Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Charles Deon Ladd, Petitioner v. Oklahoma

•?

7

f

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

—. OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA

CHARLES DEON LADD,

bled

INCOURTOF CRIMINAL APPEALS

STATE OF OKLAHOMA

)

)

Petitioner

)

)

v.

)

MAR 1 5 2022

JOHN D. HADDEN

CLERK

No. PC-2021-1168

)

STATE OF OKLAHOMA,

)

)

Respondent.

)

ORDER AFFIRMING DENIAL OF POST-CONVICTION RELIEF

Petitioner, pro se, appeals the denial of post-conviction relief by

the District Court of Tulsa County in Case No. CF-2010-874. Before

the District Court, Petitioner asserted that the State lacked jurisdiction

to convict and punish him. See McGirt v. Oklahoma, 140 S.Ct. 2452

(2020). In State ex rel. Matloff v. Wallace, 2021 OK CR 21, 497 P.3d

686, cert, denied, 142 S.Ct. 757 (2022), this Court determined that the

United States Supreme Court decision in McGirt, because it is a new

procedural rule, is not retroactive and does not void final state

convictions. See Matloff, 2021 OK CR 21, 1H[ 27-28, 40, 497 P.3d at

691-92, 694.

PC-2021-1168, Charles Deon Ladd v. State of Oklahoma

The conviction in this matter was final before the July 9, 2020,

decision in McGirt, and the United States Supreme Court’s holding in

McGirt does not apply.

Therefore, the District Court’s order denying post-conviction

relief is AFFIRMED. Pursuant to Rule 3.15 Rules of the Oklahoma

Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2022), the

MANDATE is ORDERED iissued upon the delivery and filing of this

decision.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

WITNESS OUR HANDS AND THE SEAL OF THIS COURT

j

day of

fmy\£h .

this

, 2022.

SCOTT ROWLAND, Presiding Judge

ROBE

/

HU

ARfcL.

ATTEST:

, Vice Presiding Judge

>Judg

4

DAVID B. L

u

Clerk

PA

2

(

t>

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

STATE OF OKLAHOMA

i

CHARLES DEONLADD„

Appellant,

■wtffliMr

°CT*6Tlf21

)

)

vs.

)

Case No. CF-2010-0874

)

THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,

AppeUee.

ft 2021 1168

PETITION IN ERROR

BRIEF FOR RELIEF AND REQUEST TO VACATE AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGEMENT AND

SENTENCE BECAUSE THE COURT LACKED SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION

BRIEF IN SUPPORT

That this motion is prepared Pro-Se without die aid or assistance of a trained counsel oflaw

and ask that this court will give any syntax structural errors and liberally construe to

Appellant’s Charles Deon Ladd. Pro-Se Motion in accordance to Hall v. Bellmon, 935

F.2d 1106,1110 (10th Cir. 1991), that is now being-brought before this Honorable Court in the

Interest of Justice. The Tenth Circuit has described that it is the courts responsibility in this

regard, “[Iff the court can reasonably read the pleadings to state a valid claim on which the

defendant could prevail, it should do so despite the defendant’s failure to cite proper legal

authority, his confusion of various legal theories, his poor syntax and sentence construction,

or his unfamiliarity with pleading requirements.”ld. {emphasis added bold, underlined and

quotation marks}. That the rule in Hall; as applied to prisoners is binding on the courts of this

State. Oklahoma Constitution article 1,§ 1; See also Haines v. Kemer, 404 U.S. 519, 520-521,

92 S. Ct 594, 596,30 L.Ed. 2D 652 (1972).

(1)

IN THE DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR TULSA COUNTY

STATE OF OKLAHOMA

CHARLES DEON LADD,

Petitioner,

vs.

STATE OF OKLAHOMA

Respondent.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CF-2010-0874

Judge Priddy

jpiSTRIJT COUR^

SEP 0 3 2021

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S APPLICATION^ NEWBERRy' court Clerk

FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF

state ofokla^ tulsa rourlrY

Has matter came on for consideration on

A

KSt

^5

2021 pursuant

to the “Petitioners Application for Post-Conviction Relief pursuant to Oklahoma-Statute Title O.S.

