Sovereign Citizen Interrupts Her Own Sentencing — Judge Has Her Escorted Out!

[00:00:00] Speaker 1: okay let's go to the black share matter shana marie blackshare date and time set for sentencing [00:00:07] Speaker 2: and this is in cr22209 good afternoon your honor kill the black man on behalf of the state [00:00:30] Speaker 1: no no come on out this is the date and time set for sentencing the records show the presence of the defendant our advisory council is here and mr wagner are you appearing before the state yes this is the time and time set for sentencing um excuse me how you doing no i'm talking now okay is your true name and your complete name shana marie blackshire the court like jurisdiction [00:00:54] Shana Marie Blackshire: over subject matter what is your date of birth the court like jurisdiction over subject matter [00:00:59] Speaker 1: the court will accept the well the court uh based upon a verdict a verdict by the guilty [00:01:05] Shana Marie Blackshire: of guilty in this case the court like jurisdiction as a result of a jury trial the court finds the [00:01:13] Speaker 1: defendant is guilty in cr22202 excuse me 22209 count one unlawful flight from a law enforcement vehicle a class 5 felony this is in violation of ars 28624c ar8 [00:01:28] Shana Marie Blackshire: you cannot force me that y'all cannot force me to get sentenced yes i can ars 28 622.01 a1 28 624c [00:01:40] Speaker 1: 28 3001 28 3304 28 3305 28 33 15 13 7 0 1 7 0 2 and 8 0 1 the date of the offense was on about february 5 28th 20 22 22 22. the the offense is non-dangerous and i'm finding it non i'm finding it non-repetitive for [00:02:08] Shana Marie Blackshire: reasons i'll state on the record count three count three count three that she is guilty of count three [00:02:15] Speaker 1: criminal damage a class one misdemeanor it's in violation of ars 13 1602 a1 13 1601 13 and she's also guilty of count four burglary in the second degree this is a class three felony in violation of ars 13 1507a 13 1501 701 and 702 and 13801 the date of the offense was on her about february 5th 2022 um excuse me advisor why are they allowed to boost that thing 20 22. the offenses are non-dangerous and non-repetitive the reason i'm finding them is the microphone off louie by the way [00:03:26] Shana Marie Blackshire: turn it off no that's on now turn it off all right so defenses are non-dangerous [00:03:36] Speaker 1: i'm finding that i'm not i'm finding yours you're your own lawyer he's not your lawyer he's nothing can do it i'm finding that they're non-repetitive because i believe that um these cases all these all of the charges in this case and in cr2022 208 which is the prior case for which the defendant was convicted these cases all could have been all those charges could have been brought together and tried together but they weren't i'm not criticizing the decision it is what it is it happened for independent reasons but i'm finding that they are not repetitive all right so um mr wagner do you want to be heard on behalf of the state i do your honor and if the victims wish to be heard uh we have victims here in the courtroom a victim i think i'm [00:04:27] Speaker 2: not sure no your honor she's outlasted the victim she's outlasted the victim do you wish to be heard the victims have had to return back to their homes in oregon and they're not they're not here which is a detriment to them they had as much a right to be here as she did for sentencing but she is her own attorney and she's drugged us out long enough the victims aren't [00:04:52] Shana Marie Blackshire: here to give a statement today right so y'all didn't do that y'all cannot force me y'all can't [00:04:58] Speaker 2: miss blackshire i i believe that these are repetitive and that she should be subject to the category two repetitive offender statutes she committed these crimes she was taken into custody for the first crime the 208 your honor she was taken into custody for 208 she made bond and was released on bond and then she committed these separate offenses i'm gonna just while on felony [00:05:23] Speaker 1: pretrial release let me just i just want to make clear to save your words i do intend to uh to impose the enhancement of two years for the crimes being committed while on release so i just want to all right thank you there's any confusion about that i wanted to straighten it out i apologize for interrupting you but i thought it was something to clarify up front this is illegal um i i believe that [00:05:46] Speaker 2: it's more than warranted she was she was sentenced those were separate cases she was released from those cases and she committed the new case not only did she commit these crimes separately from the [00:05:59] Shana Marie Blackshire: other crimes um these crimes significantly especially the burglary i believe substantially affected the [00:06:09] Speaker 2: victim um the victim um the victim the owner of the property um at morning car ranch um yes she was burglarized before um no real property was taken from there as you heard you you sat through both trails but in this case and this burglary here count count four your honor um the defendant confronted the victim at her home and has substantially affected the