Roman Angelo Royal was convicted of aggravated assault against a public servant and evading arrest with a vehicle. He was sentenced to 99 years for the aggravated assault and 20 years for evading arrest, with the sentences to run concurrently. He appealed his sentence. arguing incompetence (among other issues). The court upheld that Royal was competent to waive his right to counsel despite his “sovereign citizen” beliefs, which did not constitute mental incompetence. The trial court provided Royal with proper warnings about the risks of self-representation.
The saga began in Snyder, Texas, when Officer Mitchell Silva recognized Royal driving a gold Buick. Silva, along with Officer Shane Rackley, was aware of an outstanding misdemeanor arrest warrant against Royal. They initiated a traffic stop, but Royal refused to cooperate. He denied the officers’ authority, claimed not to recognize the charges against him, and only cracked his window slightly to argue with the officers about “universal law and natural law.”
For 45 minutes, Royal rebuffed all attempts to identify himself or exit the vehicle, further escalating tensions. Eventually, Snyder Police Chief Brian Haggard arrived and decided to forcibly extract Royal from the car. Chief Haggard broke the driver’s side window with a baton, and Officer Rackley reached inside to deploy pepper spray. At that moment, Royal slammed the car into drive and accelerated. Officer Rackley’s hand was still inside the vehicle, and he suffered cuts and injuries as he narrowly withdrew his arm before being dragged. Royal sped off, colliding with two police vehicles in his escape.
The Tractor Theft and Rural Chase
After abandoning his car, Royal temporarily evaded law enforcement. Hours later, police responded to reports of a break-in at a nearby ranch. There, Royal had stolen a tractor from a barn and used it to continue his escape. The tractor became a tool of destruction as he drove erratically across the property, destroying fences and causing significant damage to the ranch’s infrastructure.
The chase reached its climax when Royal drove the tractor into a stock tank, rendering it immobile. Even stranded in the middle of the water, Royal refused to surrender. Law enforcement surrounded the area, but Royal held his position for over an hour, shouting objections rooted in his sovereign citizen beliefs. Despite repeated commands to come ashore, he remained defiant.
Officers eventually used a pepper ball gun to disorient him. Initially, Royal climbed onto the hood of the tractor, further resisting. Only after additional warnings and another round of pepper ball deployments did Royal swim to shore, where he was finally apprehended.
The Trial: Sovereign Citizen Ideology Meets Legal Realities
From the outset of the trial, Royal stuck to his sovereign citizen ideology. He repeatedly rejected the court’s jurisdiction, claiming he was a “natural living man” who only recognized “universal law and natural law.” He refused to acknowledge his legal name and objected to nearly every aspect of the proceedings, often interrupting with pseudo-legal arguments.
Royal also demanded to represent himself. After a thorough inquiry, the trial court determined that he was competent to waive his right to counsel. Despite his disruptive behavior and bizarre legal theories, the court found no evidence of mental incompetence. Royal demonstrated a clear understanding of the charges against him, the adversarial nature of the trial, and his rights. He presented handwritten motions, cross-examined witnesses, and made arguments in his defense, albeit poorly.
The jury convicted Royal of both charges. For the aggravated assault against Officer Rackley, who sustained hand injuries during the traffic stop, Royal received a 99-year sentence. He also received a 20-year sentence for evading arrest with a vehicle. The sentences were to be served concurrently.
Competency and the Sovereign Citizen Movement
A central issue during the trial was whether Royal’s sovereign citizen beliefs rendered him incompetent to stand trial or represent himself. The court, however, found that these beliefs—though disruptive and nonsensical—were not indicative of a mental defect. Instead, they reflected a deliberate defiance of legal authority. Courts across the country have recognized that sovereign citizen ideology often involves calculated resistance rather than a lack of understanding.
Royal’s ability to articulate arguments, however misguided, and his active participation in the trial underscored his competency. The appellate court affirmed these findings, noting that bizarre legal theories do not equate to mental incompetence.
The court noted this about sovereign citizens who have plagued the courtrooms across the country: “This old tune that is comprised of inaccurate case law quotes, self-serving readings and interpretations of the United States Constitution, and proffered definitions from outdated legal dictionaries has been summarily rejected by federal and state courts alike…With this issue now before us, we likewise conclude that simply espousing or promoting sovereign-citizen beliefs neither suggests nor indicates that one is incompetent to stand trial. A cursory examination of the movement’s foundational tenets reveals a clear, calculated purpose behind the obstructive, chaotic behavior of those that subscribe to it…Although their misinformed legal theories are rooted in an incomplete familiarity with isolated principles that are stripped of their intended meaning, they nevertheless grasp the nature of legal proceedings, and then knowingly defy it…Simply put, sovereign citizens attempt to play the fool with a hidden hand—they are defiant by design, which necessarily entails having a rational understanding of legal proceedings.”
To further support the idea that Royal was not incompetent, the court notes: “Appellant further asserts that “[i]t is clear from reading the dry record . . . that [he] suffers from mental health issues,” based on the following actions: (1) his inability to differentiate between the prosecutor and his standby counsel; (2) referring to the jurors as “witnesses”; (3) accusing the trial judge of “practicing law”; and (4) because he “lodged an objection based on ‘conspiracy.'” To the contrary, the record shows quite the opposite—throughout the trial, Appellant manifested a clear grasp and understanding of the allegations, the adversarial nature of the proceedings, and the ability to mount a defense to the charges.
Appellant, who is no stranger to the criminal justice system, brazenly informed the trial court: “I don’t have to follow the rules.” To further illustrate, amidst a contentious exchange during a pretrial hearing, Appellant candidly revealed his knowledge and experience of trial proceedings to the trial court:
Since you’re speaking about trial, I doubt it will be possible for somebody to produce a jury of my peers, because all jurors are selected from pools of registered voters. And when people register to vote their natural ability to talk in natural law is diminished and they become fiction, so they are definitely not my peers…While he may not have handled the stages of trial with the skill and finesse of a seasoned trial attorney, his “[l]ack of legal skill or mediocre legal strategy” is no indicia of incompetency. Nor does a defendant’s ill-informed legal strategy imply mental incompetence.”
The case of Roman Angelo Royal is a striking example of the challenges posed by sovereign citizen ideology in the legal system. His actions—from injuring an officer during his escape to the theft and destruction at the ranch—demonstrated a reckless disregard for the law and others’ safety. Yet, the courts upheld his constitutional rights, allowing him to represent himself despite the clear disadvantages of his choices.
This case serves as a reminder of the balance courts must strike: respecting individual rights while maintaining order and ensuring justice. Royal’s saga—marked by dramatic escapes and courtroom theatrics—ultimately reinforced the principle that even the most defiant defendants are held accountable under the law.
Case citation: State of Texas v. Roman Angelo Royal, No. 11-23-00147-CR, 2024 Tex. App. LEXIS 5300