People v. Haynes, 350125
| Docket Number | 350125 |
| Decision Date | 12 August 2021 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gary Edward HAYNES, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
Dana Nessel, Attorney General, Fadwa A. Hammoud, Solicitor General, and Elizabeth Lippitt, Assistant Attorney General, for the people.
Ann M. Prater, Attorney & Counselor at Law, PLLC (by Ann M. Prater) for defendant.
Gary E. Haynes in propria persona.
Before: Stephens, P.J., and Beckering and O'Brien, JJ.
Defendant appeals as of right his jury-trial convictions of knowingly conducting or participating in the affairs of an enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity (racketeering), MCL 750.159i(1) ; obtaining or using a vulnerable adult's money or property through fraud, deceit, misrepresentation, coercion, or unjust enrichment (exploiting a vulnerable adult) when the value of the money or property equaled or exceeded $100,000, MCL 750.174a(1) and (7)(a) ; eight counts of exploiting a vulnerable adult when the value of the money or property had a value of at least $1,000, but less than $20,000, MCL 750.174a(1) and (4)(a) ; and four counts of failing or refusing to make a tax return or payment, making a false or fraudulent tax return or payment, or making a false statement in a tax return or payment with the intent to defraud or evade the tax (tax fraud), MCL 205.27(1)(a) and (2). The trial court sentenced defendant to serve 90 months to 20 years in prison for each of his convictions of racketeering and exploiting a vulnerable adult involving $100,000 or more, and to serve 30 months to 5 years in prison each for his remaining convictions. For the reasons explained in this opinion, we affirm.
Ardis Liddle was 97 years of age at the time of trial. During the period relevant to the crimes at issue (roughly 2007 through 2016), she lived alone but had numerous people come over to help her with various tasks—she had a nurse to help with her medication, and friends and relatives to help with running errands, going to appointments, and doing household chores like laundry and cleaning. At the time of trial, Liddle needed a walker to get around because she had bad knees, she could not go up and down stairs, she had arthritis
in her hands, she had a pacemaker, and she had poor vision and trouble hearing. Liddle's doctor testified about her mobility issues and stated that she had a history of falling and suffering injuries—she had a closed-head injury from a fall in 2006, she once fell and fractured her nose
, another time she fell and fractured her orbital bone, and still another time she fell and broke her spine.
Liddle said that she met defendant at a "symposium" that he held for elderly people. Defendant believed that this event took place in 2007. Liddle testified that defendant conducted the meeting in the name of a company, but she could not recall the company's name. She remembered that defendant discussed how one should handle money and "things like that." After the meeting, Liddle approached defendant and spoke to him. She asked him for help paying bills "because everyone was paying them on-line" and she was not familiar with how to use a computer. Defendant agreed to help her, and he began coming to her home to pay her bills on the computer. Liddle did not supervise defendant and did not know how he paid her bills, but she had given him a password for her bank account. The only password he was supposed to have was for her account with Chase Bank. Before defendant started helping her with her bills, Liddle received paper bank statements by mail, but that did not last long after defendant began helping her.
Liddle testified that defendant would also sometimes help her with things around the house, such as changing a lightbulb and fixing a screen door. Other people that would come over to help Liddle sometimes saw defendant helping her.
At one point after defendant began helping her with her bills, Liddle was sent to a nursing home to recover from an injury because the hospital "didn't want [her] to stay alone at home." Defendant visited Liddle at the nursing home and told her that the nursing home "would take [her] money." Defendant also told her that he could put her money "in a safe place" so that the nursing home could not take it. According to Liddle, defendant said that he would put her money into an annuity. Liddle told defendant how upset she was about being in a nursing home and how she wanted to leave, and defendant eventually showed up with a pickup truck and moved her out.
Liddle characterized her relationship with defendant at the relevant time as friends. She explained that she even went to his daughter's play and met his wife and children.
That friendship deteriorated in 2016 when Liddle discovered problems with her finances. Ryan Rimedio, who in 2016 was a manager for a Chase Bank branch, testified that Liddle came into his branch in September 2016 and seemed confused, rattled, and frustrated. She told him that she could not get access to her money—specifically an annuity. Rimedio asked Liddle to get her documents together and bring them into the branch. She came back a few weeks later with her documents, and he reviewed them.