way the victim feels about her safety and security at the home which i i think is very important your honor to acknowledge that i'm getting what's that i'm [00:06:57] Speaker 1: talking to the i'm talking to you why are you taking her up you're not okay oh you're bringing the chair okay that's fine i apologize mr that's fine your honor i was getting [00:07:09] Speaker 2: signals from that's fine um i also would point out to the court that the unlawful flight from law [00:07:16] Speaker 1: enforcement all right stand by i'm going to apparently they're going to restrain her and bring her back [00:07:33] Speaker 2: thank you all right all right defendant is back you may continue mr weiner thank you your honor i would also point out to the court that count one the unlawful flight from law enforcement and count five the resisting arrest counts are not in any way connected with the prior felon of the 208 case um they're separate victims there these are definitely separate incidents the state the state would argue that as well for count for the burglary your honor [00:08:26] Shana Marie Blackshire: what's the statutory reference to the two-year enhancement i can't remember that it is um i'm [00:08:41] Speaker 2: sorry your honor it is 708 d and i don't know that i made that entirely clear but it just whatever the sentence the court prescribes each sentence gets a two-year enhancement is that is that ars 13 177 yes i'm [00:08:56] Speaker 1: sorry ars 13 708 but not but not as to the misdemeanor obviously not as the misdemeanor i concur with the [00:09:03] Speaker 2: misdemeanor um assessment that probation had that it's just time served in the county jail that she's already fulfilled more than the requirement for that um i i agree that the presumptive terms are warranted in in the other cases as well your honor um i would point out that um the jury by them well during the aggravation phase the jury found four aggravators um they found four aggravators we have no mitigators here that i can see um even with all of that i would still ask for the presumptive terms as a category two repetitive offender with the enhancements for the 13 708 d i think that these charges probably would be warranted to run concurrent with each other but i do feel that they should run consecutive to the defendant's prior case um she caused more harm and more emotional stress to the victim the owner of the property and then we have separate um separate victims as to the resisting arrest charge and the fleeing from law enforcement charge your honor i don't have anything more to add than that and there's no victims presence there's some representatives some neighbors some people from the morningstar ranch that are are still living in the area um they're present here today just to watch i suppose very well thank you very much all [00:10:30] Speaker 1: right the court imposes uh sentence as follows uh as to count one unlawful flight a class five felony the court as i said finds the offense to be non-repetitive non-dangerous the court imposes the presumptive term in the of 1.5 years in the arizona department of corrections the court imposes an additional two years sentencing enhancement because this offense was committed while the defendant was on pre-trial release and that's pursuant to ars 13708 d so the total the total sentence as to count one class five felony is 3.5 years as to count two this is the misdemeanor criminal damage the court imposes a sentence of time served as to count four again the court finds this to be non-dangerous and non-repetitive this is burglary in the second degree class three felony the court imposes the presumptive term of three and a half years the court also imposes the sentencing enhancement pursuant to 13708 d of two years so the uh the total offense level excuse me the total sentence for count four is 5.5 years as to count five resisting arrest it's a class six felony non-dangerous non-repetitive the court imposes the presumptive sentence of one year the court further imposes the sentencing enhancement as required by law under ars 13708 d for a total for two years for a total of three years as to count five um the court the court further designates that the sentence imposed on counts one and five are to run concurrent with each other uh that is the um unlawful flight and the resisting arrest the sentences in codes counts one and five are to run concurrent with each other the sentence imposes on counts one and five are to run consecutive are to run consecutive to the sentence imposed on uh count four which was five and a half years as to burglary in the second degree so the sentence imposed on counts one and five is to run consecutive to count four um the court imposes uh the sentence imposed on count four in this case which is burglary in the second degree of five and a half years is to run consecutive to the sentence that was imposed in case number cr22208 right so the sentence imposed has to count four in this particular case is to run consecutive the sentence imposed in case number cr22208 um that's because this defendant was released in the prior case 22208 when it was a justice court case she was released um when she posted bond on july 7th 2021 she failed