IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 13-1656

Filed February 11, 2015

MICHAEL YOUNG,

Applicant-Appellant,

vs.

STATE OF IOWA,

Respondent-Appellee.

________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Tama County, Mary E. Chicchelly, 

Judge. 

Petitioner appeals the dismissal of his application for postconviction relief. 

AFFIRMED.

Michael Young, Tama, appellant pro se.

Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kyle Hanson, Assistant Attorney 

General, Brent D. Heeren, County Attorney, and Patrick McMullen, Assistant 

County Attorney, for appellee.

Considered by Mullins, P.J., and Bower and McDonald, JJ.
2

MCDONALD, J.

Michael Young, an enrolled member of the Sac and Fox Tribe of the 

Mississippi in Iowa, was convicted of operating a motor vehicle without a license, 

a simple misdemeanor, in violation of Iowa Code section 321.174 (2009). He 

challenged his conviction and sentence in a postconviction-relief proceeding, 

arguing the district court lacked jurisdiction to impose judgment and sentence for 

this offense on an enrolled member of the Sac and Fox Tribe occurring on the 

roadway of an Indian Reservation Road. The district court denied Young’s 

application for postconviction reflief, and Young filed this appeal. We affirm the 

judgment of the district court.

I.

A criminal defendant may raise a jurisdictional challenge to his conviction

and sentence in postconviction-relief proceedings. Iowa Code § 822.2(1)(b). 

“[W]e review proceedings concerning subject matter jurisdiction at law.” State v. 

Lasley, 705 N.W.2d 481, 485 (Iowa 2005).

II.

“Subject matter jurisdiction is the power of a court to hear and determine 

cases of the general class to which the proceedings in question belong, not 

merely the particular case then occupying the court’s attention.” Klinge v. 

Bentien, 725 N.W.2d 13, 15 (Iowa 2006) (citations and internal quotations 

omitted). “Lack of subject matter can be raised at any time.” Id. at 16. “If a court 

enters a judgment without jurisdiction over the subject matter, the judgment is 

void and subject to collateral attack.” Id.
3

Iowa has a unified trial court denominated “The Iowa District Court.” Iowa 

Code § 602.6101. “The district court has exclusive, general, and original 

jurisdiction of all actions, proceedings, and remedies, civil, criminal . . . except in 

cases where exclusive or concurrent jurisdiction is conferred upon some other 

court, tribunal, or administrative body.” Iowa Code § 602.6101. 

One such exception to the district court’s jurisdiction over criminal 

proceedings relates to offenses committed by or against Indians on an Indian 

reservation. “Indian tribes retain ‘attributes of sovereignty over both their 

members and their territory.’” California v. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians, 

480 U.S. 202, 207 (1987). “[T]ribal sovereignty is dependent on, and subordinate 

to, only the federal government, not the States.” Id. Because the Federal 

Constitution grants Congress plenary and exclusive power to legislate with 

respect to Indian tribes, a State may exercise jurisdiction related to offenses 

committed by or against tribal Indians for conduct occurring on an Indian 

reservation only if Congress has granted the authority to do so. See Lasley, 705 

N.W.2d at 486-87. 

In 1948, Congress conferred criminal jurisdiction over offenses committed 

“by or against Indians on the Sac and Fox Indian Reservation” located in Iowa. 

Act of June 30, 1948, ch. 759, 62 Stat. 1161. This statute, known as Public Law 

846, provides as follows:

Jurisdiction is hereby conferred on the State of Iowa over offenses 

committed by or against Indians on the Sac and Fox Indian 

Reservation in that State to the same extent as its courts have 

jurisdiction generally over offenses committed within said State 

outside of any Indian reservation: Provided, however, That nothing 

herein contained shall deprive the courts of the United States of 
4

jurisdiction over offenses defined by the laws of the United States 

committed by or against Indians on Indian reservations.

Id. The text of Public Law 846 appears to confer jurisdiction on the State of Iowa 

to enforce both minor and major offenses committed by or against Indians on the 

Sac and Fox Indian Reservation in accord with state law. See id.; see also 

Lasley, 705 N.W.2d at 487; State v. Bear, 452 N.W.2d 430, 434 (Iowa 1990). 

However, relying on California v. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians, 480 U.S. at 

202 (1987), the Iowa Supreme Court has held that “[f]or a state law to be 

enforceable” under Public Law 846, “such law must be ‘criminal/prohibitory’ and 

not ‘civil/regulatory.’” Lasley, 705 N.W.2d at 488. “If the intent of a state law is 

generally to prohibit certain conduct, it falls within . . . [the] grant of criminal 

jurisdiction, but if the state law generally permits the conduct at issue, subject to 

regulation, it must be classified as civil/regulatory and [the grant of authority] 

does not authorize its enforcement on an Indian reservation.” Cabazon, 480 U.S. 

at 209. 

Young argues that operating a motor vehicle without a license, a simple 

misdemeanor, is a civil/regulatory offense and thus not enforceable under Public 

Law 846. The State counters that the offense is criminal/prohibitory and thus 

enforceable under Public Law 846. While we conclude the State has the better 

of the argument, see, e.g., St. Germaine v. Circuit Ct., 938 F.2d 75, 78 (7th Cir. 

