Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Oklahoma, Petitioner v. Ted Roosevelt Yargee

APPENDIX TABLE OF CONTENTS

Opinion of the Court of Criminal Appeals,

State of Oklahoma (June 10, 2021) .......................... 1a

District Court of Tulsa County, State of

Oklahoma, Findings of Fact and Conclusions of

Law (March 12, 2021) ............................................ 11a

Agreed Stipulation

(February 19, 2021) .......................................... 16a

Court of Criminal Appeals, State of Oklahoma,

Order Remanding for Evidentiary Hearing

(January 22, 2021) .................................................. 20a

App.1a

OPINION OF THE COURT OF CRIMINAL

APPEALS, STATE OF OKLAHOMA

(JUNE 10, 2021)

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA

________________________

TED ROOSEVELT YARGEE,

Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,

Appellee.

________________________

Case No. F-2019-392

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

Before: Dana KUEHN, President Judge.,

Scott ROWLAND, Vice President Judge.,

Gary L. LUMPKIN, Judge., David B. LEWIS, Judge.,

Robert L. HUDSON, Judge.

SUMMARY OPINION

LEWIS, JUDGE:

Ted Roosevelt Yargee, Appellant, was tried by jury

and found guilty of Count 1, assault and battery with

a dangerous weapon, in violation of 21 O.S.Supp.2011,

§ 645, and Count 2, threatening an act of violence, in

App.2a

violation of 21 O.S.2011, § 1378, both after former conviction of two or more felonies, in the District Court

of Tulsa County, Case No. CF-2018-4926, before the

Honorable Tracy Priddy, District Judge. The jury set

punishment at sixty (60) years imprisonment in Count

1 and six (6) months in jail in Count 2 and Judge

Priddy sentenced accordingly ordering the sentences

be served concurrently. Yargee appeals in the following

propositions of error:

1.

The trial court abused its discretion when it

allowed extensive testimony and evidence

concerning multiple prior instances of allegations of abuse against Mr. Yargee because

the admission was unduly prejudicial;

2. Prosecutorial Misconduct deprived Mr. Yargee

of a fair trial in violation of the Fourteenth

Amendment to the United States Constitution;

3. Mr. Yargee’s sentence of 60 years imprisonment is excessive and should be modified.

On January 22, 2021, this Court granted Appellant

leave to file a supplemental brief out of time and

remanded the case for an evidentiary hearing based

on his claim that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to

enter a Judgment and Sentence against him based on

the United States Supreme Court’s decision in McGirt

v. Oklahoma, 591 U.S. ___, 140 S.Ct. 2452 (2020).

Appellant claims that he is a member of the Muscogee

(Creek) Nation and that the crime occurred within

the historical boundaries of the Muscogee (Creek)

Nation Reservation. We find that the claim raised in

his supplemental brief has merit, thus the remaining

propositions are moot.

App.3a

Appellant’s supplemental claim raises two separate

questions: (a) his Indian status and (b) whether the

crime occurred in Indian Country. This Court remanded

the case to the District Court because we determined

that his claim required fact-finding on the two separate questions.

Recognizing the historical and specialized nature

of this remand for evidentiary hearing, we requested

the Attorney General and District Attorney work

together to effect uniformity and completeness in the

hearing process. Upon Appellant’s presentation of

prima facie evidence as to his legal status as an Indian

and as to the location of the crimes in Indian Country,

the burden shifts to the State to prove it has subject

matter jurisdiction. The District Court was ordered to

determine whether Appellant is recognized as an Indian

by a tribe or the federal government. The District

Court was also directed to determine whether the

crimes occurred in Indian Country.

We directed the District Court that in the event

the parties agreed as to what the evidence would show

with regard to the questions presented, the parties

may enter into a written stipulation setting forth

those facts upon which they agree and which answer

the questions presented and provide the stipulation to

the District Court. The District Court was also ordered

to file written Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law

with this Court.

An evidentiary hearing was scheduled before the

Honorable Kelly Greenough, District Judge. The

parties stipulated that Appellant was an enrolled

member of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation at the time of

the crimes and had 9/32 degree of Indian blood. The

parties also stipulated that the location of the crimes

App.4a

was within the historical boundaries of the Muscogee

(Creek) Nation Reservation. The parties agreed that

no evidentiary hearing was necessary based on

these stipulations.

