State of Washington v. David Randall Priest
32221-1
| Wash. Ct. App. | Oct 25, 2016Background
- In June 2013 officers investigating burglaries located a blue-white 1985 Ford F-250 and other items reported stolen from James Barker at 1109 Lone Pine HUD Road, which is on the Colville Reservation (tribal trust/ restricted land). David Priest was found at a travel trailer on that property.
- Deputies obtained a search warrant for the Lone Pine residence; they found the truck and other Barker property covered by a tarp and in the residence/shop area. Priest told officers Garrett Elsberg had brought the truck to the property for repairs.
- The State charged Priest with possession of a stolen motor vehicle and possession of stolen property in the third degree; a jury convicted him and the superior court sentenced him and imposed legal financial obligations, including a DNA fee.
- Priest, an enrolled member of the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Nation, argued the state lacked jurisdiction because the possession occurred on tribal land; he raised the claim in a personal restraint petition consolidated with his direct appeal.
- The trial court found Priest was an enrolled Colville member at the time of the offenses and that the recovered items were on reservation land; the State presented no evidence Priest possessed stolen property off the reservation.
- The Court of Appeals reviewed jurisdiction de novo and concluded the State lacked jurisdiction to prosecute possession offenses that occurred solely on tribal trust/allotted reservation land.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Washington courts had jurisdiction to prosecute Priest for possession offenses that occurred on Colville reservation land | State: prosecution proper because offenses were possession crimes and defendant was convicted by jury (implied state jurisdiction) | Priest: as an enrolled Colville tribal member, acts that occurred solely on tribal trust/allotted reservation land are outside State jurisdiction absent an applicable exception | Held: State lacked jurisdiction; convictions vacated because the only evidence of possession showed the property was on tribal land and Priest was an enrolled tribal member |
| Whether trial record supports a finding that possession occurred off the reservation | State: jury’s guilty verdict implies possession occurred where proven | Priest: State presented no testimony establishing possession off reservation | Held: No record evidence that Priest possessed the stolen items off reservation; trial court’s contrary finding had no record citation and jury was never asked location question |
| Whether lack of state jurisdiction is a fundamental defect for relief in a PRP | State: (implicit) jurisdictional challenge is not procedural | Priest: lack of subject-matter jurisdiction renders judgment void ab initio | Held: Jurisdictional defect is fundamental; petitioner entitled to relief in personal restraint petition |
| Whether to award appeal costs to the State after relief is granted | State: costs appropriate if appeal unsuccessful | Priest: requests denial of costs | Held: Issue moot after reversal |
Key Cases Cited
- Shoop v. Kittitas County, 149 Wn.2d 29 (review of jurisdiction is de novo)
- In re Pers. Restraint of Cook, 114 Wn.2d 802 (fundamental defect requirement for PRP relief)
- Wesley v. Schneckloth, 55 Wn.2d 90 (judgments entered by a court lacking jurisdiction are void ab initio)
- State v. Clark, 178 Wn.2d 19 (state jurisdiction limits over Indians on reservation land)
- State v. LG Elecs., Inc., 185 Wn. App. 394 (jurisdictional issues essential to due process)