IN THE MUSCOGEE (CREEK) NATION SUPREME COURT
 
MUSCOGEE (CREEK) NATION,
Appellant,
 
v.
 
BRANDON JAMES WINGATE,
Respondent.
 
Case No.: SC-2024-08
(District Court Case No.: CF-2022-209)
June 4, 2025

Appeal from District Court, Okmulgee District, Muscogee (Creek) Nation

Timothy J. Gifford and Matthew J. Hall, Muscogee (Creek) Nation, Office of the Attorney General, Okmulgee, OK, for the Appellant, the Muscogee (Creek) Nation.

Carla Stinnett and Jonathan Casey, Glenpool, OK, for the Respondent, Brandon James Wingate.

 

ORDER AND OPINION

MVSKOKVLKE FVTCECKV CUKO HVLWAT VKERRICKV HVYAKAT OKETV YVNKE VHAKV HAKATEN ACAKKAYEN MOMEN ENTENFVTCETV, HVTVM MVSKOKE ETVLWVKE ETEHVLVTKE VHAKV EMPVTAKV.1

Before: ADAMS, C.J.; LERBLANCE, V.C.J.; DEER, HARJO-WARE, MCNAC, SUPERNAW, THOMPSON, JJ.

PER CURIAM

 

Order of the District Court reversed and remanded.

Per Curiam

The Muscogee (Creek) Nation (hereinafter, the "Appellant") submits its appeal pursuant to M(C)NCA Title 14, § 1-701 (B)(4), seeking review of a Muscogee (Creek) Nation District Court Order Vacating Guilty Plea and Sentence, entered on November 7, 2024. The Appellant asserts that the District Court erred in granting an untimely Motion, pursuant to M(C)NCA Title 14, § 1-617, when over two (2) years passed since the Court's sentence was imposed. On the record presented, and for the reasons set forth below, we reverse the Muscogee (Creek) Nation District Court's November 7, 2024, Order Vacating Guilty Plea and Sentence, and remand the matter back to the District Court for further consideration.

BACKGROUND

On February 11, 2022, a Criminal Complaint and Information was filed by the Appellant, alleging that the Respondent "failed to provide adequate food, water, and care for a dog that died while in his captivity and care[,]" in violation of M(C)NCA Title 14, § 2-427, Cruelty to Animals. This crime is listed as a felony under Mvskoke law, punishable by imprisonment for up to three (3) years and/or a fine not to exceed fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000.00). A surety bond was set at one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) and the Respondent was scheduled to appear for arraignment on April 25, 2022.

On the date set for arraignment, the Respondent appeared without counsel and entered a plea of guilty to the Cruelty to Animals charge, indicating on the District Court's Plea of Guilty: Summary of Facts paperwork (filed on April 25, 2022) that he understood the crime carried a charge of "0-3 years" and a fine of "$0-$15k[;]" that he entered the plea of guilty under his "own free will, without any coercion or compulsion of any kind, and only because [he is] guilty of the act(s) charged[.]" Further, the Respondent explained the unlawful conduct in his own words, stating, "my wife past away in bad car accident and my yard got covered with flees shortly after and my sons dog past away and I didn't know so dog had laid in yard couple days." [sic]

On August 16, 2022, the Muscogee (Creek) Nation District Court entered its Judgment and Sentence on Plea of Guilty on the charge of Cruelty to Animals; noting that, prior to accepting the Respondent's plea of guilty, the Court "informed the [Respondent] of his Constitutional rights, including his right to legal counsel and trial by jury; his right to be confronted by his accusers and his right to the privilege against self-incrimination; and in response to questioning by the Court, the [Respondent] said that he understood his Constitutional rights and he waived each of them, and persisted in his plea of guilty. The Court further informed the [Respondent] of the minimum and maximum penalty provided by law for the aforesaid offense, and the effect of such plea; and after being further interrogated by the Court the [Respondent] stated that he is guilty of said crime(s) and that his plea of guilty is voluntary and is made by him without inducement or coercion"2 The Court went on to sentence the Respondent to one (1) year jail time - to be suspended, and fines and costs in the amount of four hundred sixty four dollars ($464.00).

Over two (2) years passed in which the Respondent made no objection to the Judgment and Sentence entered by the District Court.

In early 2024 the Nation filed two new felony charges against the Respondent for (1) Receiving Stolen Property, and (2) for Unlawful Possession of a Firearm. The firearm charged was based, in part, on the Respondent's previous 2022 felony conviction in the above-referenced Cruelty to Animals matter. On October 14, 2024, the Respondent filed a Motion to Correct Guilty Plea and Conviction and to Dismiss Pending Cases (solely pursuant to M(C)NCA Title 14, § 1-617, Correction or reduction of sentence), wherein the Respondent argued that his sentence should be "modified" from a "suspended" sentence to a "deferred" sentence. In support of this Motion, the Respondent argued that the Court's Plea of Guilty: Summary of Facts paperwork was blank on page two (2), and did not advise the Respondent of the Court's sentence recommendation; further, the Respondent argued that he advised the District Court on part 12 of the Plea of Guilty: Summary of Facts paperwork that he had questions concerning the charge, and that these questions were never answered. Additionally, the Respondent asserts "he was advised that he was going to get a sentence that went off his record after probation, however, the plea paperwork states "suspended" instead of "deferred"... [the Respondent] would have no basis to object and determine the difference as a lay person with no legal training prior to felony conviction." 3

On November 7, 2024, the District Court entered its Order Vacating Guilty Plea and Sentence, finding that the sentencing hearing held in the case "was defective and the sentence should be vacated." The Court went on to explain that M(C)NCA Title 14, § 1-404(D)(3) requires that the Court not accept a guilty plea "without first addressing the defendant personally and determining that the defendant understands the nature of the charge, the right that he or she is waiving, and that he or she is making the plea voluntarily." Further, that "[t]he record of the sentencing hearing gives no indication that defendant understood the nature of the charge against him; that he understood the rights he was waiving by entering his plea; or that he was making his plea voluntarily." This appeal follows.

 

JURISDICTION, SCOPE, AND STANDARD OF REVIEW

Appellate jurisdiction is proper under M(C)NCA Title 27, § 1-101 (C).4 This Court will review issues of law de novo and issues of fact for clear error.5 Each respective question will be addressed based on its applicable standard of review.

ISSUES PRESENTED

1. Under what circumstances may the District Court grant a Defendant's request to correct or reduce sentence under M(C)NCA Title 14, § 1-617, and what remedies may the District Court employ?

DISCUSSION

On October 14, 2024, the Respondent filed his Motion to Correct Guilty Plea and Conviction and to Dismiss Pending Cases, pursuant solely to M(C)NCA Title 14, § 1-617. That statute provides the following:

The Court may correct an illegal sentence at any time and may correct a sentence imposed in an illegal manner within thirty (30) days after the sentence is imposed, or within thirty (30) days after receipt by the Court of a mandate issued upon affirmance of the judgment or dismissal of the appeal. The Court may also reduce a sentence upon revocation of probation.

Pursuant to this statute, there are two (2) pathways upon which the Court is authorized to correct or reduce a defendant's sentence. The first pathway is available if the Court finds the sentence to be illegal. There is no filing deadline under this pathway, and the Court may correct an illegal sentence at any time. The second pathway is available if the Court finds that an otherwise legal sentence has been imposed in an illegal manner. This pathway is only open for thirty (30) days after the sentence has been imposed, or thirty (30) days after receipt of mandate affirming or dismissing an appeal.

Under the first pathway, the District Court must determine if the sentence imposed was illegal. To do this, the Court must examine the charging document(s) to determine the specific violation(s) upon which a Defendant has been found guilty, and the associated range(s) of punishment authorized for that violation. In this instance, the Respondent was charged, and found guilty of a violation to M(C)NCA Title 14, § 2-427, Cruelty to Animals. This felony violation is punishable "by a fine of not more than fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000) and/or not more than three (3) years imprisonment."6 Pursuant to these two statutes, the District Court sentenced the Respondent to a one (1) year suspended sentence, and fines and costs in the amount of four hundred sixty-four dollars ($464.00). As such, both the sentence and the fine imposed by the District Court, through its August 16, 2022, Judgment and Sentence on Plea of Guilty, are within the statutory range of punishment, and are therefore legal.

Under the second pathway, the District Court must first determine if the thirty-day (30) deadline has been met. In this instance, the Respondent filed his Motion to Correct Guilty Plea and Conviction and to Dismiss Pending Cases seven hundred and ninety-one days (791) after the Court entered its Judgment and Sentence on Plea of Guilty. This falls well after expiration of the thirty-day (30) deadline. As such, the District Court was not authorized to correct or reduce the sentence, even if it found an otherwise legal sentence had been imposed in an illegal manner, as the District Court concluded in its November 7, 2024, Order Vacating Guilty Plea and Sentence. While this Court agrees with the District Court's analysis concerning M(C)NCA Title 14, § 1-404 (D)(3), and the steps the District Court should take to ensure a Defendant understands the nature of the charges filed, and the rights the Defendant waves by entering a plea of guilty; as well as the steps the District Court should take to ensure a Defendant has voluntarily waived those right, § 1-617 places a clear time restriction on a Defendant's ability to bring deficiencies of this nature to the Court's attention. After the thirty (30) day deadline has passed, a Defendant may no longer request correction of reduction of sentence, absent a showing that an illegal sentence has been imposed.7

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, the District Court's November 7, 2024, Order Vacating Guilty Plea and Sentence is reversed, and the matter is remanded back to the District Court for further consideration.

 

FILED AND ENTERED: June 4, 2025

/s/ Andrew Adams, III
Andrew Adams, III
Chief Justice
 
/s/ Richard Lerblance
Richard Lerblance
Vice-Chief Justice
 
/s/ Montie Deer
Montie Deer
Associate Justice
 
/s/ Leah Hario-Ware
Leah Hario-Ware
Associate Justice
 
/s/ Amos McNac
Amos McNac
Associate Justice
 
/s/ Kathleen Supernaw
Kathleen Supernaw
Associate Justice
 
/s/ George Thompson, Jr.
George Thompson, Jr.
Associate Justice