In its findings of fact, the District Court found:

1. Yargee has 9/32 degree of Indian blood and

has been enrolled with the Muscogee (Creek)

Nation since August 6, 1987. The Muscogee

(Creek) Nation is an Indian Tribal Entity

recognized by the federal government.

2. The crimes occurred in Tulsa, Oklahoma

and the location falls within the historical

boundaries of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation

Reservation.

Based on the evidence presented, the District

Court concluded, that Appellant was an Indian at the

time of the crimes; the crimes occurred within the

boundaries of the Muscogee (Creek) Reservation; and

there is no evidence that the reservation has been

explicitly disestablished or the boundaries erased by

Congress. The District Court’s Findings of Fact and

Conclusions of Law are supported by the record.

We find that Appellant has met his burden of

establishing his status as an Indian at the time of the

crimes. We also find that the crimes occurred within

the historical boundaries of the reservation set aside

for the Muscogee (Creek) Nation. This case is consistent

with the United States Supreme Court’s holding in

McGirt. The Judgments and Sentences in this case are

hereby reversed and the case remanded to the District

Court of Tulsa County with instructions to dismiss.

App.5a

DECISION

The judgments and sentences of the District Court

are REVERSED and the matter is REMANDED

WITH INSTRUCTIONS TO DISMISS. Pursuant to

Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal

Appeals, Title 22, Ch.18, App. (2021), the MANDATE

is ORDERED to issue in twenty (20) days from the

delivery and filing of this decision.

AN APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT

OF TULSA COUNTY THE HONORABLE

TRACY PRIDDY, DISTRICT JUDGE

APPEARANCES AT TRIAL

Jason Lollman

423 S. Boulder Ave., Ste. 30c

Tulsa, OK 74103

Attorney for Defendant

Tara Britt

Asst. District Attorney

500 S. Denver, Ste. 900

Tulsa, OK 74103

Attorney for the State

APPEARANCES ON APPEAL

Nicole Dawn Herron

423 S. Boulder Ave., Ste. 300

Tulsa, OK 74103

Attorney for Appellant

App.6a

Mike Hunter

Attorney General

Sheri M. Johnson

Randall Young

Asst. Attorneys General

313 N.E. 21st Street

Oklahoma City, OK 73105

Attorneys for Appellee

Opinion by: Lewis, J.

Kuehn, P.J.: Concur

Rowland, V.P.J.: Concur

Lumpkin, J.: Concur in Result

Hudson, J.: Specially Concur

App.7a

LUMPKIN, JUDGE:

CONCURRING IN RESULTS:

Bound by my oath and the Federal-State relationships dictated by the U.S. Constitution, I must at a

minimum concur in the results of this opinion. While

our nation’s judicial structure requires me to apply

the majority opinion in the 5-4 decision of the U.S.

Supreme Court in McGirt v. Oklahoma, ___ U.S. ___,

140 S.Ct. 2452 (2020), I do so reluctantly. Upon the

first reading of the majority opinion in McGirt, I

initially formed the belief that it was a result in search

of an opinion to support it. Then upon reading the

dissents by Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Thomas,

I was forced to conclude the Majority had totally failed

to follow the Court’s own precedents, but had cherry

picked statutes and treaties, without giving historical

context to them. The Majority then proceeded to do

what an average citizen who had been fully informed

of the law and facts as set out in the dissents would

view as an exercise of raw judicial power to reach a

decision which contravened not only the history leading

to the disestablishment of the Indian reservations in

Oklahoma, but also willfully disregarded and failed to

apply the Court’s own precedents to the issue at hand.

My quandary is one of ethics and morality. One

of the first things I was taught when I began my

service in the Marine Corps was that I had a duty to

follow lawful orders, and that same duty required me

to resist unlawful orders. Chief Justice Roberts’s

scholarly and judicially penned dissent, actually

following the Court’s precedents and required analysis,

vividly reveals the failure of the majority opinion to

App.8a

follow the rule of law and apply over a century of precedent and history, and to accept the fact that no

Indian reservations remain in the State of Oklahoma.1

The result seems to be some form of “social justice”

created out of whole cloth rather than a continuation

of the solid precedents the Court has established over

the last 100 years or more.

