Description:

Miami, Oklahom criminal defense lawyer represented the Defendant charged with DUI.

On November 1, 2022, the State charged Appellee, Steven Leon Fuller, with the following offenses: Count 1, Driving a Motor Vehicle While Under the Influence of Alcohol, Second and Subsequent Offense, After Felony Conviction (47 O.S.Supp.2020, § 11-902 (A)(1)); Count 2, Driving While License Suspended (47 O.S.Supp.2022, § 6-303 (B)); Count 3, Failure to Wear a Seatbelt (47 O.S.Supp.2022, § 12-417); and Count 4, Transporting an Open Container of Alcohol (37A O.S.Supp.2021, § 6-101 (A)(7)). Fuller promptly filed a motion seeking dismissal of the charges, arguing the State lacked criminal jurisdiction because he is an Indian and the charged offenses occurred in Indian country, [1] namely the Wyandotte Reservation. See McGirt v. Oklahoma, 140 S.Ct. 2452, 2459 (2020) (noting State courts generally lack jurisdiction to prosecute Indians who commit certain crimes in Indian country).


At the conclusion of the hearing, Judge Baird found Fuller had sufficiently proved his Indian status, the charged offenses occurred within the historical boundaries of the Wyandotte Reservation, and the State had failed to present sufficient evidence of disestablishment. Judge Baird further found unpersuasive the State's theory of concurrent jurisdiction as a result of allotment, noting that the same argument had been considered and rejected by the United States Supreme Court in McGirt. See McGirt, 140 S.Ct. at 2464. Based upon these findings, Judge Baird concluded the State of Oklahoma lacked criminal jurisdiction under federal law and dismissed the prosecution against Fuller. The State announced its intent to appeal pursuant to 22 O.S.2011, §§ 1089.1 --1089.7 and Rule 6.1, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch.18, App. (2024)...


At the conclusion of the hearing, Judge Baird found Fuller had sufficiently proved his Indian status, the charged offenses occurred within the historical boundaries of the Wyandotte Reservation, and the State had failed to present sufficient evidence of disestablishment. Judge Baird further found unpersuasive the State's theory of concurrent jurisdiction as a result of allotment, noting that the same argument had been considered and rejected by the United States Supreme Court in McGirt. See McGirt, 140 S.Ct. at 2464. Based upon these findings, Judge Baird concluded the State of Oklahoma lacked criminal jurisdiction under federal law and dismissed the prosecution against Fuller. The State announced its intent to appeal pursuant to 22 O.S.2011, §§ 1089.1 --1089.7 and Rule 6.1, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch.18, App. (2024)...

Outcome: Affirmed.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: