The State of Oklahoma v. Jerry Lee Irwin

Tulsa County, Oklahoma assault and battery with a dangerous weapon criminal defense lawyer represented the Defendant.

Defendant, Jerry Lee Irwin, was convicted by a jury in the District Court of Tulsa County, Case No. CF-2021-3185, of Count 1: Assault and Battery with a Deadly Weapon, in violation of 21 O.S.2011, § 652 (C); Count 4: Kidnapping, in violation of 21 O.S.Supp.2012, § 741; Count 5: Possession of a Firearm After Former Conviction, in violation of 21 O.S.Supp.2019, § 1283 (A); and Count 6: Trafficking in Illegal Drugs (Methamphetamine), in violation of 63 O.S.Supp.2019, § 2-415. [1] The jury found Irwin was previously convicted of two or more prior felonies and sentenced him to forty years imprisonment each on Counts 1 and 4; twenty years imprisonment on Count 5; and sixteen years imprisonment plus a $100,000.00 fine on Count 6.



* * *





This Court recently held that Indian country jurisdictional claims do not implicate Oklahoma district courts' subject matter jurisdiction, but rather personal and territorial jurisdiction. Deo v. Parish, 2023 OK CR 20, ¶ 15, 541 P.3d 833, 838. Appellant waived any claim that the trial court lacked personal or territorial jurisdiction in this case when he entered his plea of not guilty at district court arraignment and proceeded to trial. Id. "It is settled law in Oklahoma that where no demurrer, or motion to quash the information is filed, and a plea of 'not guilty' is entered and the trial is had, the defendant waives any defect in the information, except that the court has no jurisdiction of the subject matter and that no public offense has been committed." Wright v. State, 1973 OK CR 9, ¶ 40, 505 P.2d 507, 514. [5] In the present case, the record on appeal does not establish prima facie evidence of Appellant's Indian status because the claim was not raised during the trial court proceedings. See Wadkins v. State, 2022 OK CR 2, ¶ 3, 504 P.3d 605, 607. "Supplementation of the record under Rule 3.11(A) is not appropriate merely to cure a defendant's failure to preserve an issue below." Lamar v. State, 2018 OK CR 8, ¶ 42, 419 P.3d 283, 295. Based on this authority, Proposition I is denied.