1 Senator Elmer Thomas, D-Oklahoma, was a member of the

Senate Committee on Indian Affairs. After hearing the Commissioner’s speech regarding the Indian Reorganization Act (IRA) in

1934, Senator Thomas opined as follows:

I can hardly see where it (the IRA) could operate in a

State like mine where the Indians are all scattered

out among the whites and they have no reservation,

and they could not get them into a community without

you would go and buy land and put them on it. Then

they would be surrounded very likely with thickly

populated white sections with whom they would trade

and associate. I just cannot get through my mind how

this bill can possibly be made to operate in a State of

thickly-settled population. (emphasis added).

John Collier, Commissioner of Indian Affairs, Memorandum of

Explanation (regarding S. 2755), p. 145, hearing before the United

States Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, February 27, 1934.

Senator Morris Sheppard, D-Texas, also on the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, stated in response to the Commissioner’s speech that in Oklahoma, he did not think “we could look

forward to building up huge reservations such as we have

granted to the Indians in the past.” Id, at 157. In 1940, in the

Foreword to Felix S. Cohen, Handbook of Federal Indian Law

(1942), Secretary of the Interior Harold Ickes wrote in support

of the IRA, “[t]he continued application of the allotment laws,

under which Indian wards have lost more than two-thirds of

their reservation lands, while the costs of Federal administration

of these lands have steadily mounted, must be terminated.”

(emphasis added).

App.9a

The question I see presented is should I blindly

follow and apply the majority opinion or do I join with

Chief Justice Roberts and the dissenters in McGirt

and recognize “the emperor has no clothes” as to the

adherence to following the rule of law in the application

of the McGirt decision?

My oath and adherence to the Federal-State relationship under the U.S. Constitution mandate that I

fulfill my duties and apply the edict of the majority

opinion in McGirt. However, I am not required to do

so blindly and without noting the flaws of the opinion

as set out in the dissents. Chief Justice Roberts and

Justice Thomas eloquently show the Majority’s mischaracterization of Congress’s actions and history with

the Indian reservations. Their dissents further demonstrate that at the time of Oklahoma Statehood in 1907,

all parties accepted the fact that Indian reservations

in the state had been disestablished and no longer

existed. I take this position to adhere to my oath as a

judge and lawyer without any disrespect to our FederalState structure. I simply believe that when reasonable

minds differ they must both be reviewing the totality

of the law and facts.

App.10a

HUDSON, JUDGE, SPECIALLY CONCURS:

Today’s decision dismisses convictions for assault

and battery with a dangerous weapon and threatening

an act of violence from the District Court of Tulsa

County based on the Supreme Court’s decision in

McGirt v. Oklahoma, 140 S.Ct, 2452 (2020). This decision is unquestionably correct as a matter of stare

decisis based on the Indian status of Appellant and

the occurrence of these crimes on the Creek Reservation. Under McGirt, the State has no jurisdiction to

prosecute Appellant for the crimes charged in this case.

Instead, Appellant must be prosecuted in federal court.

I therefore as a matter of stare decisis fully concur in

today’s decision. Further, I maintain my previously

expressed views on the significance of McGirt, its

far-reaching impact on the criminal justice system in

Oklahoma and the need for a practical solution by

Congress. See, e.g., Bosse v. State, 2021 OK CR 3, ___

P.3d ___ (Hudson, J., Concur in Results); Hogner v.

State, 2021 OK CR 4, ___ P.3d ___ (Hudson, J.,

Specially Concurs); and Krafft v. State, No. F-2018340 (Okl. Cr., Feb. 25, 2021) (Hudson, J., Specially

Concurs) (unpublished).

App.11a

DISTRICT COURT OF TULSA COUNTY,

STATE OF OKLAHOMA, FINDINGS OF

FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

(MARCH 12, 2021)

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF TULSA

COUNTY, STATE OF OKLAHOMA

________________________

TED ROOSEVELT YARGEE,

Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,

Appellee.

________________________

Case Nos.: F-2019-392 CF-2018-4926

Before: Kelly GREENOUGH, District Court Judge.

FINDINGS OF FACT AND

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

The following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of

Law follow the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals’

(“OCCA”) January 22, 2021 Order Granting Motion to

File Supplemental Brief Out of Time and Remanding

for Evidentiary Hearing (“Remand Order”). Nicole Dawn

Herron appeared on behalf of Appellant, Ted Roosevelt

Yargee, whose appearance was waived. Randall Young,

Assistant Attorney General for the Oklahoma Attorney

General’s Office appeared for Appellee. This Court

App.12a

finds an evidentiary hearing is unnecessary, as “the

parties agree as to what the evidence will show with

regard to the questions presented,” and have accordingly entered “into a written stipulation setting forth

those facts upon which they agree and which answer

the questions presented.” Order Remanding, 4-5.

The Appellant, in his supplemental brief claims

that the District Court lacked jurisdiction to try him

as he is a citizen of the Muscogee Creek Nation and

the crimes occurred within the boundaries of the

Creek Nation Reservation. Appellant’s claim raises

two questions: (a) his Indian status, and (b) whether

the crimes occurred in the Creek Nation Reservation.

These issues require fact-finding to be addressed by

the District Court per the OCCA Order Remanding.

I.

Appellant’s status as an Indian

To determine the Indian status of Appellant, the

OCCA directed the District Court to make findings of

fact as to whether (1) Appellant has some Indian

blood, and (2) is recognized as an Indian by a tribe or

the federal government. The Court finds as follows:

Findings of Fact

1.

Ted Roosevelt Yargee is the named Appellant in the above-styled matter.

2.

The parties stipulated that the crimes alleged

against defendant occurred on October 20,

2018;

3.

The parties stipulated that Appellant has been

enrolled with the Muscogee (Creek) Nation

since August 6, 1987, and he possesses a 9/32

degree of Creek blood.

App.13a

4.

The parties stipulated that the Muscogee

(Creek) Nation is an Indian Tribe Entity

recognized by the federal government.

5.

The parties stipulated that the crimes occurred

at or near the intersection of West 71st

Street and Riverside Parkway, in Tulsa,

Oklahoma. This location falls within the

Muscogee (Creek) Reservation.

Conclusions of Law

Regarding the first determination, the Court

answers the first question in the affirmative. The

Court adopts the Agreed Stipulations including the

attached documentation filed by the parties on February

19, 2021. Ted Roosevelt Yargee is the named Defendant

in this matter and he has 9/32 degree of Creek blood.

Additionally, the Court answers the second part

of the inquiry in the affirmative. The Court adopts

the Agreed Stipulations including the attached documentation and makes findings of fact thereon. Ted

Roosevelt Yargee has been recognized as a citizen of

the Muscogee (Creek) Nation since August 6, 1987 and

was recognized as a citizen of the Muscogee (Creek)

Nation at the time of the offense. Finally, the Muscogee

(Creek) Nation is a federally recognized tribe. Therefore,

Ted Roosevelt Yargee is recognized as an Indian by a

tribe or the federal government.

Having answered both inquires in the affirmative,

this Court concludes that Ted Roosevelt Yargee is an

Indian.

App.14a

II. Whether the Crime Occurred in Indian

Country

The OCCA further ordered the District Court to

determine whether the crime occurred within the

boundaries of the Creek Reservation, referred to as

Indian Country. The Court finds as follows:

Findings of Fact

1. The parties stipulated that the crimes occurred

at or near the intersection of West 71st Street and

Riverside Parkway, in Tulsa, Oklahoma.

2. The parties stipulated that the above-described

location falls within the Muscogee (Creek) Reservation.

Conclusions of Law

The final inquiry is answered in the affirmative.

This Court adopted the parties’ Agreed Stipulations

and made findings of fact thereon. The crime occurred

at a location that is within the boundaries of the Creek

Nation’s Reservation. These boundaries were established through a series of treaties between the Creek

Nation and the United States, and are explicitly recognized as a reservation defined by 18 U.S.C. § 1151(a).

This Court concludes that the crimes for which Appellant was convicted occurred within the Creek Nation

Reservation. Based upon the Supreme Court’s ruling

in McGirt v. Oklahoma, 140 S.Ct. 2452, 207 L.Ed.2d

985 (2020), the Creek Nation Reservation is Indian

Country. There is no evidence that said reservation

has been explicitly disestablished or its boundaries

erased. McGirt.

WHEREFORE, this Court finds that Ted Roosevelt

Yargee is an Indian and the crimes for which he was

App.15a

convicted occurred in Indian Country for purposes of

the General Crimes Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1152 and the

Major Crimes Act, 18 U.S.C § 1153, Under McGirt this

court has no choice but to conclude it is without jurisdiction over Mr. Yargee.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 11th day of March, 2021.

