This is an interesting case. It involves Mr. Latuwan Anthony Partee who is convicted of dealing cocaine, possessing marijuana and was found to be a habitual offender. He received 27 1/2 years with five years thereof suspended. This latest case is an appeal on the basis that the court failed to inform him that he could return to the courtroom if he agreed to conduct himself in an appropriate manner.
The basic facts of the case are as follows. At a pretrial conference, he told the court he wanted to represent himself and that he was fully competent to handle his own affairs. They identified him (based on some of the things he was saying in court) as a sovereign citizen.
On the day of his jury trial, began a “tirade of semi-coherent claims” about not being subject to the court’s jurisdiction. He also accused the judge of treason and fraud. He was eventually removed from the courtroom and given multiple competency evaluations.
He was evaluated by both a psychologist and a psychiatrist. They both basically said the same thing. He was competent and refused to participate. They both noted that he was a sovereign citizen and at one point, he told the psychiatrist “you can’t trespass on my corporation.” Even though he would not participate in the interviews, they still could determine that he was competent, coherent and goal-directed.
They eventually brought him back into the courtroom but he continued to rant and rave about lack of authority and jurisdiction. At one point the judge even threatened to tape his mouth shut but no matter what they did he refused to be quiet. Not only was he unruly in the courtroom but his brother and girlfriend also became problematic and they had to be removed also.
The trial ultimately continued without him being present and he was found guilty.
In his appeal, he argued that the trial court made an error by failing to advise him that he could return to the courtroom if he promised to conduct himself in an appropriate manner. By not doing this, he claimed, it deprived him of his right to be present at trial.
Because they repeatedly brought him into court and he refused to behave each time, the appeals court noted that he was given multiple opportunities to behave in a respectful manner and he did not do it. The defendant “squandered these opportunities” and continued to be disruptive.
“We conclude that the trial court did not commit error…by failing to explicitly advise [him] that he could return to the courtroom if he promised to behave.”
The best line of all is this: “We instead commend the trial court for its patience with a defendant as difficult as Partee.”
You can read the full opinion here.