People of Michigan v. Pierrez Ricardo Lassetti IV
332680
| Mich. Ct. App. | Nov 21, 2017Background
- March 11, 2015: a masked man in black entered a Comerica Bank, gestured with something wrapped in black cloth, and obtained money from three tellers; two packets contained GPS tracking devices and bait money.
- GPS signals led police to stop a lone-occupant black Dodge Charger; officers found black clothing, gloves, a blackened shampoo/conditioner bottle, and a bag of money with the bank’s bait money and GPS trackers on the passenger seat; defendant was the vehicle’s sole occupant and was arrested.
- Defendant was charged with three counts of armed robbery (MCL 750.529) and one count of bank robbery (MCL 750.531); a jury convicted on all counts and the trial court sentenced him as a fourth habitual offender to concurrent 20–40 year terms.
- Pretrial, defendant repeatedly sought substitute counsel (arguing ineffective assistance and breakdown in communication) and ultimately elected to represent himself at trial with appointed counsel serving as advisory counsel.
- At trial defendant cross-examined witnesses and presented a defense that unknown third parties (two men he had encountered) committed the robbery; post-conviction motions (new trial, suppression, confrontation, judicial bias) were denied and defendant appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency — identity and elements of armed & bank robbery | Evidence (tellers’ testimony about masked robber waving an object, GPS tracking of stolen money, recovery of clothing/trackers in Charger) proves identity and elements beyond a reasonable doubt | Identification uncertain; no shot of a weapon; object could be only a hand; challenged inferences from circumstantial evidence | Convictions affirmed: circumstantial evidence, witnesses’ fear/gestures, and recovered GPS/bait money supported identity, armed-robbery (feigned weapon suffices), and bank-robbery elements |
| Substitute counsel | Court-appointed counsel provided adequate representation; defendant was not entitled to substitute counsel absent good cause | Requested new counsel due to alleged ineffective assistance, poor communication, and conflict; court failed to investigate sufficiently | Denial of substitution not an abuse of discretion: record showed counsel’s repeated efforts, explanations, and defendant’s willful breakdown of relationship; no good cause established |
| Confrontation Clause (admission of Comerica security guard’s hearsay) | Any Confrontation error was harmless given strong independent evidence (GPS, recovered items, teller IDs); guard’s statement was not instrumental to apprehension | Testimony relaying what a bystander told guard violated Confrontation rights and prejudiced defendant | Even if erroneous admission occurred, it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because other strong, corroborating evidence would have produced the same verdict |
| Due process — shackling / courtroom visibility | Any viewing of defendant being placed in a belly chain did not prejudice defendant; defendant waived relief when he said he believed jurors did not see it | Shackling observed by jurors deprived defendant of fair trial due to prejudice from visible restraints | Waived; alternatively no showing of actual and substantial prejudice, so no reversible error |
Key Cases Cited
- People v Jolly, 442 Mich 458 (feigned weapon doctrine: hidden object/finger can satisfy "armed" element when accompanied by threatening conduct)
- People v Buie, 298 Mich App 50 (substitution of appointed counsel requires good cause; abuse of discretion standard)
- People v Ginther, 390 Mich 436 (record requirement to show counsel inattention when substitution denied)
- Michigan v Bryant, 562 US 344 (Confrontation Clause incorporated/analysis principles)
- People v Shepherd, 472 Mich 343 (harmless-error test for constitutional errors)
- People v Simmons, 316 Mich App 322 (traffic-stop reasonableness and standards for suppression review)