive) for retroactivity purposes |
| Whether the jurisdictional character of McGirt requires retroactive relief despite non‑retroactivity doctrines | Jurisdictional rulings do not automatically overcome Teague/related non‑retroactivity policies; Cuch supports prospective application | Jurisdictional defects (lack of subject-matter jurisdiction) can never be waived and must void convictions when recognized | Court: Jurisdictional label alone does not compel retroactivity; reliance, finality, and public‑safety interests counsel against retroactive voiding of final convictions |
| Whether prohibition is the appropriate remedy to prevent enforcement of the vacatur | Extraordinary relief is warranted because the trial court exercised unauthorized power and there is no adequate remedy by appeal | The Respondent could have allowed normal appellate process | Court: Writ of prohibition granted because vacatur was unauthorized and appeal remedy was inadequate |
Key Cases Cited
- McGirt v. Oklahoma, 140 S. Ct. 2452 (2020) (recognized continued existence of Creek Reservation and federal jurisdiction under the Major Crimes Act)
- Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989) (framework for non‑retroactivity of new rules on collateral review)
- United States v. Cuch, 79 F.3d 987 (10th Cir. 1996) (Hagen non‑retroactivity analysis; reliance and finality support prospective application of jurisdictional rulings)
- Ferrell v. State, 902 P.2d 1113 (Okla. Crim. App. 1995) (OCCA’s adoption of Teague‑style non‑retroactivity for state post‑conviction review)
- Gosa v. Mayden, 413 U.S. 665 (1973) (jurisdictional limitations and limits on retroactive relief)
- Edwards v. Vannoy, 141 S. Ct. 1547 (2021) (abolished Teague’s watershed‑rule exception to non‑retroactivity)
- Schriro v. Summerlin, 542 U.S. 348 (2004) (distinguishing substantive rules from procedural rules for retroactivity purposes)