Full Opinion

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION No. 128,857 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. SHAWN L. SPICER, Appellant. MEMORANDUM OPINION Appeal from Leavenworth District Court; CLINTON LEE, judge. Submitted without oral argument. Opinion filed November 6, 2026. Affirmed. Kristen B. Patty, of Wichita, for appellant. Kristafer R. Ailslieger, deputy solicitor general, and Kris W. Kobach, attorney general, for appellee. Before WARNER, C.J., MALONE and HILL, JJ. HILL, J.: The lesson to be learned in this appeal is that no matter what mythical kingdom you claim to be from, if you drink and drive in Kansas, you will be arrested and prosecuted. If convicted, you will be fined and given a jail sentence. Shawn L. Spicer, claiming to be a citizen of the Moorish Empire, learned this lesson when he was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol and four other traffic crimes. In this appeal, he claims that he is not subject to Kansas laws due to his foreign citizenship. He is wrong. 1 Early morning escapades on I-70 lead to an arrest. In the early morning hours of January 21, 2024, the police dispatcher received a report of an erratic driver on I-70 in Wyandotte County, Kansas. Kansas Highway Patrol Trooper Hamilton was dispatched and then caught up to the vehicle as they entered Leavenworth County, Kansas. Hamilton saw the vehicle drift across the lane marker to the left, then the vehicle drifted completely across one lane into the other and then back onto the left shoulder—inches from striking the concrete median barrier. When Hamilton tried to stop the vehicle, it nearly stopped in the middle of the traffic lane before slowly changing lanes and stopping on the right shoulder. As he followed the vehicle before it stopped, Hamilton observed that the vehicle had only one functioning brake light. Hamilton approached the passenger's side of the vehicle and talked with the driver, who was alone in the car. The driver told Trooper Hamilton that he did not have a driving license as he had canceled the license. The driver instead produced an "Allodial American" ID card, which identified the driver as Shawn Spicer Bey. Spicer claimed to be an Allodial American National and informed Hamilton that he had no valid state- issued ID card, driving license, or current proof of insurance for his vehicle. While speaking with Spicer, Hamilton smelled a strong odor of alcohol coming from Spicer's vehicle. Hamilton also observed that Spicer was slurring his words, his eyes were bloodshot and glassy, and his movements were uncoordinated. Based on his observations, Hamilton had Spicer submit to field sobriety testing. The tests yielded multiple indicators of impairment, and as a result, Hamilton requested that Spicer submit to a breath test. Accordingly, around an hour and half after the initial stop, Spicer submitted to a breath test which yielded a 0.116 blood alcohol content result. The State charged Spicer with six traffic infractions, along with driving under the influence of alcohol. Shortly thereafter, Spicer filed a writ of quo warranto, alleging that 2 he is a foreign national immune from prosecution, claiming a Moorish American citizenship. Spicer invoked his "treaty right to consular jurisdiction under Articles 20 and 21 of the Treaty of Peace and Friendship of 1836 between the United States of North America and the Moroccan Empire." Spicer claimed that the court lacked jurisdiction over him "by virtue of divine law, under the Zodiac Constitution, and upon the United States Republic Constitution of 1779, and upon the honor of my foremothers and forefathers". Therefore the charges against him must be dismissed. At a later hearing, Spicer testified to his genuine belief that he was neither a citizen of the United States nor Kansas. Rather, Spicer claimed citizenship to the Moorish Empire, and therefore not subject to the district court's jurisdiction. Spicer testified that he had "cancelled all contracts with the State of Kansas" when he became conscious of his Moorish citizenship in November 2022. Unmoved, the court ordered a trial. At the bench trial, the court received evidence and testimony from Trooper Hamilton. After considering the evidence and testimony, the trial court found Spicer guilty of driving under the influence of alcohol, in violation of K.S.A. 8-1567. The court also convicted Spicer of four traffic offenses: (1) no proof of insurance; (2) operating a motor vehicle without a valid driving license; (3) improper driving on a laned roadway; and, (4) improper stop lights or turn signal. For Spicer's DUI and failure to produce insurance convictions, the court imposed $1,050 in fines and sentenced him to time served. For the remaining convictions, the court imposed no fine or jail sentence. 3 Spicer appeals, claiming lack of jurisdiction. The law we must follow is well established. To have the legal authority to act, a district court must have "both subject matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction." State v. Barnes, 320 Kan. 147, 156, 563 P.3d 1255 (2025). "Subject matter jurisdiction is the power of the court to hear and decide a particular type of action." Barnes, 320 Kan. at 156. "[P]ersonal jurisdiction refers to [a court's] power to impose judgment on a particular person" and, in a criminal case, is obtained "based on physical presence." 320 Kan. at 156. We will consider subject matter jurisdiction first. Under K.S.A. 22-2601, a district court has "exclusive jurisdiction to try all cases of felony and other criminal cases arising under the statutes of the state of Kansas." And the legislature provided that district courts "shall have general original jurisdiction of all matters, both civil and criminal, unless otherwise provided by law." K.S.A. 20-301. The district court had subject matter jurisdiction here. Turning to the question of the court’s personal jurisdiction over Spicer, we conclude that his claims of foreign citizenship are immaterial. All must obey the law, citizen and non-citizen. A district court's authority over a defendant in criminal prosecutions is comprised of two parts: subject matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction. Neither part requires that the defendant be a citizen or a resident of the court's locale. As observed by our Supreme Court, 4 "whether [a defendant] is a citizen of Kansas or of the United States or of some other political entity does not affect the outcome of this case. The United States Constitution states that a criminal trial is to take place in the state in which the crime was committed. U.S. Const. amend. VI." State v. Verge, 316 Kan. 554, 556, 518 P.3d 1240 (2022). Thus, "Kansas courts have jurisdiction to try, convict, and sentence individuals who commit violations of Kansas criminal laws in the state of Kansas." Verge, 316 Kan. 554, Syl. ¶ 2. The district court had jurisdiction over Spicer. Spicer was convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol, a violation of K.S.A. 8-1567, and four traffic offenses; all charges occurred in Kansas. The district court thus had subject matter jurisdiction because it is a court of general jurisdiction and this was a criminal action. See K.S.A. 20-301; K.S.A. 22-2601. And venue was appropriate in Leavenworth County because Spicer committed his crimes in Leavenworth County, Kansas. See K.S.A. 22-2602. Spicer's claim of Moorish-American citizenship has no bearing on the jurisdiction of Kansas courts because his claimed citizenship does not give him immunity from disobeying the law. This record shows that, while under the influence of alcohol, Spicer violated Kansas law by driving his vehicle, and by committing four other traffic offenses on Kansas roadways. Affirmed. 5