Opinion ID: 2519859
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Frank II

Text: {8} Defendant appealed his conviction again and raised the following arguments: (1) the district court did not follow the mandate of [the Court of Appeals] in the first appeal of the case because it did not use the two-step analysis ordered in Frank [I]; (2) the district court's findings of fact are insufficient for it to have analyzed the jurisdiction issue under Venetie as applied in the Tenth Circuit; and (3) the area in question is a `dependent Indian community' as defined by 18 U.S.C. § 1151, as a matter of law. Frank, 2001-NMCA-026, ¶ 3, 130 N.M. 306, 24 P.3d 338. The Court of Appeals determined that the district court erred because the district court did not first examine the community of reference question before applying the Venetie test. Id. ¶ 2.