STATE ex rel. MATLOFF v. WALLACE
2021 OK CR 21
Okla. Crim. App.2021Background
- Clifton Parish was convicted of second-degree murder in 2012; his conviction was affirmed on direct appeal and became final on June 4, 2014.
- After McGirt v. Oklahoma, Parish filed a post-conviction application (Aug. 17, 2020) arguing the State lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because his crime occurred in the Choctaw Reservation; Associate District Judge Jana Wallace granted relief and vacated the conviction.
- The State (District Attorney Mark Matloff) sought a stay and petitioned this Court for a writ of prohibition to prevent enforcement of the vacatur; the Court stayed proceedings and requested briefing on McGirt's retroactivity.
- The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals held McGirt announced a new rule of criminal procedure and declined to apply it retroactively on collateral review to convictions already final when McGirt was decided.
- The Court granted the writ of prohibition, reversed the trial judge’s order vacating Parish’s conviction, reaffirmed recognition of the reservations but limited McGirt’s collateral reach, and overruled prior statements to the contrary.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Parish) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Should McGirt be applied retroactively in state post-conviction to void convictions final before McGirt? | McGirt should not be retroactive; Teague non-retroactivity and reliance/finality/public-safety interests bar collateral voiding. | McGirt announces a jurisdictional defect; jurisdictional errors are non-waivable and may be raised anytime to void convictions. | McGirt is a new procedural rule and will not be applied retroactively to void convictions that were final when McGirt was announced; writ granted. |
| Does the non-waivability of subject-matter jurisdiction require retroactive collateral relief? | Even if jurisdictional in nature, retroactive collateral relief is not compelled; reliance and public-safety considerations permit limiting relief. | Jurisdictional defects go to courts' power; convictions rendered without jurisdiction are void regardless of finality. | Although jurisdictional, McGirt’s rule is procedural and a clear break with past law; non-waivability does not automatically mandate retroactive vacatur on collateral review. |
Key Cases Cited
- McGirt v. Oklahoma, 140 S. Ct. 2452 (recognition of Muscogee (Creek) Reservation and federal Major Crimes Act jurisdiction)
- Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (framework for non-retroactivity of new procedural rules on collateral review)
- Edwards v. Vannoy, 141 S. Ct. 1547 (abrogated watershed exception to Teague)
- United States v. Cuch, 79 F.3d 987 (10th Cir. 1996) (Tenth Circuit held a jurisdictional ruling was not retroactive to collateral attacks; persuasive here)
- Hagen v. Utah, 510 U.S. 399 (jurisdictional ruling regarding reservation status)
- Gosa v. Mayden, 413 U.S. 665 (applied non-retroactivity to a jurisdictional limitation)
- Ferrell v. State, 902 P.2d 1113 (Okla. Crim. App. 1995) (Oklahoma Court’s adoption of Teague-style non-retroactivity in state post-conviction review)
- Schriro v. Summerlin, 542 U.S. 348 (distinguishing substantive and procedural rules for retroactivity)