*1 statutes, held that we then review of our thorough a rather With appealable. are not committing magistrates orders issued and the denied is appeal the petition being appealable, Not is dismissed. attempted appeal WILLIAMSON,
STATE, Appellant Respondent 182) N.W.2d (211 (File 16, 1973) Opinion No. 11166. filed October *2 Vickerman, Thomas Gen., Asst. Atty. Pierre Myd- (Gordon land, Gen., Atty. Pierre, Kern, Paul State’s Atty., Charles Mix J. on County, for brief), plaintiff respondent. Zieser,
R. for Tyndall, defendant and appellant. James DOYLE, Justice.
This is an appeal by defendant a from judgment of conviction in the Circuit Court of Charles Mix County, South Dakota. defendant, Williamson,
The Richard is an enrolled member 14, 1971, of the Sioux On December Yankton Tribe. defendant entered a of in circuit court to plea guilty four counts of under “obtaining money false and was sentenced pretenses” four separate two-year terms the state the same penitentiary, run The offenses were committed in the cities concurrently. of Lake Andes and South Dakota. In this Wagner, appeal defendant contends that the State of South Dakota had no jurisdiction to and convict him prosecute since the cities of Lake Andes and are Wagner within the boundaries of the Yankton Sioux and, therefore, Reservation in “Indian Country”.
The
“Indian
is defined in 18 U.S.C.A.
Country”
term
§
1151 as “all land
Indian
within the limits of
reservation
any
under the jurisdiction of the United States
notwith
government,
25, 1948,
the issuance
standing
any
patent.”
June
Stat. 757. The law is established that state
does not
Lee, 1959,
in Indian
v.
Country.*
extend to Indians
Williams
251;
269,
ex rel.
U.S.
3 L.Ed.2d
State of Arizona
Turtle, 1969,
Cir.,
683;
Merrill
413 F.2d
v.
Seymour
v.
State
Superintendent Washington
Penitentiary,
,
346;
Town,
Article I. “The Yankton tribe of Dakota or Indians Sioux cede, sell, hereby and to the United relinquish, convey claim, title, States all their right, and interest in and to * otherwise, standing If the law were there would have been no need for the invitation of the Federal Government for the state to assume country, over Indians in Indian without the of the Indians under consent 15, 1953, 505, 588, 7, August the Act of c. Sec. 67 and with Stat. Rights the 11, April consent of the Indians under the Indian Council 1968, IV, 401(a), 402(a), 78, 79; Title 82 73 Stat. at 25 U.S.C.A. §§ 1321(a), 1322(a). Legislature accept The South Dakota undertook to §§ jurisdiction 464, S.L.1961, 9, 1961, approved people in Ch. March but the Dakota, referendum, by popular legislative South voided the action.
515 all the unallotted lands within the limits of the reserva- tion as set to said Indians apart aforesaid.”
Article II. “In ceded, sold, consideration for the lands relin- quished, aforesaid, and to conveyed the United as States the United States stipulates and the said agrees pay to Yankton tribe of Sioux Indians sum of six hundred thousand dollars as ($600,000), provided hereinbefore for.” 1894,
It is our opinion that this the Act of agreement, terms, clearly, its own was an by by cession sale outright Yankton Tribe of its unallotted lands within the resevation to the United States. The statutory rules of construction are to discover the true intention of the law. The Statutes 311. § C.J.S. intention is be ascertained the court from the primarily used in the statute. 82 Where language Statutes b(l). § C.J.S. interests, a tribe sells and the all United States for tribal pays nothing is left the tribe. It is an land conveyance. absolute The is severed from the reservation and is no “Indian longer 1964, 12, 95; Country”. Wood v. Jameson, 130 N.W.2d S.D. DeMarrias, 1958, 294, Application of 77 S.D. 91 N.W.2d DeMarrias, 1961, State v. S.D. 107 N.W.2d cert. den. L.Ed.2d DeMarrias v. State of *4 Dakota, 1962, D.C.S.D., South 206 DeMarrias v. F.Supp. Dakota, 1963, Cir., State of South 8 F.2d 845. then,
In summary, we hold that the Act of 1894 disestab- lished that of the portion Yankton Reservation which was ceded States, and sold to the United and which embodied the land upon which the cities of Lake Andes and Wagner are located. Therefore, these cities are not within “Indian Country” as defined 1151, 1152, 1153; in 18 U.S.C.A. the consequently, State of §§ South Dakota had and prosecute convict the defendant for crimes committed within these towns.
Affirmed. DUNN,
WINANS and JJ., concur. WOLLMAN, spe- concur BIEGELMEIER, J., C. and J., cially.
WOLLMAN,
specially).
(concurring
Justice
record
if the
majority opinion
in the
would join
I
Although
the
on
make a determination
necessary
facts
the
established
merits,
me to do so.
not
permit
record does
of the
my reading
in the
charged
to the offenses
pleaded guilty
Defendant
information;
to the
challenge
jurisdic-
there was no
consequently,
was a duly
that the defendant
of
court on the grounds
tion
the
Tribe and that the offenses
of the Yankton Sioux
enrolled member
us on a
This case reaches
Country.
in Indian
occurred
charged
plea,
his guilty
from defendant’s conviction on
direct appeal
conviction
aby
petition
an attack on his
way
than
of
by
rather
Act,
the Post-Conviction Procedure
under the
provisions
filed
the lower
any
by
we are left without
findings
23-52. Thus
SDCL
in this
presented
important jurisdictional questions
on the
court
a
that defendant is
the briefs refer to stipulation
Although
appeal.
Tribe, I have been
member of
Yankton Sioux
an enrolled
the
in
record.
the settled
unable to find
any
stipulation
Moreover,
where
places
I find
record evidence that the
the
no
were within the
boundaries of
original
offenses occurred
alleged
Reservation, either
or unallotted lands.
the Yankton
on allotted
jurisdictional
If
facts on
I could take the existence
these
faith,
I
with
that the offenses
agree
holding
question
would
the
committed within Indian
To me the
Country.
were not
Stat.
a
determination to
expresses
congressional
of the reservation
terminate
reservation status of
portion
ceded, sold,
conveyed
to the United States
relinquished
Arnett,
Cf. Mattz v.
the Yankton Tribe.
Erickson,
L.Ed. 2d
rel.
United States ex
Condon
Cir.,
I affirm on would the conviction the basis of the record before us. *5 I am authorized to that Chief BIEGELMEIER say Justice in this
joins concurrence. special