/s/ Kelly Greenough

District Court Judge

App.16a

AGREED STIPULATION

(FEBRUARY 19, 2021)

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF TULSA

COUNTY, STATE OF OKLAHOMA

________________________

TED ROOSEVELT YARGEE,

Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,

Appellee.

________________________

Case Nos.: F-2019-392 CF-2018-4926

AGREED STIPULATION

Following the United States Supreme Court’s

decision in McGirt v. Oklahoma, 140 S.Ct. 2452 (2020),

the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals remanded

Appellant’s case to this Court on January 22, 2021, for

an evidentiary hearing to determine (1) the status of

the defendant as an Indian, and (2) whether the

crimes occurred in Indian Country. The parties hereby announce, and request this Court to accept, the

following stipulations:

1.

The crimes alleged against the defendant

occurred on October 20, 2018.

App.17a

2.

The defendant has been enrolled with the

Muscogee (Creek) Nation since August 6,

1987.

3.

The defendant possesses a 9/32 degree of

Creek Blood.

4.

The Muscogee (Creek) Nation is an Indian

Tribal Entity recognized by the federal government.

5.

The defendant’s crimes occurred at or near

the intersection of West 71st Street and

Riverside Parkway, in Tulsa, Oklahoma.

6.

The above-listed location falls within the

Muscogee (Creek) Reservation.

Respectfully submitted this ___th day of February,

2021.

/s/ Nicole Herron

Counsel for Petitioner

/s/ Randall Young

Assistant Attorney General

Digitally Signed1

/s/ Erik M. Grayless

First Assistant District Attorney

1 An electronic signature is being used due to current COVlD-19

restrictions. A signed original can be provided to the Court upon

request once restrictions are lifted.

App.18a

MUSCOGEE (CREEK) NATION

ENROLLMENT VERIFICATION

Re: Name: Ted Roosevelt Yargee

Address: 1020 N Sherman Ave

Okmulgee OK 74447-2232

Birthdate: 10/8/1961

Enrollment Date: August 6, 1987

Roll Number: 37819

Degree of Creek Blood: 9/32

I hereby certify that Ted Roosevelt Yargee, DOB:

10/8/1981 is enrolled with the Muscogee (Creek) Nation.

Enrollment Date: 8/8/1987 Roll Number: 37819, Degree

of Creek Blood: 9/32.

I attest and certify that the above information

is a correct compilation of official records of the

Muscogee (Creek) Nation filed and recorded with the

Muscogee (Creek) Nation Citizenship Office, the public

office responsible for keeping records of enrolled citizens,

and that I am an authorized custodian of said records.

Executed this 6th day of October, 2020.

/s/ Nathan Wilson

Director–Muscogee (Creek) Nation

Citizenship Office

App.19a

TRIBAL JURISDICTIONS IN OKLAHOMA

App.20a

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS,

STATE OF OKLAHOMA, ORDER

REMANDING FOR EVIDENTIARY HEARING

(JANUARY 22, 2021)

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA

________________________

TED ROOSEVELT YARGEE,

Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,

Appellee.

________________________

Case No. F-2018-392

Before: Dana KUEHN, Presiding Judge.,

Scott ROWLAND, Vice President Judge.,

Gary L. LUMPKIN, Judge., David B. LEWIS, Judge.,

Robert L. HUDSON, Judge.

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO FILE

SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF OUT OF TIME AND

REMANDING FOR EVIDENTIARY HEARING

Ted Roosevelt Yargee, Appellant, was tried by

jury and found guilty of Count 1, assault and battery

with a dangerous weapon, in violation of 21 O.S.Supp.

2011, § 645, and threatening an act of violence, in vio-

App.21a

lation of 21 O.S.2011, § 1378, both after former conviction of two or more felonies, in the District Court of

Tulsa County, Case No. CF-2018-4926, before the

Honorable Tracy Priddy, District Judge. The jury set

punishment at sixty (60) years imprisonment in Count

1 and six months in jail in Count 2 and Judge Priddy

sentenced accordingly ordering that the sentences be

served concurrently. Appellant filed a direct appeal

which is pending with this Court. He has now filed a

supplemental proposition of error claiming that the

trial court lacked jurisdiction to try him.

