Preview:

STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS


PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v ARTHUR JAMES BRIDGES, JR., Defendant-Appellant.

UNPUBLISHED November 13, 2008

No. 277758 Saginaw Circuit Court LC No. 06-027887-FH

Before: Fitzgerald, P.J., and Bandstra and Schuette, JJ. PER CURIAM. Defendant appeals as of right his conviction of delivery of less than 50 grams of cocaine, MCL 333.7401(2)(a)(iv). Defendant was sentenced as a fourth habitual offender, MCL 769.12, to serve a prison term of 76 months to 25 years. We affirm. I. FACTS On August 1, 2006, Sergeant Gregory Potts of the Bay City Police Department engaged in a "buy/bust" investigation of defendant with the help of Saginaw's Police Department and a confidential informant. The confidential informant was given a recording device in order to record her telephone and face-to-face conversation with defendant. She made a call to defendant to set up a meeting. The confidential informant was searched and provided with marked $50 bills to use in the drug purchase. Potts drove the confidential informant to the meeting location designated by defendant. The confidential informant approached defendant and entered defendant's vehicle. Defendant told the confidential informant to throw the money on the floor and then gave her a package of plastic that she believed to contain cocaine; the contents of which were later confirmed to be cocaine. The confidential informant exited defendant's vehicle and returned to Potts's unmarked vehicle. Defendant began to exit the parking lot, at which time Potts notified other officers that the purchase had been completed. Multiple officers in police vests arrived on the scene and ordered defendant to stop. Defendant drove his vehicle around the officers and exited the parking lot. Officers pursued defendant in unmarked cars until marked police cars arrived in the area. Defendant was pulled over and arrested shortly thereafter. A scale and a cellular phone were seized from defendant's vehicle; the phone was identified as the phone the confidential informant called. The marked $50 bills were not found -1-


on defendant or along his traveled path. The pursuing officers did not witness defendant throw anything from his windows; however, while in pursuit, the officers had lost sight of defendant's vehicle for a short period of time. Defendant's trial began on March 13, 2007. Defense counsel raised numerous motions alleging error on defendant's behalf. Defendant repeatedly objected to the descriptions of those issues. The court instructed defendant to stop interrupting and making faces. Defendant then requested an interlocutory appeal, and the court once again instructed defendant to stop talking. Defendant stated that he wanted a "fair" trial, at which time the court warned if he interrupted one more time, defendant would be gagged. The court then denied all motions raised by defendant as either being frivolous or untimely and only for the purpose of delay. Defendant then requested his Sixth Amendment right to self-representation. The court initially denied defendant's request, but then proceeded with inquiry regarding defendant's knowledge of self-representation. Defendant ignored the court's questions and stated that he was confused. Defendant then asked the court to state its jurisdiction. The court removed the defendant and placed him in holding. Shortly thereafter, defendant returned to the courtroom to proceed with the court's questioning. Defendant objected to the adjournment of the proceeding and objected to the challenge of accuracy and validity of his habitual offender status. At this point, the court denied defendant's request for self-representation. The court felt that defendant did not make an unequivocal waiver and would likely disrupt the proceedings and make the administration of justice difficult, if not impossible to proceed in the case. Defendant objected to the court's denial, requesting to no longer be present in the court and left, telling the court that it was "biased, prejudiced and unfair." Defendant now appeals. II. REQUEST FOR SELF-REPRESENTATION Defendant first contends that the trial court abused its discretion in failing to grant his request to represent himself at trial. We disagree. A. Standard of Review We review a trial court's factual findings regarding a defendant's request for selfrepresentation for clear error, People v Williams, 470 Mich 634, 640; 683 NW2d 597 (2004), and the ultimate decision regarding a defendant's request for self-representation for an abuse of discretion, People v Hicks, 259 Mich App 518, 521; 675 NW2d 599 (2003). B. Analysis A criminal defendant's right to represent himself is explicitly guaranteed by both the Michigan Constitution and statute. Const 1963, art 1,

Download PEOPLE OF MI V ARTHUR JAMES BRIDGES JR.pdf

Michigan Law