Rimedio was able to obtain a copy of an endorsed check from Liddle's annuity company. The check was a "huge red flag" for him because it was endorsed directly to a business. He explained that such checks are usually deposited by the client into his or her own account and then the client would write a separate check to the investment company. Liddle also gave him a copy of an investment statement from Future By Design—one of defendant's businesses. Rimedio opined that the statement looked homemade. Liddle also gave Rimedio a business card with defendant's name on it, and Rimedio thought the card looked homemade too. While Liddle sat in the office with him, Rimedio called defendant and explained that Liddle was looking for her money, and defendant responded that he needed a few days to get the money. According to Rimedio, the money never came, but Rimedio did not call the police department about this case.
Donald Stenberg, Liddle's nephew, testified that he traveled the nation in a motor home and would stop and visit Liddle once or twice a year. At one such visit in September 2016, Liddle told Stenberg that she was concerned about her money, so he scheduled an appointment with defendant to discuss the matter. Defendant agreed to come by Liddle's home, and they had a meeting on September 29, 2016. At the meeting, defendant told Stenberg that he had so many clients that he could not state where he had invested Liddle's money. Stenberg warned defendant that if defendant did not get the information to Stenberg by the next day, then Stenberg would take Liddle to the police department to file a report. According to Stenberg, defendant called the next day and told Stenberg that he had invested about $117,000 of Liddle's money in a house-flipping business. He said that he could get Liddle $38,000 right now, but the remainder would take six to eight weeks because the business had to sell houses. According to Stenberg, he told defendant that this was unacceptable and then took Liddle to the police department to file a report.
Detective Sergeant Bryan Rypstra investigated Liddle's report. He spoke with defendant, and defendant told him that he met Liddle at a seminar that he had held. Defendant also told Detective Rypstra that Liddle lent him the money, which was evidenced by a note, and that he had invested the money into a house-flipping and rental-unit business. According to the detective, defendant said that he had already spoken to Liddle and had informed her that he would pay back the $142,000 that she had lent him. Detective Rypstra felt the matter was civil, not criminal, and closed the report.
The matter eventually made its way to Special Agent Kevin Hiller with the Child, Elder, and Family Financial Crimes Unit of the Attorney General's office, who began investigating defendant in June 2017 after the Attorney General's office received a complaint from the Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs. Special Agent Hiller met with Liddle at her home in June 2017, and met with various relatives, friends, and doctors of Liddle. As part of his investigation, Special Agent Hiller also requested all documents relating to various businesses associated with defendant.
Richard Boyer, Jr., worked as a financial specialist for the same department as Special Agent Hiller, and at trial he was admitted as an expert on bank recordkeeping. Boyer reviewed bank records held by defendant and his various businesses. Boyer testified about an account for Senior Planning Resource—one of defendant's businesses—that listed defendant as a signatory. A check from Liddle for $20,000 was deposited into that account on October 28, 2011. There were also two $5,000 checks from Liddle's account deposited into the Senior Planning Resource account on December 31, 2011. A check for Liddle from National Western Life Insurance Company in the amount of $117,490.42 was deposited into the Senior Planning Resource account on May 24, 2012. There was also a check associated with Liddle's annuity from Aviva for $107,735.10 that was deposited into the account for Senior Planning Resource. Before that deposit, the account had a balance of $3.98.
The prosecution produced records for each of these transactions and showed them to Liddle. Liddle could not recall writing the $20,000 check to Senior Planning Resource, and could not think of any reason that she would write such a check. She only believed that she wrote the check because her name appeared on it. For the two $5,000 checks, Liddle similarly testified that she did not recall writing or signing the checks, and had no idea why she would write two $5,000 checks to Senior Planning Resource. When the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Henriques
... ... whether defense counsel provided constitutionally ineffective ... representation is reviewed de novo. People v Haynes , ... 338 Mich.App. 392, 429; 980 N.W.2d 66 (2021) ... "To ... establish a claim of ineffective assistance, a ... ...