Opinion ID: 2159208
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Appropriateness of Discretionary Review and Standing.

Text: Because our resolution of both issues turns on the law concerning subject matter jurisdiction, we address them together. The Tribe contends discretionary review of the State's appeal is inappropriate because the magistrate did not find the statute invalid. The Tribe relies on Iowa Rule of Criminal Procedure 2.73(1) which provides that in simple misdemeanor cases [a]n appeal may be taken by the plaintiff only upon a finding of invalidity of an ordinance or statute. Iowa R.Crim. P. 2.73(1). The State sought discretionary review pursuant to Iowa Code section 814.5(2) (2003) which allows the State to seek such review under limited circumstances. The ground the State relies on provides discretionary review may be available when the underlying case resulted in [a] final judgment or order raising a question of law important to the judiciary and the profession. Iowa Code § 814.5(2)( d ). We need not concern ourselves with the obvious tension between rule 2.73(1) and section 814.5(2) because we are faced here with an issue of Indian sovereignty, which immediately calls into question subject matter jurisdiction. See Kiowa Tribe of Okla. v. Mfg. Techs., Inc., 523 U.S. 751, 754, 118 S.Ct. 1700, 1702, 140 L.Ed.2d 981, 985 (1998) (As a matter of federal law, an Indian tribe is subject to suit only where Congress has authorized the suit or the tribe has waived its immunity.); see also State v. Bear, 452 N.W.2d 430, 432 (Iowa 1990) (recognizing that Indian sovereignty raises a question of subject matter jurisdiction). Subject matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time. Bear, 452 N.W.2d at 432; Hyde v. Buckalew, 393 N.W.2d 800, 802 (Iowa 1986) (The issue whether the legislature intended to waive its sovereign immunity with respect to a particular type of claim is a matter of [subject matter] jurisdiction, the power of the court to hear and adjudicate a particular class of cases, and the State may raise that issue by motion to dismiss at any stage of the proceeding.). In addition, this court may raise the issue sua sponte. State ex rel. Vega v. Medina, 549 N.W.2d 507, 508 (Iowa 1996). In Lansky ex rel. Brill v. Lansky, we noted the importance of resolving jurisdictional issues first, especially those involving subject matter jurisdiction, no matter how the issue is presented: The general theme of Iowa cases provides that, when a court is confronted with a question of its own authority to proceed, it should take charge of the proceedings affirmatively, regardless of the vehicle used to raise the issue. The court should utilize the most efficient method at its disposal to determine the true facts and then decide the issue promptly. When the court's power to proceed is at issue, the court has the power and duty to determine whether it has jurisdiction of the matter presented. Subject matter jurisdiction should be considered before the court looks at other matters involved in the case and before it determines whether the parties are entitled to a jury trial. The court should be less concerned about the form in which the question of subject matter jurisdiction reaches it and more concerned about establishing an efficient, prompt, trustworthy solution, even if innovative and unusual approaches are required to reach the issue. 449 N.W.2d 367, 368 (Iowa 1989) (emphasis added) (citations omitted). Although there was some question whether Jolly was in fact representing the defendant, the magistrate never actually made a ruling on that issue. As far as the court was concerned, the important question was whether it had subject matter jurisdiction to hear the matter. The court was not concerned, and nor are we, with how the issue was raised. Because of where the alleged offense occurredon Indian land and in a trading post belonging to the Tribethe subject matter jurisdiction issue was so apparent that the court should have and probably would have raised the issue on its own even had Jolly not appeared. Because the subject matter jurisdiction issue is in the case, we are duty bound to address it regardless of whether a statutory provision or rule permitted appeal by the State. The same reasoning applies to the State's argument that the Tribe had no standing to intervene in this criminal case because it was not a defendant and its attorney had no permission from Lasley to represent him. Whether the Tribe had standing is not determinative because we are not concerned with how the issue of subject matter jurisdiction was raised or who raised it. Again, the issue was so obvious that the court should have and probably would have raised it on its own even had Jolly not appeared. That brings us to the subject matter jurisdiction issue.