IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT JACKSON

January 6, 2015 Session

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. PAUL WILLIAMS, 

a/k/a PAUL WILLIAMS EL

 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Carroll County

No. 13CR158 C. Creed McGinley, Judge

No. W2014-00231-CCA-R3-CD - Filed April 7, 2015

The defendant, Paul Williams, a/k/a Paul Williams El, was convicted by a Carroll County 

jury of driving with a cancelled, suspended, or revoked license with a prior offense, a 

Class A misdemeanor, and failure to show registration, a Class C misdemeanor. He was 

sentenced by the trial court to eleven months, twenty-nine days for the driving conviction 

and thirty days for the registration conviction. In this pro se appeal, the defendant 

appears to challenge the sufficiency of the convicting evidence and the trial court‟s 

jurisdiction over his person. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial 

court. 

Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgments of the Circuit Court Affirmed

ALAN E. GLENN, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which CAMILLE R. MCMULLEN

and ROGER A. PAGE, JJ., joined.

Paul Williams, a/k/a Paul Williams El, Huntingdon, Tennessee, Pro Se.

Herbert H. Slatery III, Attorney General and Reporter; Jeffrey D. Zentner, Assistant 

Attorney General; Matthew F. Stowe, District Attorney General; and R. Adam Jowers, 

Assistant District Attorney General, for the Appellee, State of Tennessee.

OPINION

FACTS

On May 13, 2013, a Tennessee Highway Patrol officer pulled the defendant over 

for driving a vehicle that did not have a valid license plate. The defendant‟s wife and 

three unbuckled young children were passengers in the vehicle. The defendant gave his 
2

name to the trooper but was unable to provide a valid driver‟s license, registration, or 

proof of insurance. After running the defendant‟s name through his computer database, 

the trooper learned that the defendant‟s driver‟s license was suspended. The defendant 

refused to sign the citations prepared by the trooper and was consequently arrested and 

taken to jail. He was subsequently indicted by the Carroll County Grand Jury with 

driving on a cancelled, suspended, or revoked license with prior convictions for driving 

with his license suspended, failure to show registration, failure to show proof of 

insurance, and failure to properly use child restraints. The insurance and child restraint 

counts of the indictment were later nolle prosequied, however. 

The defendant opted to represent himself at trial. The State‟s only witness was 

Trooper Mark Jackson of the Tennessee Highway Patrol, who testified that on May 13, 

2013, he was approaching the intersection of Highway 22 and the north side of the bypass 

in Huntingdon when he saw a gray Buick in front of him that did not have a typical 

registration plate. Instead, he saw some numbers on the plate, unfamiliar language, and 

the words “Sovereign Citizen.” After running the tag number through his computer and 

receiving the information that the tag was “not on file,” he pulled the vehicle over. 

Trooper Jackson testified that he approached the driver of the Buick, advised him 

why he had pulled him over, and asked for his driver‟s license, vehicle registration, and 

proof of insurance. The driver, whom he later identified as the defendant, said his name 

was “Paul Williams El,” handed him some unintelligible paperwork, and told him that he 

did not need a driver‟s license. Trooper Jackson testified that a woman, later identified as 

the defendant‟s wife, was in the backseat with three very young children, none of whom 

were wearing seatbelts. He said he returned to his patrol vehicle and called a fellow 

officer, Trooper Steele, who told him that he was familiar with the defendant. At his 

request, Trooper Steele responded to the scene, spoke with the defendant, checked his 

computer, and then provided Trooper Jackson with the defendant‟s date of birth and 

driver‟s license number. Trooper Jackson then ran that number through his computer and 

learned that the defendant‟s driver‟s license was suspended. 

Trooper Jackson testified that he wrote the defendant citations for the registration 

violation, the child restraint violations, and the suspended driver‟s license violation, but 

the defendant refused to sign them. He, therefore, arrested the defendant and took him to 

jail. Trooper Jackson identified a certified copy of the defendant‟s driving record from 

the Tennessee Department of Safety, which was admitted as a trial exhibit. The record 

reflects that the defendant‟s driver‟s license was suspended on July 20, 2006. On cross-
3

examination, Trooper Jackson acknowledged that the defendant‟s license plate read 

“United States of America sovereign citizen” and did not state that the vehicle to which it 

was attached was “a motor vehicle” or “a passenger motor vehicle.” He further 

acknowledged that the defendant‟s driver‟s license was expired. 

