habeas petition – Turtle Talk

The Supreme Court issues its opinion regarding a petition for writ of habeas corpus filed by a homeless non-Navajo Indian who had been arrested on a bench warrant without first being served with a probation revocation petition, then ordered to be incarcerated after his probation was revoked. The probationer had earlier called in to his probation officer informing him that he was homeless and needed to leave the vicinity in order to find shelter. Having previously granted the writ and ordered the probationer’s release, the Court found that a revocation petition must be served unless the Court determines that probable cause exists to show that attempts at service would be futile due to disappearance without contact and other egregious circumstances. Additionally, Diné bi beenahaz’áanii requires that in our restorative justice system, help should be given to a defendant when dire circumstances are known. Finally, the Court emphasized the due process right to counsel.

Navajo SCT Rules that Criminal Sentences Presumed to be Concurrent

September 30, 2012Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the court’s opinion in Baker v. Greyeyes.

From the court’s syllabus:

The Court grants a writ of habeas corpus filed after 6 months incarceration by an inmate serving time on multiple sentences in which it had not been specified how the sentences would run, holding that, when not stated in a judgment, multiple sentences are presumed to run concurrently.

Habeas Petition of Indian Country DV Offender Denied

February 7, 2012Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the order in Shillingstad v. United States (D. S.D.):

DCT Order Denying Shillingstad Motion

The appeal of the original conviction is here:

Shillingstad CA8 Opinion

Welch v. United States — Federal Criminal Jurisdiction

December 3, 2008Matthew L.M. Fletcher

This unexceptional habeas case (I don’t think the government even responded) highlights an interesting question, one in which I assume there is not a circuit split yet. But it is a bit odd.

The habeas petitioner alleged that the United States hadn’t sufficiently proved that the victim and defendant were Indians, as required under the Major Crimes Act, an argument that hadn’t been raised below. It should have been waived under regular habeas rules. The court in footnote 2 notes that such a question would seem to suggest that perhaps the government hadn’t sufficiently proved subject matter jurisdiction, a question that cannot be waived. However, citing non-Major Crimes Act cases, the court concluded that it did not go toward jurisdiction, but as to the elements of the crime.

I wonder if there have been other Major Crimes Act habeas cases like this. If this one came out the other way, it might be that much harder for federal prosecutors to work in Indian Country.

welch-v-us-dct-opinion

Nevada v. United States — Habeas Claim re: Tribal Court Convictions

October 13, 2008Matthew L.M. Fletcher

A federal prisoner’s challenge to an upward departure from the sentencing guidelines based on past tribal court convictions was rejected.

nevada-v-us-dct-order