People of Michigan v. Bernard Antoine Hardrick
333898
| Mich. Ct. App. | Dec 19, 2017Background
- Defendant recorded numerous quitclaim deeds in 2015 purporting to transfer interests in allegedly abandoned Detroit properties and attempted to sell them to purchasers by showing the recorded deeds. He used business names Hardrick Investment Group, LLC and Paper Trail Inc., and worked with Latonia Fletcher. Fletcher later pled guilty to related offenses.
- Several victims paid down payments, signed land contracts or leases with options, and in some cases moved in and improved properties before learning defendant had no recorded ownership interest.
- Police investigation began after defendant’s parole officer reported finding deeds on his kitchen table; defendant was arrested and charged with racketeering (conducting a criminal enterprise), multiple counts of forgery and uttering/publishing deeds affecting real property, and false pretenses.
- The two consolidated cases resulted in convictions on racketeering, multiple forgery and uttering counts, and false pretenses; defendant was sentenced as a fourth-offense habitual offender to 25–45 years on each conviction.
- The Court of Appeals reversed and dismissed the forgery and uttering/publishing convictions, found sufficient evidence for racketeering and false pretenses but ordered a new trial on those counts, and held defendant’s pretrial denial of self-representation required reversal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for racketeering (conducting a criminal enterprise) | Evidence showed an enterprise (LLC/corp), association with Fletcher, and a pattern of racketeering (false pretenses/forgery) for financial gain | Companies were mere alter egos of defendant; no enterprise distinct from him; insufficient association with others | Held: Sufficient evidence of an enterprise and association with Fletcher; conviction supported as to racketeering (but retrial ordered on other grounds) |
| Sufficiency of evidence for false pretenses | Victims relied on defendant’s representation of ownership supported by recorded deeds; banks remained true owners, so statements were false and made knowingly to defraud | Defendant claimed possessory/financial interests and belief he owned the properties, so no knowing false pretenses | Held: Sufficient evidence to support false pretenses convictions |
| Sufficiency of evidence for forgery and uttering/publishing deeds | Deeds prepared and recorded by defendant were false instruments and were presented as valid to victims | Quitclaim deeds merely conveyed whatever interest defendant claimed; quitclaim by definition does not guarantee title, so deeds were not ‘‘falsely made’’ or false instruments | Held: Insufficient evidence for forgery and uttering/publishing; those charges dismissed |
| Denial of pretrial request to self-represent (Waiver of counsel) | Court properly managed proceedings; later granted mid-trial self-representation | Trial court denied initial request without required Anderson/MCR 6.005 inquiry, preventing self-representation at voir dire and early trial stages | Held: Trial court erred in denying pretrial request; structural error requiring reversal and remand for new trial |
Key Cases Cited
- People v Robinson, 475 Mich. 1 (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence)
- People v Kloosterman, 296 Mich. App. 636 (defendant acting alone cannot be both person and enterprise)
- People v Susalla, 392 Mich. 387 (forgery requires instrument to purport to be what it is not)
- People v Anderson, 398 Mich. 361 (requirements for waiver of counsel and assessing knowing/intelligent self-representation)
- Indiana v. Edwards, 554 U.S. 164 (defendant’s technical legal knowledge not determinative of capacity to self-represent)
- McKaskle v. Wiggins, 465 U.S. 168 (core rights encompassed by self-representation)