While all parties agreed that Charles James Crabtree had acted bizarrely throughout his drunken-driving case, Colorado’s second-highest court determined it was not mental illness, but rather Crabtree’s belief in the “sovereign citizen” movement that motivated his aberrant behavior.

The state’s Court of Appeals consequently declined to overturn Crabtree’s conviction for driving under the influence, even though Crabtree had argued on appeal a Boulder County judge wrongly allowed him to represent himself at trial. 

“The totality of the circumstances as revealed in the record here makes it clear that Mr. Crabtree simply did not have a rational or factual understanding of the proceedings against him, or indeed, a grip on reality,” Crabtree’s lawyer, Mallika L. Magner, wrote to the appellate court.

But a three-judge panel last month determined Crabtree’s unusual statements in the courtroom were aligned with the anti-government sovereign citizen movement and were not an indication he failed to grasp the court proceedings.

“Crabtree himself acknowledges in his opening brief that he adheres to the movement. And, though apparently nonsensical, many of the statements he cites as evidence of his lack of understanding appear to be merely expressions of that belief system,” wrote Judge Terry Fox in the July 14 opinion.

The panel did, however, return the case to the trial court with instructions to sentence Crabtree for misdemeanor DUI instead of a felony, or else to hold a new trial. The Colorado Attorney General’s Office has since asked the state Supreme Court to review that part of the appellate panel’s decision.

Police arrested Crabtree in June 2017 on suspicion of driving under the influence. Although he received a court-appointed attorney, Crabtree began filing various unusual motions, such as a “Lawful Notification Letter Of Acceptance of Oath” and an “Affidavit of Truth Copyright, Copy-Claim and Trademark.”

His in-court statements were equally unintelligible, as he once told the judge, “I authorize you as trustee, state judiciary to set off and discharge this matter using my private exemption.” When asked to identify himself at trial, he stated simply: “Postmaster full colon Charles hyphen James full colon Crabtree. I have my claim of the live life.”

Crabtree underwent two competency evaluations. One psychologist believed there were symptoms of mental illness, but that Crabtree demonstrated an adequate ability to make rational decisions. The other psychologist found no evidence of a major mental illness, but added Crabtree’s ramblings “appear to be related to the Sovereign Citizen movement rather than any delusional belief system.”

According to a paper from the University of North Carolina School of Government, sovereign citizens believe the governmental structure is illegitimate and use a quasilegal language to assert their imagined rights. Sovereign citizens can separate themselves from “federal citizens” by using unconventional punctuation and word choice, filing frivolous legal documents, and otherwise maintaining the laws do not apply to them. 

The FBI has gone so far as to label sovereign citizens a “threat” and extremist ideology.

The judges assigned to Crabtree’s case attempted to understand him, but their success was limited.

“I think the proper question is what language you are speaking in, because I have no idea what you are saying,” indicated then-District Court Judge Andrew R. Macdonald.

Crabtree eventually moved to terminate his attorney. Because the right to counsel is guaranteed in the Colorado and U.S. constitutions, judges have to ensure defendants are giving up their right voluntarily and with an understanding of the consequences. In June 2018, District Court Judge Bruce Langer attempted to question Crabtree about his desire to represent himself.

“Criminal law is complicated. Do you understand that an attorney trained in this field would be helpful in representing you?” Langer asked.

“I understand positive law. I understand natural law. I understand common law. I understand trust law. I understand commercial law,” Crabtree responded.

Eventually, Langer was satisfied Crabtree had waived his right to an attorney. Although Crabtree continued to speak nonsensically at trial — to the point where one juror observed police may have mistaken Crabtree’s speech patterns for intoxication — he was ultimately convicted of misdemeanor DUI. The judge elevated his conviction to a felony after determining Crabtree had at least three previous drunken-driving convictions.

On appeal, Crabtree argued he had not validly waived his constitutional right to an attorney, and that his “repeated rambling statements” established he was actually incompetent.

The Court of Appeals panel noted Crabtree was, in fact, occasionally able to advance legitimate legal points in his own defense at trial. His conduct overall demonstrated he understood the proceedings and had an appropriate level of knowledge.

Therefore, “we are satisfied that his ‘gibberish’ was not necessarily indicative of an inability to understand the proceedings, but merely the expressions of an adherent of the ‘sovereign citizen’ movement,” Fox wrote for the panel.

The appellate court did reverse Crabtree’s felony DUI conviction based on the Supreme Court’s 2020 ruling in Linnebur v. People, which held a jury, and not a trial judge, has to determine the existence of the previous convictions necessary to impose a felony sentence. The Court of Appeals panel explained that, even though Linnebur was not decided until after Crabtree’s trial, the law had changed by the time of his appeal and he should benefit from that change in interpretation.

Earlier this month, the government filed a petition to the Supreme Court asking the justices to review whether the appellate panel was correct in retroactively applying Linnebur to Crabtree’s trial.

The case is People v. Crabtree.