People v. Lyles

Decision Date27 February 2019
Docket NumberNo. 1-15-3220, Consolidated,No. 1-15-3218,No. 1-15-3219,No. 1-15-3217,1-15-3217,1-15-3218,1-15-3219,1-15-3220, Consolidated
Citation2019 IL App (1st) 153217 -U
PartiesTHE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. TONY LYLES, Defendant-Appellant.
CourtUnited States Appellate Court of Illinois

2019 IL App (1st) 153217-U

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
TONY LYLES, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 1-15-3217
No. 1-15-3218
No. 1-15-3219
No. 1-15-3220, Consolidated

APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT THIRD DIVISION

February 27, 2019


NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County.

No. 13 CR 6121

Honorable Maura Slattery Boyle, Judge Presiding.

JUSTICE HOWSE delivered the judgment of the court.
Justices Ellis and Cobbs concurred in the judgment.

ORDER

¶ 1 Held: The judgment of the circuit court of Cook County is affirmed; the trial court properly denied defendant's motion to represent himself where defendant stated that he did not understand the charges against him and insisted over a two-year period that because he was of Moorish ancestry, the trial court lacked jurisdiction of his case due to a treaty between Morocco and the United States; later disavowment of that position by defendant's counsel was insufficient to overcome the earlier position; the mittimus is ordered to be corrected to reflect the proper charges for which defendant was convicted and sentenced.

¶ 2 The State charged defendant, Tony Lyles, in separate indictments with four counts of delivery of a controlled substance based on defendant's sale of narcotics to an undercover police officer on four different dates. The circuit court of Cook Count consolidated the cases for trial.

Page 2

Before trial defendant made multiple requests to proceed pro se and repeatedly asserted the trial court lacked jurisdiction over him. The court ordered a behavioral clinical examination to determine defendant's fitness for trial. The examination found defendant was fit to stand trial. After subsequent exchanges with defendant the court denied defendant's request to represent himself at trial. The trial court also required defendant to sit in a separate room where he could monitor the trial due to defendant's frequent disruptions. Following a jury trial, defendant was found guilty of delivery of less than five grams of benzylpiperazine (BZP); delivery of less than 1 gram of heroin and less than 5 grams of BZP; delivery of less than 1 gram of heroin and less than 5 grams of BZP; and possession with intent to deliver of alprazolam, cocaine, heroin, clonazepam, hydrocodone, and BZP. Defendant appeals, arguing the trial court erroneously denied him his right to self-representation, and the mittimus should be corrected to reflect the proper charges for which he was convicted. For the following reasons, we affirm the trial court's judgment and order the mittimus corrected to reflect the proper charges and sentences.

¶ 3 BACKGROUND

¶ 4 The trial court conducted defendant's arraignment on April 10, 2013. As it pertains to this appeal, the State charged defendant in five separate cases with (1) possession of a controlled substance with the intent to deliver and possession of cannabis with intent to deliver on school grounds on February 8, 2013; (2) delivery of a controlled substance on February 12, 2013; (3) delivery of a controlled substance on February 22, 2013; and (4) delivery of a controlled substance on February 28, 2013. The court asked defendant if he had an attorney. Defendant responded he did not, and the court appointed the public defender. The public defender accepted the appointment and waived formal reading of the charges. The trial court explained defendant's

Page 3

trial rights should the trial proceed in absentia. Defendant stated he understood them. Defendant informed the court he wanted his attorney to file a motion to suppress. Defendant's attorney explained she could not file the motion until she received discovery. The trial court continued the case. The case was continued on subsequent dates for defendant's attorney to meet with defendant and to complete discovery. When the parties appeared in court on July 2, 2013, defendant's attorney and the State agreed on another continuance, which the trial court granted. Defendant then began to address the court. The court interrupted defendant asking if defendant was "going to tell [the court] that due to [defendant's] Moorish ancestry that [defendant is] somehow under the jurisdiction of the United States Constitution." Defendant responded he was, and the court informed defendant that "the treaty of peace and friendship" on which defendant was attempting to rely "only applies to commercial litigations and transactions. It does not apply in cases like this." Defendant continued with his argument that the United States is a corporation but the court interrupted stating: "Mr. Lyles, stop right now, or I am going to hold you in contempt. You are under the jurisdiction of Cook County. It is not a corporation. There is no transaction. *** You do not fall within the purview of [the] treaty [of] friendship;" whereupon proceedings concluded.

