COA 371092 PEOPLE OF MI V IRA JIBRAIL SINGLETON Opinion - Per Curiam - Unpublished 5/19/2026

If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to
revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports.
-1-
S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N
C O U R T O F A P P E A L S
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
UNPUBLISHED
May 19, 2026
10:38 AM
v No. 371092
Berrien Circuit Court
IRA JIBRAIL SINGLETON, LC No. 2023-000729-FH
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: WALLACE, P.J., and LETICA and FEENEY, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Defendant appeals as of right his jury trial convictions for two counts of kidnapping–
custodial interference, MCL 750.350a(1). The trial court sentenced defendant, as a third-offense
habitual offender, MCL 769.11, to serve three days in jail and an additional two years’ probation.
We affirm.
I. FACTS
Defendant and Adrienne Dudley had a dating relationship that began in 2015. Defendant
and Dudley never married but had two children together, IS and JS. For a short period, defendant,
Dudley, and the two children lived at Dudley’s home located in Harper Woods, Michigan.1 But
in January 2021, Dudley took the children and “fled” the Harper Woods home to “get away” from
defendant. Leaving everything she owned, Dudley and the children went to Benton Harbor,
Michigan.2 Defendant remained at the Harper Woods home.
When Dudley arrived in Berrien County, she sought state aid. Because of that request, the
Friend of the Court contacted Dudley and initiated a child support action against defendant in
Berrien County. In September 2021, the Berrien Circuit Court (“the trial court”) entered a default
judgment regarding child support and custody. The judgment granted Dudley “sole legal and
1 Harper Woods is a city located in Wayne County, Michigan.
2 Benton Harbor is a city located in Berrien County, Michigan.

-- 1 of 6 --

-2-
physical custody” of the children until further order of the court. Defendant denied that he had
any knowledge of this order.
Defendant subsequently obtained a December 2021 parenting-time order from Wayne
County Circuit Court, which did not mention the Berrien Circuit Court judgment, and instead
stated that: (1) a hearing was held in December 2021, and (2) defendant and Dudley “share joint
legal and joint physical custody of their two minor children” and exercise parenting time “on a
week on, week off basis until an arrangement can be made that is more acceptable to both parties
and the children.” Dudley claimed that she was unaware of the Wayne County hearing or order
until she contacted police later in this case.
Dudley’s testimony vacillated about defendant’s interactions with the children after the
September 2021 order was entered. At times, she stated that she did not let defendant see the
children in person; however, at other times, she testified that defendant would visit her and the
children at her home in Benton Harbor “for weeks at a time.”
On June 26, 2022, Dudley was hospitalized. She asked defendant to watch the children at
her home while she was in the hospital, and defendant agreed. But when Dudley retuned home on
June 28, 2022, the door was locked, and no one was inside. Later that day, after several
unsuccessful texts and calls, Dudley finally spoke to defendant on the phone. Defendant told
Dudley not to worry about the children’s whereabouts and that he was keeping them and getting
his parenting time.
Dudley filed a kidnapping report with Benton Township police. At all times, Dudley knew
that defendant was living with the children at her Harper Woods home. The parties’ testimony
over the course of the proceedings vacillated and varied regarding whether and how Dudley was
allowed to see the children during the subsequent months. But Dudley testified that she tried
multiple times to get assistance from the Harper Woods police to retrieve her children. According
to Dudley, the Harper Woods police told her: (1) that she did not have a legal right to enter the
Harper Woods home “because [she] was solely a landlord now because [she] left the home,” (2)
that defendant had “paperwork” from Wayne County, and (3) to “deal with the Friend of the Court,
which is what [she] did.” The Friend of the Court encouraged Dudley to “get an order for return
of the children,” so Dudley immediately began that process.
In August 2022, the trial court conducted a hearing and issued an ex parte order, mandating
that “Defendant shall immediately return the children to the care [and] custody of Ms. Dudley,
who has physical custody of them.” Likewise, in February 2023, the trial court conducted a
hearing and issued another order. The order specifically noted that defendant “was properly served
but failed to attend.” The order further stated that Dudley “was awarded sole legal and physical
custody of the parties’ minor children” in September 2021, and that “order remains in effect and
supersedes any subsequent orders issued by any other jurisdictions.” As with the other Berrien
County orders, defendant denied any knowledge that these orders existed before his arrest in this
case.
After some investigation, Dudley discovered where defendant had enrolled IS. Dudley
provided the default judgment to the school and, with the help of the Michigan State Police,