1991) (holding driver’s license law enforceable in tribal territory and stating “[t]his 

enforcement of Wisconsin driver’s license public policy by the imposition of 

criminal sanctions does not impinge upon the respected tribal attributes of 

sovereignty over both their members and their territory”), we need not address 
5

this particular argument because Young has not established the offense was 

committed on the Sac and Fox Indian Reservation. In the absence of such proof, 

the State was free to enforce its criminal law against Young, and the district court 

had concomitant subject matter jurisdiction over the criminal proceeding.

The State has the burden of proving the situs of the offense was within the 

State of Iowa, which it did. The offense occurred at or near the intersection of 

Highway 30 and F Avenue in Tama County, Iowa. Once the State proved the 

offense occurred within the State of Iowa and the district court had subject matter 

jurisdiction over the matter, it was the defendant’s burden to establish an 

exception to jurisdiction. See Meier v. Sac & Fox Indian Tribe, 476 N.W.2d 61, 

62-63 (Iowa 1991) (explaining the district court had subject matter jurisdiction 

over civil actions and that sovereign immunity was an exception to jurisdiction); 

see also State v. Verdugo, 901 P.2d 1165, 1168 (Ariz. 1995) (holding defendant 

bears the burden of establishing Indian status and that the crime occurred in 

Indian country to “establish the trial court’s lack of jurisdiction”); State v. Francis, 

563 A.2d 249, 252-53 (Vt. 1989) (holding the defendant has the burden of 

establishing Indian heritage and the offense occurred within “Indian country”); 

Pendleton v. State, 734 P.2d 693, 695 (Nev. 1987) (stating “defendant has the 

burden of showing the applicability of negative exceptions in jurisdictional 

statutes”); State v. Cutnose, 532 P.2d 896, 898 (N.M. 1974) (holding defendants 

bear the burden of proving a lack of state court jurisdiction); State v. Buckaroo 

Jack, 96 P. 497, 498 (Nev. 1908) (holding it was not incumbent on the State to 

prove anything more than that the offense was committed in the county and 
6

defendant had the burden to prove facts depriving the state court of jurisdiction). 

Here, there is no evidence establishing the situs of the offense was within the 

reservation.

The Sac and Fox Indian Reservation is also known as the Meskwaki 

Settlement. It is a “reservation” for purposes of federal law. See Sac & Fox 

Tribe v. Licklider, 576 F.2d 145, 150 (8th Cir. 1978); United States v. Papakee, 

485 F. Supp. 2d 1032, 1040 (N.D. Iowa 2007). The postconviction court received 

into evidence a document entitled “Sac and Fox Tribe of the Mississippi in Iowa 

Long Range Transportation Plan.” The document identifies both Highway 30 and 

F Avenue as included within the inventory of “Indian Reservation Roads.” Both 

Young and the State seem to assume this establishes the situs of the offense 

occurred within the reservation. We disagree.

First, Young assumes all roads within the Indian Reservation Road 

System are within the Meskwaki Settlement. This is not the case. An “Indian 

Reservation Road . . . means a public road that is located within or provides 

access to an Indian reservation or Indian trust land, or restricted Indian land that 

is not subject to fee title alienation without the approval of the Federal 

government.” 25 C.F.R. § 170.5. The federal regulation defining an Indian 

Reservation Road thus explicitly provides that an Indian Reservation Road may 

be within an Indian reservation or a road not within an Indian reservation but that 

provides access to an Indian reservation. Id. We cannot assume the road is 

within the reservation.
7

Second, even assuming that the situs of the offense was within the 

recognized boundaries of the Meskwaki Settlement, that fact alone would not 

necessarily deprive the district court of subject matter jurisdiction over this 

offense. It is well established that a state retains jurisdiction over fee lands it 

owns within a reservation. See Washington v. Confederated Bands and Tribes 

of Yakima Indian Nation, 439 U.S. 463, 475 (1979); State v. Pink, 185 P.3d 634, 

638 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). Here, the offense occurred on a roadway. There is 

no evidence establishing title to the roadway. The Long Range Transportation 

Plan explicitly provides that the Indian Reservation Road System includes “BIA 

[Bureau of Indian Affairs], Tribal, state, and county roads.” Young did not 

establish what entity holds the fee for the roadway on which this offense 

occurred. Was the fee held by the federal government, state government, county 

government, or the tribe? Was it a right of way easement granted by the tribe to 

the State? The answer to each of these questions is material to the jurisdictional 

issue. See Murphy v. State, 124 P.3d 1198, 1201 (Okla. Crim. App. 2005) 

(examining title of roadway to determine “Indian country” jurisdiction issue); Pink, 

185 P.3d at 638 (concluding where the land granted was a fee simple patent to 

build a road as opposed to a right of way easement, then the state has 

jurisdiction over the offense but where the only interest granted was a right-ofway easement, then the tribe has jurisdiction); State v. Webster, 338 N.W.2d 

474, 480-81 (Wis. 1983) (examining title to land underlying highway right-of-way 

to resolve “Indian country” jurisdictional challenge); Somday v. Rhay, 406 P.2d 

931, 934 (Wash. 1965) (holding court had jurisdiction over offense committed
8

upon highway where fee simple was in the state). Again, we cannot assume the 

answers to these questions. Young failed to establish the predicate facts 

necessary to divest jurisdiction over this offense from the State of Iowa. 

III.

We have considered all of the parties’ arguments, whether or not set forth 

explicitly herein. For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is 

affirmed.

AFFIRMED.