to appear and a warrant was issued for your arrest on october on october 20th 2021 the events in this particular case are alleged to have occurred i believe on february 5th 2022 so the events that happened at the morningstar ranch that were the subject of 22208 um are alleged to occurred on on the dates uh those were alleged to have occurred back on june 12th 2021 so the prior case the burglary alleged to have occurred on june 12 2021 the fraudulent schemes in 22208 was alleged to have occurred on or about july 6 she was found guilty of that of the by the jury so she was charged with that case released went out and committed uh basically new offenses relating to the same properties for those reasons the court runs the sentence on count four consecutive to the sentence imposed in kind court number or case number cr22208 you got all that i think all right um any bonds uh are posted are not exonerated um they will be um subject of a justice court forfeiture action um or to forfeiture action in this court is whatever the case may be so the bonds are not exonerated but any warrants are quashed following the prison sentence the defendant is to serve a termurn for community supervision of one day for every seven days of the sentence imposed did you wish to it well i'm not going to ask you whether you wish to address the court you've clearly indicated you're not capable of doing that and following the rules of the court you have the right to appeal the judgment of the court if you wish to appeal you must file a written notice of your intent to appeal and you must do that within 15 days of today's date otherwise you will lose that right miss blackshare do you wish the court to appoint an attorney to represent you on the appeal no he's he will not be representing you on the appeal do you wish to have an attorney appointed to represent you on the appeal if you cannot afford to pay one the court will pay the cost of an attorney to represent you on appeal that will include the cost of the lawyer's legal fees and legal costs you will not have to pay anything do you wish to have an attorney appointed to represent you on the appeal no they're the appeals are specialized actions and they're very court of appeals is is very sticky with their rules they're very strict and uh it's a real specialty with someone who knows how to write good appeals i met with you before when you were here before and we met in chamber not in chambers but in the uh holding cell area it's all on the record what i'm referring to and i advised you that it really is in your best interest i believe to have a lawyer represent you on appeal and you indicated at that time that you don't want a lawyer to represent you on appeal i'd really encourage you to do it i think it's in your best interest but it's your choice okay um your excuse your manager of the custody of the sheriff to be delivered to the arizona [00:16:31] Shana Marie Blackshire: department of corrections to fulfill a sentence yeah you can take them your excuse thank you good luck [00:16:43] Speaker 1: all right um i'm not having the defendant step forward to sign for notification of her rights um and to sign the judgment in this particular case she's consistently throughout all the proceedings in the justice court and in this court as to whenever required to do so or asked to do so refuse to sign anything so that would be uh that would be fruitless to ask her to do that but the record reflected i've advised her right to appeal the right to have an attorney represent her on appeal and um i think that's all we're going to do and i don't see any point in having her trying to sign these documents that's just not going to happen i don't i think just be disruptive to the court proceedings [00:17:19] Speaker 4: okay anything else this courtroom sentencing quickly turned tense as the judge attempted to move forward with the case but the defendant repeatedly interrupted the proceedings by questioning the court's authority and refusing to follow basic courtroom protocol despite multiple interruptions the judge remained focused on the legal process carefully reviewing each conviction including unlawful flight from law enforcement burglary resisting arrest and criminal damage the prosecution argued that the defendant committed these offenses while already out on bond in a previous case leading to additional sentencing enhancements under arizona law as the hearing continued the defendant became increasingly disruptive forcing courtroom deputies to step in so the sentencing could proceed without further delays even then the judge calmly explained the sentence outlining which prison terms would run concurrently and which would run consecutively resulting in a lengthy prison sentence before ending the hearing the judge informed the defendant of her right to appeal and strongly encouraged her to accept a court-appointed attorney explaining that appeals require specialized legal knowledge however the defendant showed little interest in cooperating the hearing serves as a reminder that courtroom procedures are governed by legal rules and refusing to participate or repeatedly interrupting the process does not prevent the court from carrying out its responsibilities