-- 2 of 6 --

-3-
coordinated a day to pick up IS in March 2023.3 On March 13, 2023, the Berrien County
Prosecutor’s Office charged defendant with two counts of kidnapping–custodial interference.
With the assistance of the Michigan State Police, JS returned to Dudley’s care in April 2023.
In August 2023, defendant pleaded not guilty and demanded a jury trial. During the
preliminary examination hearing, the trial court commented on the competing orders from Wayne
County and Berrien County, questioning the validity of the Wayne County order4 and noting that
Berrien County orders took precedence as that was “the court of prior and continuing
jurisdiction . . . .” At the outset of trial, the prosecution argued that the Wayne County order should
not be brought up during trial because it was irrelevant. Defense counsel responded, arguing that
the order was relevant to explain why the Harper Woods police would not assist with retrieving
the children. The trial court agreed with the prosecution, noting that the copy it received “was not
an official court copy.”
Kelly Milnickel with the Berrien County Friend of the Court testified and explained that
there was a proof of service for both parties concerning the September 2021 default judgment of
support. Milnickel stated that the first time she spoke to defendant on the phone, he was
“concerned about why he was ordered to pay child support,” so she “broke down the orders for
him and explained what custody was and what parenting time was.” She also testified that
defendant called her another time, and she “again reiterated that” Dudley was granted sole legal
and sole physical custody of both children.
Defendant testified in his own defense. He denied ever speaking to Milnickel. When asked
about the first time that Dudley requested return of the children, defendant responded as follows:
I don’t remember her saying give me the kids back. She said—she asked me when
they were returning home. I said at this point in time we’re going on vacation. I’m
going to take them so they can experience being kids, because they had been
through a lot at this point in time. I told her get her stuff together. When we come
back from vacation—you know, because I think [IS] started school that September,
and I assured her that [IS] would be home before then, plenty of time before then,
because she had to get ready for school.[5]
Defendant was convicted and sentenced, as stated earlier. Defendant now appeals.
After filing his claim of appeal, defendant moved in the trial court for a new trial or an
evidentiary hearing, arguing that he was denied his right to present a defense or, alternatively, that
3 Because JS was not school age, Dudley was unable to retrieve her that day.
4 Although questions were raised regarding the validity of the Wayne County order, we note that
the Wayne County register of actions denotes entry of the order.
5 As previously stated, defendant did not return IS before school started that year.

-- 3 of 6 --

-4-
he was denied the effective assistance of counsel. After holding a Ginther6 hearing, the trial court
denied defendant’s motion for a new trial.
II. EXCLUSION OF EVIDENCE—RIGHT TO PRESENT A DEFENSE
On appeal, defendant argues that the trial court abused its discretion and violated his
constitutional right to present a defense by excluding evidence related to the Wayne County
custody order. Specifically, defendant argues that the Wayne County order was admissible and
relevant to show that he lacked the specific intent required for his custodial-interference
convictions. We disagree.
A. PRESERVATION AND STANDARD OF REVIEW
Because this issue was raised, addressed, and decided by the lower court, it is preserved
for appellate review. See People v Metamora Water Serv, Inc, 276 Mich App 376, 382; 741 NW2d
61 (2007). “A trial court’s decision whether to admit or exclude evidence will be affirmed in the
absence of a clear abuse of discretion.” People v King, 297 Mich App 465, 472; 824 NW2d 258
(2012). “The trial court abuses its discretion when its decision is outside the range of principled
outcomes.” Id. “We review de novo the trial court’s rulings on preliminary questions of law
regarding the admissibility of evidence, such as the application of a statute or rule of evidence.”
Id. “A preserved trial error in admitting or excluding evidence is not grounds for reversal unless,
after an examination of the entire cause, it affirmatively appears that it is more probable than not
that the error was outcome determinative.” Id. “Preserved nonstructural trial error of
constitutional magnitude will not merit reversal if it is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id.
“Whether a defendant was denied his constitutional right to present a defense is a question of law
we review de novo.” Id.
B. ANALYSIS
“[A] criminal defendant has a state and federal constitutional right to present a defense.”
People v Unger, 278 Mich App 210, 250; 749 NW2d 272 (2008) (quotation marks and citation
omitted). “Few rights are more fundamental than that of an accused to present evidence in his or
her own defense.” Id. at 249. Nevertheless, “an accused’s right to present evidence in his defense
is not absolute.” Id. at 250. Defendant’s “must still comply with established rules of procedure
and evidence designed to assure both fairness and reliability in the ascertainment of guilt and
innocence.” People v Yost, 278 Mich App 341, 379; 749 NW2d 753 (2008) (quotation marks and
citation omitted). “Accordingly, the right to present a defense extends only to relevant and
admissible evidence.” People v Solloway, 316 Mich App 174, 198; 891 NW2d 255 (2016)
(quotation marks and citation omitted).
Evidence is relevant if “it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it
would be without the evidence,” and “the fact is of consequence in determining the action.” MRE
401. “Irrelevant evidence is not admissible.” MRE 402. A criminal defendant’s right to present
6 People v Ginther, 390 Mich 436; 212 NW2d 922 (1973).

