Law on Native Land: Deo v. Parish

While McGirt v. Oklahoma and Castro-Huerta came from the United States Supreme Court, Oklahoma’s own courts have also issued major rulings that shape the reach of state authority in Indian Country. One of the most significant is Deo v. Parish, a 2023 decision from the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals.

In this case, the court held that the state retains subject matter jurisdiction over crimes committed by Indians in Indian Country unless the defendant properly raises a jurisdictional challenge early in the case. This ruling gave state prosecutors more room to argue that convictions should stand even after McGirt.

The Case Background

Billy Zane Deo pleaded guilty in 2018 to Second Degree Burglary and received a deferred sentence. He was later charged in a separate case, admitted to drug court in January 2019, and the trial court delayed sentencing while he participated. In August 2022, after McGirt, Deo moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The district court denied the motion, and Deo sought mandamus relief from the Court of Criminal Appeals

What the Court Decided

The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals rejected Parish’s challenge. The court reasoned that:

• Oklahoma state courts have subject matter jurisdiction over all crimes unless a statute or federal law clearly divests them of it

• Defendants must raise personal or territorial jurisdiction arguments early in the case or risk waiving them

• Because Parish had not raised the jurisdictional issue until later, the state conviction could stand

This approach reframed the issue. Instead of recognizing jurisdiction as a fundamental limit on state authority, the court treated it as a procedural issue that defendants must preserve.

How the court reasoned

The opinion drew on federal cases distinguishing true subject matter jurisdiction from statutory elements and territorial or personal reach. It analogized to United States v. Tony and relied on the constitutional grant of broad trial court authority in Oklahoma. It also read Castro-Huerta as a preemption framework, not as a limitation on a state court’s subject matter power to hear criminal cases. Under that framework, the court concluded that Deo’s claim did not establish preemption and that his personal or territorial jurisdiction objections were waived.

Why the Decision Matters

The ruling in Deo v. Parish significantly changed how jurisdictional challenges are handled in Oklahoma. Its consequences include:

✔️ Shifting the burden to defendants to raise jurisdictional arguments at the outset
✔️ Allowing state convictions of Native defendants to remain intact if the issue was not preserved
✔️ Weakening the practical reach of McGirt, since many defendants may not have raised jurisdiction at trial or on direct appeal

For prosecutors, this decision was a victory. For tribes and defendants, it represented another erosion of the principle that the state lacks authority over Indians in Indian Country.

Key Takeaway

Deo v. Parish gave Oklahoma state courts a powerful tool to preserve convictions that might otherwise have been vacated under McGirt. By shifting the responsibility to defendants to challenge jurisdiction at the right time, the court reinforced the state’s role in Indian Country criminal cases and complicated the promise of exclusive tribal and federal authority.

After Deo, Oklahoma appellate courts have cited the case for the proposition that Indian Country jurisdictional claims are not subject matter defects and may be waived if not preserved. One example is City of Tulsa v. O’Brien, 2024 OK CR 31, which expressly relies on Deo for that point.

The next post in Law on Native Land will look at State v. Crosson, another Oklahoma case where the court addressed how state judges must handle warrants for tribal citizens inside reservation boundaries.