¶ 5 Immediately after the trial court called defendant's case on the next court date, defendant began to speak, stating "I'd like to state my status." The court stopped him, stated "[w]e've already been through ***," and ordered defendant taken back into detention and held him in direct contempt of court. After defendant was escorted out his attorney requested and was granted a continuance. When the parties appeared in court on September 19, 2013, defendant's attorney informed the court that defendant had informed his attorney that defendant intended to

Page 4

proceed pro se. The court addressed defendant, and defendant stated "I want to go pro se. I wanted to go personal persona for juries." The court informed defendant that before it would allow him to go pro se the court would have defendant evaluated to make sure defendant appreciated "everything here." The court ordered a clinical examination (BCX) but defendant continued to address the court, stating he wanted "to go personal persona in my own right, natural right as a human being" and "to preserve my right under prejudice under UCC1-308." The court told defendant he was getting "ahead of the game" and that he had to wait for his evaluation. The court stated it had to make sure he appreciated "everything that's going on here," but if he wanted to represent himself he could. Defendant continued speaking, stating he wanted to reserve his right not to be compelled "to perform under contract or commercial agreement that I did not enter knowingly, voluntarily, or intentionally." The court responded:

"Here is the thing. Your attempts or anybody's attempts of proceeding under the treaty of peace and friendship is null and void. It does not apply in these cases. You are not a [Moor] citizen. You are under the jurisdiction of this Court. You preserved your right. You put it on the record. You do not think that you fall within the jurisdiction of the United States and/or the State of Illinois. Heard you. It's preserved. You have got it preserved."

Right now BCX."

The court set a return dated and concluded, "So we will see you on the 23rd after your evaluation, and then we will move forward from that; and if you want to represent yourself, Mr. Lyles, you can have that opportunity."

Page 5

¶ 6 On October 23, 2013, the parties were back in court and the trial court stated the evaluation determined that defendant is fit. Defendant's attorney and the State stipulated to the report that defendant was fit to stand trial. Defendant's attorney informed the trial court she had spoken to defendant after the evaluation report was received and that defendant indicated to his attorney that it was still defendant's desire to represent himself. The trial court confirmed with defendant that he desired to represent himself, then the court proceeded to question defendant. The court asked defendant about his education. The court informed defendant the court would hold defendant to the same standard as an attorney and it would not sign any orders granting defendant additional access to the law library in the jail. The court informed defendant he would have to conduct his research within the rules at the jail and that the court would not appoint standby counsel. The court instructed the public defender to return discovery to the State so that it could be redacted. The court stated "[t]hen we'll have a date, State, which you can get your discovery together so you can tender that to Mr. Lyles."

¶ 7 At that point, defendant stated "I don't really understand the case, though, you know what I'm saying?" Defendant stated, "I don't understand the charges." The court responded, "If you don't understand the charges, the [the public defender] is going to represent you." Defendant replied "It's not the letter of the law [that I don't understand.] It's the nature of the law I don't understand, Your Honor. The Sixth Amendment give me the right to request that the Judge—the Court explain the nature of the case." The court stated, "I did that [at the] arraignment." Defendant stated, "But I didn't understand," and the court informed him that the public defender would assist him with his understanding. Defendant insisted he could represent himself and "it's not the letter of the law, it's the nature of the law that I don't understand."

Page 6

After additional back-and-forth between the trial court and defendant consisting of defendant stating he did not want the public defender to represent him, he could represent himself, and it was only the "nature of the law" he did not understand, and the trial court explaining it explained the nature of the law at the arraignment and that defendant could not represent himself if he did not understand, the trial court stated:

"Supreme Court Rule 402, if an individual does not understand the charges, then the Court can make a determination they don't represent you. [Sic] So based on your statement here, clearly indicated on the record and your
...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT