Hendrix v. Carrie Bridges

1

JIMMY GLENN HENDRIX, Petitioner, v. CARRIE BRIDGES, Warden, Respondent.

No. 23-CV-0322-JFH-JFJ

United States District Court, N.D. Oklahoma

September 17, 2024

OPINION AND ORDER

JOHN F. HEIL, III UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Petitioner Jimmy Glenn Hendrix (“Hendrix”), a self-represented Oklahoma prisoner, seeks federal habeas relief through a Petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody (“Petition”). Dkt. No. 1. Hendrix claims he is detained, in violation of his Fourteenth Amendment right to due process, under the criminal judgment entered against him in Tulsa County District Court Case No. CF-2008-1228. This matter is before the Court on Respondent's Motion to Dismiss Petition as a Second or Successive Petition and/or as Untimely (“Motion to Dismiss”) [Dkt. No. 5]. Respondent asserts that Hendrix did not comply with 28 U.S.C § 2244(b)'s procedural requirements before filing a second or successive habeas petition and urges the Court to dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction. Alternatively Respondent asserts that Hendrix did not comply with 28 U.S.C § 2244(d)(1)'s one-year statute of limitations and urges the Court to dismiss the Petition as untimely. Hendrix opposes the Motion to Dismiss.

Having considered the Motion to Dismiss and Brief in Support of the Motion to Dismiss [Dkt. Nos. 5, 6], Hendrix's Response to the Motion to Dismiss [Dkt. Nos. 7, 10, 12],^[1] the record of state court proceedings, and applicable law, the Court finds and concludes that the Petition is not a second or successive petition and that the Petition is timely. The Court therefore DENIES the Motion to Dismiss. The Court finds, however, that no additional briefing is necessary as to the Fourteenth Amendment due process claim asserted in the Petition and that Hendrix has not shown that federal habeas relief is warranted as to that claim. The Court therefore DENIES the Petition.

I. Background

In 2008, a jury found Hendrix guilty, in Tulsa County District Court Case No. CF-2008-1228, of first-degree murder and possession of a firearm after former conviction of a felony. Dkt. No. 6 at 24, 27.^[2] The trial court sentenced Hendrix to life imprisonment as to the murder conviction and thirty years' imprisonment as to the firearm conviction and ordered that he serve the sentences consecutively. Id. Hendrix filed a direct appeal, and the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals (“OCCA”) affirmed his judgment in February 2010. Id. at 27-28. Hendrix did not file a petition for writ of certiorari in the United States Supreme Court. Dkt. No. 1 at 3. Hendrix's judgment thus became final in May 2010. See Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 150 (2012) (discussing when a state court judgment becomes final for a state prisoner seeking federal habeas relief under § 2254(a)); State ex rel. Matloff v. Wallace, 497 P.3d 686, 687 n.1 (Okla. Crim. App. 2021) (“Wallace”) (noting that a conviction is final “where judgment was rendered, the availability of appeal exhausted, and the time to petition for certiorari had elapsed” (citing Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288, 295 (1989))).

In September 2010, Hendrix filed a Petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody (“2010 Petition”) in this court, claiming he was in custody in violation of federal law under the judgment entered against him in Tulsa County District Court Case No. CF-2008-1228. Dkt. No. 6 at 125. This court denied the 2010 Petition, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit (“Tenth Circuit”) dismissed Hendrix's appeal. Hendrix v. Trammell, No. 10-CV-0600-CVE-TLW, 2013 WL 3539018 (N.D. Okla. July 11, 2013) (unpublished), certificate of appealability denied and appeal dismissed, 576 Fed.Appx. 767 (10th Cir. Aug. 13, 2014).

Hendrix sought postconviction relief in state court on three occasions. Relevant to this proceeding, Hendrix filed his third application for postconviction relief in September 2017. Dkt. No. 6 at 318. In that application, Hendrix asserted one claim: “The district court was without jurisdiction to impose a sentence against [him] because the United States District Court had exclusive and sole jurisdiction.” Id. at 319. In support of this claim, Hendrix alleged that he is Indian,^[3] that he committed his crimes of conviction in Indian country, as defined by 18 U.S.C. § 1151, and that the United States had exclusive jurisdiction to prosecute him under the Major Crimes Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1153 (“MCA”). Id. at 320. Citing the Tenth Circuit's then “recent ruling in Murphy v. Royal, 866 F.3d 1164, 1205 (10th Cir. 2017),” and the unsettled status of the law “concerning [the] Creek Reservation land and the State of Oklahoma's lack of jurisdiction to prosecute crimes that occur on that land,” the State of Oklahoma (“the State”) asked the state district court to hold Hendrix's third application in abeyance. Id. at 324. The state district court granted that request. Id. at 326.

In July 2020, the Supreme Court held that Congress never disestablished the Muscogee Creek Nation Reservation and clarified that “the MCA applies to Oklahoma according to its usual terms: Only the federal government, not the State, may prosecute Indians for major crimes committed in Indian country.” McGirt v. Oklahoma, 591 U.S. 894, 932-33 (2020). Relying on McGirt, Hendrix promptly moved for summary judgment as to the Indian country jurisdiction claim raised in his third application for postconviction relief. Dkt. No. 6 at 333. In the wake of McGirt, the OCCA issued several decisions wherein it: (1) concluded that other reservations in Oklahoma have not been disestablished; and (2) held that state law permitted defendants to raise Indian country jurisdiction claims in applications for postconviction relief even if the defendants' convictions were final before McGirt was decided. Wallace, 497 P.3d at 689 & n.3.

In April 2021, the state district court issued an order granting Hendrix's third application for postconviction relief, vacating his criminal judgment, and dismissing his criminal case for lack of jurisdiction. Dkt. No. 6 at 375-77. Based on the parties' stipulated facts, the state district court concluded that Hendrix is Indian and that he committed his crimes of conviction in Indian country. Id. at 375-76. The state district court further concluded that Hendrix's claim challenging his final judgment was not procedurally barred under state law because “issues of subject matter jurisdiction are never waived,” and that the state district court lacked jurisdiction over Hendrix's criminal case because that court's “otherwise unlimited subject matter jurisdiction . . . is preempted by 18 U.S.C. §§ 1151-1153.” Id. at 376 (internal quotation marks omitted). The State did not seek a stay or file a postconviction appeal to challenge the order granting postconviction relief and dismissing Hendrix's case.^[4]

Four days after the state district court dismissed Hendrix's criminal case, the federal government filed a criminal complaint in this court charging Hendrix, under the MCA, with first-degree murder in Indian country. Id. at 378; see also Dkt. No. 1, N.D. Okla. Case No. 21-CR-196-JFH. A federal grand jury later returned an indictment charging Hendrix with using and discharging a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(j)(1). Dkt. No. 6 at 384. In July 2021, Hendrix pleaded guilty as charged in the indictment and, in October 2021, this court sentenced Hendrix to a 216-month term of imprisonment to be served concurrently with the sentences imposed against him in Tulsa County District Court Case No. CF-2008-1228. Id. at 386-87; see also Dkt. No. 73, N.D. Okla. Case No. 21-CR-196-JFH.

Meanwhile, in August 2021, the OCCA held in Wallace “that McGirt and [the OCCA's] post-McGirt decisions recognizing [that several reservations had not been disestablished] shall not apply retroactively to void a conviction that was final when McGirt was decided” and that “[a]ny statements, holdings, or suggestions to the contrary in [the OCCA's] previous cases are hereby overruled.” Wallace, 497 P.3d at 689.

One month later, the State filed a motion in Hendrix's previously dismissed state criminal case, asking the state district court to vacate the order granting Hendrix's third application for postconviction relief. Dkt. No. 6 at 393-99. The state district court held a hearing on November 4, 2021, granted the motion over Hendrix's objection, and stayed its ruling pending an appeal by Hendrix. Id. at 366. In a written Order of Vacatur, signed January 21, 2022, and filed January 26, 2022, the state district court acknowledged that “the State missed normal procedural time limits for appeal,” but the state district court relied on Wallace to conclude that its April 2021 order granting postconviction relief “was unauthorized by state law and is void.” Id. at 412-13. The state district court therefore vacated and set aside its April 2021 order but reiterated that the Order of Vacatur would be stayed pending Hendrix's appeal. Id. at 413.

On January 24, 2022, Hendrix filed in the OCCA an Application to Assume Original Jurisdiction and Petition for Writ of Prohibition or in the Alternative for Writ of Mandamus (“Writ Application”), challenging the validity of the Order of Vacatur. Id. at 415.^[5] Hendrix asserted four claims: (1) the Order of Vacatur was contrary to state law because the order granting postconviction relief became final when the State did not timely appeal; (2) the state district court erred when it ruled in the Order of Vacatur that the order granting postconviction relief was void; (3) the state district court violated the Ex Post Facto Clause by applying Wallace to vacate the pre-Wallace...