1080(A), (B), and .(D) (“Application”) filed by Petitioner Charles Deon Ladd (hereinafter

“Petitioner”) on September 24, 2020, Petitioner’s Motion for Evidentiary and Motion for

Immediate Release filed on January 25, 2021. The Petitioner filed a Letter Requesting to add

Degree of Blood Certificate to his Post-Conviction file on January 29, 2021 and a Supplemental

Brief in Support filed on February 9,2021. The State filed a Response to Petitioner’s Application

on March 1,2021. On March 15,2021, Petitioner filed Petitioners Reply to the State’s Response

to Application for Post-Conviction Relief. On May 6,2021, the Court Granted the Application for

Post-Conviction Relief over the State’s Objection. Petitioner filed a Second Motion for Summary

Disposition Vacating the Conviction and Dismissing the Charges on May 15, 2021. Petitioner

filed a Motion for Judicial Review on July 21,2021 which the Court denied on August 27,2021.

l

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

The State of Oklahoma charged Charles Deon Ladd (“Petitioner”) by felony information

on March 5, 2010. The Information charged Petitioner with (Count One) Felony Murder, in

violation of 21 O.S. § 701.8, {Count Two) Arson - First Degree, in violation of 21 O.S. § 1401,

and (Count 3) Manufacturing Controlled Dangerous Substance, in violation of 63 O.S. § 2-401 G.

Petitioner was.tried by jury and convicted and sentenced for the offense of Count I, Murder

in the Second Degree. Petitioner perfected a direct appeal proceeding from his Judgment and

Sentence to the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals (OCCA), which affirmed Petitioner’s

Judgment-and Sentence in an unpublished summary opinion. JSee Charles Deon Ladd v. State of

Oklahoma, F-2011-881.

The Petitioner has now filed an application for post-conviction relief wherein he contends

that based on McGirt v.^Oklahoma, 140 S. Ct. 2452, 207 L. Ed. 2d 985 (2020) the courts of the

State of Oklahoma lacked subject matter jurisdiction to enter a Judgment and Sentence against

him.

FINDINGS OF FACTS

1. A representative of the Cherokee Nation Citizenship Office would testify that Petitioner

was a citizen of the Cherokee Nation on the date of the offense on October 24, 2009. This

representative would testify Petitioner became enrolled as a citizen of the Cherokee Nation

on July 20,2001.

2. A representative of the Cherokee Nation Citizenship Office would testify that Petitioner

has 1/64 degree of Cherokee blood.

3. The Cherokee Nation is a federally recognized tribe.

2

-4. A representative of the Tulsa Police Department would testify that Petitioner committed

the offenses he was convicted of within Tulsa County.

5. A representative of the Muscogee Creek Nation or a representative of the Cherokee Nation,

or an expert witness testifying on Petitioner’s behalf, would testify that the location of the

offense Petitioner-was oonvicted of in the above case occurred within the Muscogee Creek

Nation and/or the Cherokee Nation.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

MCGIRT SHOULD NOT BE APPLIED RETROACTIVELY TO VOID A

CONVICTION THAT WAS FINAL WHEN THAT CONVICTION WAS

DECIDED.