Appellant relies on McGirt v. Oklahoma, 591 U.S.

___, 140 S.Ct. 2452 (2020), and claims his supplemental

brief should be allowed because it is a subject matter

issue which can be raised at any time and is not subject to the time restraints of Rule 3.4, Rules of the

Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch.18,

App. (2020).

In the supplemental brief, Appellant argues that

he is a citizen of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation and

the crimes occurred within the boundaries of the

Muscogee (Creek) Nation. He has attached documentation to support this assertion.

Appellant’s claim raises two separate questions:

(a) his Indian status and (b) whether the crimes

occurred in the Creek Nation. These issues require

fact-finding. We therefore REMAND this case to the

District Court of Tulsa County, for an evidentiary

hearing to be held within sixty (60) days from the date

of this Order.

Recognizing the historical and specialized nature

of this remand for evidentiary hearing, we request

the Attorney General and District Attorney work in

App.22a

coordination to effect uniformity and completeness in

the hearing process. Upon Appellant’s presentation of

prima facie evidence as to the Appellant’s legal status

as an Indian and as to the location of the crimes in

Indian Country, the burden shifts to the State to prove

it has subject matter jurisdiction.

The hearing shall be transcribed, and the court

reporter shall file an original and two (2) certified

copies of the transcript within twenty (20) days after

the hearing is completed. The District Court shall

then make written findings of fact and conclusions of

law, to be submitted to this Court within twenty (20)

days after the filing of the transcripts in the District

Court. The District Court shall address only the following issues.

First, the Appellant’s status as an Indian. The

District Court must determine whether (1) Appellant

has some Indian blood, and (2) is recognized as Indian

by a tribe or the federal government.1

Second, whether crimes occurred within the

boundaries of the Creek Nation. In making this determination the District Court should consider any evidence the parties provide, including but not limited to

treaties, statutes, maps, and/or testimony. With regard

to crimes occurring in the Creek Nation, the District

Court is directed to follow the analysis set out in

McGirt, determining (1) whether Congress established

a reservation for the Creek Nation, and (2) if so,

whether Congress specifically erased those boundaries

1 See e.g. Goforth v. State, 1982 OK CR 48, ¶ 6, 644 P.2d 114, 116.

See also United States v. Diaz, 679 F.3d 1183, 1187 (10th Cir. 2012);

United States v. Drewry, 365 F.3d 957, 960-61 (10th Cir.2004);

United States v. Prentiss, 273 F.3d 1277, 1280-81 (10th Cir. 2001).

App.23a

and disestablished the reservation. In making this determination the District Court should consider any

evidence the parties provide, including but not limited

to treaties, statutes, maps, and/or testimony.

The District Court Clerk shall transmit the record

of the evidentiary hearing, the District Court’s findings

of fact and conclusions of law, and any other materials

made a part of the record, to the Clerk of this Court,

and counsel for Appellant, within five (5) days after

the District Court has filed its findings of fact and conclusions of law. Upon receipt thereof, the Clerk of this

Court shall promptly deliver a copy of that record to

the Attorney General. A supplemental brief, addressing only those issues pertinent to the evidentiary

hearing and limited to twenty (20) pages in length,

may be filed by either party within twenty (20) days

after the District Court’s written findings of fact and

conclusions of law are filed in this Court.

Provided however, in the event the parties agree

as to what the evidence will show with regard to the

questions presented, they may enter into a written

stipulation setting forth those facts upon which they

agree and which answer the questions presented

and provide the stipulation to the District Court. In

this event, no hearing on the questions presented is

necessary. Transmission of the record regarding the

matter, the District Court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law, and supplemental briefing shall

occur as set forth above.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of

this Court shall transmit copies of the following, with

this Order, to the District Court of Tulsa County:

Appellant’s Supplemental Brief filed January 12, 2021.

App.24a

IT IS SO ORDERED.

WITNESS OUR HANDS AND THE SEAL OF

THIS COURT this 22nd day of January, 2021.

/s/ Dana Kuehn

Presiding Judge

/s/ Scott Rowland

Vice Presiding Judge

/s/ Gary L. Lumpkin

Judge

/s/ David B. Lewis

Judge

/s/ Robert L. Hudson

Judge

ATTEST:

/s/ John D. Hadden

Clerk