-- 4 of 6 --

-5-
a defense is not “infringed by MRE 402, which simply bars the admission of irrelevant evidence.”
Unger, 278 Mich App at 250.
The custodial-kidnapping statute provides, in part, as follows:
An adoptive or natural parent of a child shall not take that child, or retain
that child for more than 24 hours, with the intent to detain or conceal the child from
any other parent or legal guardian of the child who has custody or parenting time
rights under a lawful court order at the time of the taking or retention, or from the
person or persons who have adopted the child, or from any other person having
lawful charge of the child at the time of the taking or retention.
[MCL 750.350a(1).]
Defendant argues that the Wayne County order was relevant to show that that he was
unaware of the Berrien County orders and that he conversely believed that the Wayne County
order controlled. Even if that were true, the admission of the order is irrelevant because: (1) when
defendant failed to return the children, there was a valid court order granting Dudley exclusive
parental rights to the children; and (2) defendant did not follow the parenting-time arrangement in
the Wayne County order.
The custodial-interference statute simply requires that defendant had the “intent to detain
or conceal” the children. MCL 750.350a(1). Custodial interference does not require “that a parent
be formally served with a custody order before he or she can be charged with parental kidnapping.”
People v McBride, 204 Mich App 678, 682; 516 NW2d 148 (1994). Instead, “[i]t requires only
that the party from whom the child is taken have custody or visitation rights pursuant to a lawful
court order at the time of the taking or retention.” Id. (quotation marks omitted). In this case,
Berrien County entered a valid default judgment in September 2021, granting Dudley sole legal
and physical custody of the children.7 Thereafter, defendant took the children at Dudley’s request,
but he failed to return them to her care for several months. Accordingly, when defendant took and
failed to return the children, there was a valid court order granting Dudley exclusive parental rights.
See id.
Moreover, even assuming that defendant was unaware of the Berrien County orders and
that he rightly believed that the Wayne County order applied, defendant made no effort to comply
with the Wayne County order either. The Wayne County order mandated that defendant and
Dudley exercise “week on, week off” parenting-time, yet there is nothing in the record to show
that defendant attempted to comply with that schedule. Indeed, Dudley testified that after
defendant took the children in June 2022, she did not see them again until July or August 2022,
7 Because it was the first parenting-time judgment entered, the Berrien County order controlled
regardless of defendant’s alleged belief in the validity of the Wayne County order. See
MCL 722.26(2) (“[T]he action shall be submitted to the circuit court of the county where the child
resides . . . .”); see also Harvey v Harvey, 470 Mich 186, 189; 680 NW2d 835 (2004) (“[T]he Child
Custody Act governs all child custody disputes and gives the circuit court continuing jurisdiction
over custody proceedings. MCL 722.26.”).

-- 5 of 6 --

-6-
and the children were not returned to her care until March and April 2023. Therefore, even if
defendant were operating under the improper assumption that the Wayne County order controlled,
defendant’s actions would still have been in violation of MCL 750.350a(1), and any error in
excluding the Wayne County order was harmless. See MCL 769.26; MCR 2.613(A); King, 297
Mich App at 472.
Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it precluded admission of the
Wayne County order. See King, 297 Mich App at 472. And because the exclusion of the evidence
was based on a valid, nonarbitrary rule of evidence, defendant’s claim that he was denied the right
to present a defense necessarily fails.8 See Unger, 278 Mich App at 250-251.
Affirmed.
/s/ Randy J. Wallace
/s/ Anica Letica
/s/ Kathleen A. Feeney
8 Defendant’s claim that he was denied the right to present a defense is also directly belied by the
fact that defendant testified in his own defense and denied that: (1) Dudley asked him to return the
children, (2) he was aware of the September 2021 default judgment of support, and (3) he spoke
to Friend of the Court.

-- 6 of 6 --