Application of Retroactivity Principles to Indian Country Claims

UnitedrStates v. Cuch, 79 F.3d 987 (10th Cir. 1996) is the most relevant decision to

the specific issue, presented by this- case, of the proper forum for prosecution after the

issuance of a new decision, regarding disestablishment or diminishment of an Indian

reservation. In Cuch, the Tenth Circuit considered the question of whether it should

retroactively apply the Supreme Court’s decision in Hagen v. Utah, 510 U.S. 399 (1994),

that a reservation’s boundaries had been diminished, to vacate convictions that were made

final prior to that decision. See Cuch, 79 F.3d at 989-90. The Tenth Circuit started by noting

"[t]he Supreme Court can and does limit the retroactive application of subject matter

jurisdiction rulings," citing the Court's decision in Gosa v. Mayden, 413 U.S. 665 (1973). Cuch

79 F.3d. at 990. The Cuch court recounted the principles that underlie retroactivity analysis:

"finality and fundamental fairness." Cuch, 79 F.3d at 991. "A subset of the principle of finality

is the prospect that the invalidation of a final conviction could well mean that the guilty

3

will go unpunished due lb the impracticability of charging and retrying the defendant after a

long interval of time." Id

The Cuch court also considered that the issue of fairness to petitioners did not support

retroactivity: 'There is no question of guilt or innocence here" and these cases "involved

conduct made criminal by both state and federal law." Id. at 992. The petitioners do not

"assert any unfairness in the procedures by which they were charged, convicted, and

sentenced" and the Supreme Court's recent reservation boundaries decision does not "bring[]

into question the truth finding functions of the ... courts that prosecuted Indians for acts

committed within die historic boundaries-of the ... Reservation." Id. Similarly, Cuch

distinguished cases where courts retroactively applied decisions holding the crime at issue

could not be constitutionally punished by any court or where the acts committed were not

actually criminalized by the statute of conviction. Id at 993-94. There is not "complete

miscarriage of justice to these movants that would mandate or counsel retroactive

application of Hagen toTnvalidate these convictions." Id. at 994 (internal marks omitted).

Rather, the question solely "focuses on where these Indian defendants should have been

tried for committing major crimes." Id. at 992. As a result, the court found "the

circumstances surrounding these cases make prospective application of Hagen

unquestionably appropriate in die present context." Id at 994.

Cuch also rejected the argument that a decision on reservation boundaries “did not effect a

‘change’ in federal law, but merely clarified what had been the law all along.” Id. The Cuch court

dismissed “the Blackstonian common law view that courts do no more than discover the law,”

4

noting that in Linldetter v. Walker, 381 U.S. 618 (1965), the Supreme Court recognized under

American law “such a rule was out of tune with actuality.” Id at 994-95. In other words, “the

Supreme Court admitted that ‘[t]he past cannot always be erased by a new judicial declaration.’”

Id at 995 (quoting-Chicot County Drainage Dist. v. Baxter State Bank, 308 U;S. 37T, 374 (1940)).

“While the.jurisdictional nature of a holding makes the retroactivity question more critical, the

nature of the case alone does not dispense with the duty to decide Whether the Court may in the

interest of justice make the rule prospective where the exigencies of the situation require such

application.” Cuch, 79 F.3d at 995. (citations and internal marks omitted). Instead, “the rule of law

is strengthened when courts, in their search for fairness, giving proper consideration to the facts

and applicable precedent, allow the law to be an instrument in obtaining a result that promotes

order, justice and equity.**Id. (citation and internal marks omitted).

B.

McGirt Shall Not Apply Retroactively to Void a Final State Conviction

In State ex rel, District Attorney v. Wallace, 2021 OKCR21,_P.3d_,2021 WL3578089,

the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals (“OCCA”) recently stated that it found persuasive the

analysis and authorities provided by the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit in

Cuch, in considering the “independent state law question of collateral non-retroactivity for

McGirt”1 Id. at ^ 26. The OCCA also explained that new rules of criminal procedure “generally

do not apply retroactively to convictions that are final, with a few narrow exceptions.” Id at ^ 8

(emphasis in original).

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

5

■ Related to its analysis of the McGirt decision under these principles, the Wallace court first

determined that the holding in McGirt only imposed procedural changes and was “clearly a

procedural ruling.” Id at K 27. Second, the Wallace court held that the “procedural rule announced

in McGirt was new.” Id. at ^ 28, Third,-the.court explained in detail in Wallace that the OCCA’s

“independent exercise of authority to impose remedial constraints under state law on the collateral

impact of McGirt and post-McGirt litigation is consistent with both the text of the opinion and the

Supreme Court’s apparent intent.” Id at}[ 33. Ultimately, the OCCA held that "McGirt and our

post-McGirt reservation rulings shall not apply retroactively to void a final state conviction,.. ”2

Id atffi[6,40.

