PEOPLE OF MI V BARRY LARON DOOLITTLE
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
April 8, 2008
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 271739
Berrien Circuit Court
LC No. 05-406717-FH
BARRY LARON DOOLITTLE,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: Murphy, P.J., and Smolenski and Meter, JJ.
MURPHY, P.J. (concurring).
I concur with the majority in affirming defendant’s conviction and sentence; however, I
would analyze the self-representation issue differently.
It is evident from the transcript that defendant was acting in a disruptive manner. After
counsel had placed a stipulation on the record and indicated that there were no more outstanding
matters to address before bringing in the prospective jurors, the following colloquy took place:
Defendant: I’ve got something, Your Honor.
The Court: Now, Mr. Doolittle, let me start out with you right now, Sir.
Defendant: Okay.
The Court: I want to have a pleasant, as pleasant as it can be a couple of days
with you. So any outbursts, you speak thru [sic] your attorney, you don’t speak to
me directly. I’m going to speak to you directly once and one time only, any
outbursts at all, during this Trial, you’re going to go back and sit in the holding
cell and you’re going to watch it on the video, do you understand, Sir? I’m not
putting up with any nonsense from you. No outbursts whatsoever, you speak to
me thru [sic] your lawyer, you don’t speak to me directly. Other than this one
time, and one time only, am I clear?
After this discussion, defendant again blurted out a statement when the trial court was
addressing and speaking to defendant’s attorney. Subsequent discussions between the trial court
and defendant regarding defendant’s request to represent himself reflect that defendant was
-1-
acting in a very disrespectful and argumentative manner toward the court. This behavior was
followed by the court stating:
I’m going to deny your request to represent yourself. Based upon the fact
that this is an unique circumstance, I don’t believe that you[r] request to represent
yourself is genuine. I do believe that you intend to disrupt these court
proceedings. I further believe based upon the record we have established here
this morning, that’s – it is your intent, Mr. Doolittle, to harass, intimidate,
terrorize or threaten the alleged victim in this case, Barbra [sic] Brown thru [sic]
your request to represent yourself in this case. So you’re request is denied, Sir.
[Emphasis added.]
It is quite clear that the trial court was basing its decision on defendant’s disruptive
behavior in the courtroom that morning, and I conclude that the record adequately supports the
conclusion that defendant was acting disruptively. Before a defendant is entitled to selfrepresentation, “the trial court must be satisfied that the defendant will not disrupt, unduly
inconvenience, and burden the court or the administration of court business.” People v Williams,
470 Mich 634, 642; 683 NW2d 597 (2004). Accordingly, I would affirm on the basis of the
record and defendant’s disruptive behavior.
/s/ William B. Murphy
-2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.