Not a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Murphy v. Royal

United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

August 8, 2017, Filed

Nos. 07-7068 & 15-7041

Opinion

 [*1169]  TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. BACKGROUND

A. Factual History

B. Procedural History

1. Trial

2. Direct appeal

3. First Application for State Post-Conviction Relief

4. Filing of First Application for Federal Habeas Relief

5. Second Application for State Post-Conviction Relief

a. Evidentiary hearing

b. Appeal to the OCCA

c. Atkins trial and appeal

6. Federal District Court Proceedings on First Federal Habeas Application

7. First Appeal to the Tenth Circuit (No. 07-7068)

8. Second Application for Federal Habeas Relief

9. This Consolidated Appeal

II. LEGAL BACKGROUND

A. Standard of Review

1. The Parties' Dispute

2. The AEDPA Standard

a. Overview

b. The "contrary to" clause

B. Indian Country Jurisdiction

1. Reservations

2. The Major Crimes Act

3. Indian Country

4. Reservation Disestablishment and Diminishment

a. Presumption against disestablishment and diminishment

b. The policy of allotment

c. Solem factors

III. DISCUSSION

A. Clearly Established Federal Law

1. Solem-Clearly Established Law in 2005

2. The State's [**3]  Arguments

B. The OCCA Decision-Contrary to Clearly Established Federal Law

1. The OCCA's Merits Decision

2. The OCCA's Decision Was Contrary to Solem

a. No citation to Solem

b. Failure to apply Solem

c. The State's arguments

C. Exclusive Federal Jurisdiction

1. Additional Legal Background

a. Supreme Court authority

b. Tenth Circuit authority

2. Additional Factual Background-Creek Nation History

a. Original homeland and forced relocation

b. Nineteenth century diminishment

c. 1867 Constitution and government

d. Early congressional regulation of modern-day Oklahoma

e. The push for allotment

f. Allotment and aftermath

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

866 F.3d 1164 *; 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 14556 **; 2017 WL 3389877

PATRICK DWAYNE MURPHY, Petitioner - Appellant, v. TERRY ROYAL, Warden, Oklahoma State Penitentiary, Respondent - Appellee.MUSCOGEE (CREEK) NATION; SEMINOLE NATION OF OKLAHOMA; UNITED KEETOOWAH BAND OF CHEROKEE INDIANS IN OKLAHOMA, Amici Curiae.

Subsequent History: Rehearing denied by, Rehearing, en banc, denied by Murphy v. Royal, 875 F.3d 896, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 22755 (10th Cir. Okla., Nov. 8, 2017)

Prior History:  [**1] APPEALS FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA. (D.C. Nos. 6:03-CV-00443-RAW-KEW and 6:12-CV-00191-RAW-KEW).

Murphy v. Trammell, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 58594 (E.D. Okla., May 5, 2015)Murphy v. Sirmons, 497 F. Supp. 2d 1257, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56161 (E.D. Okla., Aug. 1, 2007)

CORE TERMS

reservation, Tribes, allotment, disestablished, diminishment, Territory, tribal, state court, treaty, borders, courts, quotations, tribal government, termination, non-Indian, argues, cases, clearly established federal law, federal court, negotiate, federal government, district court, habeas relief, merits, purposes, surplus land, altered, murder, limits, intent of congress

Governments, Native Americans, Authority & Jurisdiction, Major Crimes Act, Criminal Law & Procedure, Standards of Review, Contrary & Unreasonable Standard, Contrary to Clearly Established Federal Law, Unreasonable Application, Clearly Established Federal Law, Indian General Allotment Act, Review, Deference