Ajury found Petitioner guilty and the District Court sentenced him on September 26,2011.

Following Petitioner’s appeal, the OCGA affirmed the judgment and sentence ofthe District Court

on December 13, 2012. Since Respondent did not-file a petition for a writ of certiorari with the

United States Supreme Court within the ninety-day time limit following this decision, his

conviction became final on March 13,2013.S'eeU.S. Sup. Ct. Rule 13,28 U.S.C.A.

Since Petitioner’s conviction was final long prior to the July 9, 2020 decision-in McGirt,

this Court holds that the McGirt decision does not apply retroactively in Petitioner’s state post­

conviction proceeding to void his final conviction. See Wallace, 2021 OK CR 21, at

6, 40.

Accordingly, the Court denies Petitioner’s Application on this basis.

2 Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288,295 (1989) defines “a final conviction as one where judgment

was rendered, the availability of appeal exhausted, and the time to petition for certiorari had

elapsed).” Wallace, 2021 OK21, atH 2, n.l.

6

Based on the foregoing, IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND

DECREED that Petitioner’s application for post-conviction relief is hereby DENIED.

SO ORDERED this

day of

.,2021.

Kg/*

TRACY PlgDDY \

JUDGE OF THE DISTRICT

IT

CERTIFICATE OF MAILING/DFJ IWR V

I certify that on the date of filing, a file stamped certified copy of the aboveand foregoing

Order was mailed to:

CHARLES DEON LADD #507488

LAWTON C.F. - UNIT 8-BRAVO-207

8907 S.E. FLOWER MOUND RD.

LAWTON, OK 73501

Petitioner, pro se

And I further certify that on the date of filing, a file stamped certified copy ofihe above and

foregoing Order was hand delivered to:

Marianna E. McKnight, Esq.

Assistant District Attorney

Tulsa County District Attorney’s Office

800 County Courthouse

500 S. Denver Ave.

Tulsa, OK 74103

DON NEWBERRY

TULSA COUNTY COURT CLERK

BY:

DEPUTY COURT CLERK

7

i

.(

!

!•

33M0H3H0

(s)oqyi

m'JSciV

9103

•

*?/i

uirauGnD poo|g

03GQ d!L)5U9Zpp

5S3.ippV i!GU?3

01 U9Z1113

mzjozii

2W2EC

7m

J3DU?9

m

aoa

I

90G

•feaueM ueoiey

eiupfij 5|pp|[,|

3 U-'35.1 y

Kills* ■■i^iaKiKsi

xmus

eiuerj :jssi

3uie[',j pej.i5igjd

ms

xusjg

'"Oil-::iy •.'3 L-'3; ’3<j

t“'*T-'TT rpf^~e

■-W.J M.I!v,

^3g||

I

I

I

I

inoqy

SlUOH

dSl>f001 NOIJLTOULSI93*| ivenix *JdO C/AAAO

15 3! MI! •'>•'• • • 19]! '•' u 5 f\ MIV W N 3

0a!Oj|3,V\

I

i

i

OKLAHOMA COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

State of Oklahoma

Application to File in Forma Pauperis

I, Charles Deon Ladd#507488, state that ! am heretofore a poor

person withoutfunds, property, or relatives willing to assist me in paying

forfiling the within instrument. I state under penalty ofperjury under the

laws of Oklahoma that the foregoing is true and correct

Signed this 21st day of October, 2021, at Lawton, Comanche, Oklahoma

(cm, county, state)

,

Signature of Affiant

Charles Deon Ladd #507488

Print Name

Rec©VEo

Kris ?02l

Ci-£RK'$

OFFIqs