The defendant‟s sole witness was Kathy Pinkston, who is, apparently, the Carroll 

County Deputy Court Clerk who signed the affidavit of complaint against the defendant. 

Pinkston acknowledged that the defendant did not sign the complaint and that she had no 

knowledge of “any document reflecting [the defendant‟s] authorized signature to appear 

as the Defendant[.]” 

ANALYSIS

As best as we can understand, the issues the defendant raises on appeal are 

whether the court had in personam jurisdiction over his case and whether the evidence 

was sufficient to sustain his convictions. With respect to the first issue, the defendant 

appears to argue that the court lacked jurisdiction to try him on the charges because he 

never signed the affidavit of complaint or consented to the charges and his driver‟s 

license, which the trooper used to identify him, was expired and invalid. With respect to 

the second issue, the defendant appears to rely on Tennessee Code Annotated section 55-

10-312, entitled “Registration prima facie evidence of ownership and that operation was 

for owner‟s benefit” to argue that he cannot be charged with operating a motor vehicle on 

a suspended license because his vehicle was unregistered. According to his reasoning, 

the State, because of his unregistered vehicle, lacked prima facie evidence of his 

ownership of the vehicle and that he was operating it within the scope of his employment. 

The defendant, apparently, believes that he has a “right” to operate a vehicle for personal 

travel and is required to have a driver‟s license and vehicle registration only when 

exercising the “privilege” of operating a vehicle for commerce. 

Almost identical arguments have been previously rejected by this court. The 

defendant in State v. Booher, 978 S.W.2d 953 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1997), was stopped by 

a police officer for driving a vehicle that, instead of a Tennessee license plate, displayed a 

poster board stating “R.K. Booher, Tennessee Citizen, Owner, Humphreys County 

Resident.” Id. at 955. The defendant, who had no Tennessee driver‟s license, refused to 

sign the citations prepared by the officer and was later convicted in a bench trial of 

driving without a license and driving without vehicle registration. Id. at 954. On appeal, 
4

he argued, among other things, that the trial court lacked in personam jurisdiction over 

his case because he never consented to the charges or granted the court authority to try 

him. Id. at 957. We rejected that argument, stating:

Consent to laws is not a prerequisite to their enforceability against 

individuals. No person in the State of Tennessee may exempt himself or 

herself from any law simply by declaring that he or she does not consent to 

it applying to them. To do so would result in sheer anarchy. We must all 

abide by the valid laws, even the ones with which we do not agree, or 

justice will be served against us for the violation. The appellant‟s presence 

at his trial in Humphreys County is sufficient to establish jurisdiction over 

his person. 

Id. (citations omitted). 

We also rejected the defendant‟s argument that he could not be guilty of the 

offenses because “a vehicle only becomes a „motor vehicle‟ when it is registered,” and he 

was not required to register his vehicle because he was not engaged in commerce. Id. at 

955-56; see also State v. Goodson, 77 S.W.3d 240, 242 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2001)

(applying rationale of Booher to reject defendant‟s claim that he had a constitutional right 

to drive a vehicle on a public roadway without a license). 

We, similarly, reject the defendant‟s arguments in the case at bar. In so doing, we 

note that the code section cited by the defendant has no relevance to the defendant‟s 

offenses. The defendant was convicted of a violation of Tennessee Code Annotated 

section 55-4-108(a), which makes it a Class C misdemeanor not to carry and display on 

demand a vehicle‟s certificate of registration, and of a violation of Tennessee Code 

Annotated section 55-50-504, which makes it a Class A misdemeanor to drive a vehicle 

on a public road or other premises frequented by the public when the person‟s license has 

been cancelled, suspended or revoked and the person has a prior conviction for the same 

offense. We, therefore, conclude that the defendant‟s issues are without merit. 
5

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing authorities and reasoning, we affirm the judgments of the 

trial court. 

_________________________________ 

ALAN E. GLENN, JUDGE