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UNPUBLISHED

November 21, 2019

v No. 344845

Wayne Circuit Court

ANTHONY WILLIAM MARTIN, LC No. 17-009263-01-FH

Defendant-Appellant.

Before: CAMERON, P.J., and CAVANAGH and SHAPIRO, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Defendant, Anthony William Martin, was convicted by a jury of use of false pretenses 

with intent to defraud involving $1,000 or more but less than $20,000 (“false pretenses”), MCL 

750.218(4)(a), and he was sentenced to two years’ probation.1 Martin appeals his conviction, 

and we affirm. 

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

This case arises out of an act of vandalism that occurred at New Cadillac Square 

Apartments (“Cadillac Square”) in February 2017 and Martin’s subsequent reliance on that act of 

vandalism as a justification for prematurely terminating his lease with Cadillac Square.

Beginning in September 2016, Martin rented an apartment in Cadillac Square for a term 

of one year. Martin’s apartment was located on the twelfth floor of the building, and the

monthly rent was $700. Martin’s lease with Cadillac Square included a clause that stated that, 

upon an early termination of the lease, Martin would be responsible for rent throughout the 

remainder of the lease term, or until the apartment was re-let to a new tenant. 

 1 The jury acquitted Martin of malicious destruction of a building involving $200 or more but 

less than $1,000, MCL 750.380(4)(a). 
-2-

On the morning of February 15, 2017, a maintenance worker at Cadillac Square noticed 

freshly spray-painted graffiti on the hallway walls and in the twelfth floor trash room which read, 

in part, “KKK, die n*****s or go home, Trump.” The maintenance worker noted that he saw 

Martin on the twelfth floor around that time. The maintenance worker later discovered Ku Klux 

Klan recruitment flyers taped to the walls throughout Cadillac Square. Spray-painted graffiti

was also discovered on the walls of at least six other floors in the building and in the stairwells. 

There was no security camera footage of the vandalism, and there were no eye witnesses who

observed the vandalism occur. Law enforcement was contacted.

On the same day that the vandalism occurred, Martin submitted a written 30-day notice to 

a leasing agent, stating that he wanted to prematurely terminate his lease because he no longer 

felt safe living in Cadillac Square due to the racist nature of the graffiti and the flyers. The 

director of operations at Cadillac Square approved Martin’s request to prematurely terminate the 

lease with no penalty based on Martin’s claim that he felt intimidated. Martin’s apartment was 

re-let to a new tenant approximately four months later. The lost rent for the four months that the 

apartment was vacant totaled $2,800. 

Through its investigation, law enforcement determined that Martin’s DNA was present 

on a piece of tape that was used to hang one of the recruitment flyers on the twenty-first floor. It 

was also determined that Martin’s fingerprints were present on that same flyer. However, the 

spray paint cans used in the vandalism were never located. Martin’s personal computer and 

printer were tested, and law enforcement determined that the flyers did not originate from either 

one. 

Martin was charged with false pretenses and malicious destruction of a building 

involving $200 or more but less than $1,000, MCL 750.380(4)(a) (“malicious destruction”).

2

 At 

trial, Martin’s former girlfriend testified that Martin admitted to her that he had spray-painted

graffiti in areas of Cadillac Square and hung up the flyers after he lost his job because he did not 

want an eviction on his record. Martin’s former girlfriend further testified that Martin told her 

that he wore gloves; however, he reported that he had to remove his gloves in order to hang some 

of the flyers. She also testified that Martin told her that he printed the flyers using a public 

computer and a public printer and that he had disposed of the spray paint cans “far away” from 

Cadillac Square. 

Martin testified in his own defense at trial. He testified that, on February 15, 2017, he 

was visiting another resident on the twenty-first floor of Cadillac Square. According to Martin, 

while he was on the twenty-first floor, he removed a KKK recruitment flyer from the wall and 

dropped it on the floor. Martin denied that he told his former girlfriend that he vandalized 

Cadillac Square.

The jury convicted Martin of false pretenses but acquitted Martin of malicious 

destruction of a building. Martin was sentenced to a term of probation on the false pretenses 

conviction, and this appeal followed.

 2 The director of operations estimated that it cost $636.66 to paint over the spray-painted graffiti.
-3-

II. ANALYSIS

A. SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE

Martin argues on appeal that there was insufficient evidence presented at trial to establish 

beyond a reasonable doubt that Martin used a false pretense to intentionally defraud Cadillac 

Square in an amount exceeding $1,000. We disagree. 

We review de novo a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence. People v Bailey, 310 

Mich App 703, 713; 873 NW2d 855 (2015). When ascertaining whether sufficient evidence was 

presented at trial to support a conviction, this Court must view the evidence in a light most 

favorable to the prosecution and determine whether a rational trier of fact could find that the 

essential elements of the crime were proven beyond a reasonable doubt. People v Reese, 491 

Mich 127, 139; 815 NW2d 85 (2012). “All conflicts in the evidence must be resolved in favor of 

the prosecution and [this court] will not interfere with the jury’s determinations regarding the 

weight of the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses.” People v Bosca, 310 Mich App 1, 

16; 871 NW2d 307 (2015) (quotation marks and citation omitted). “Circumstantial evidence and 

reasonable inferences arising from that evidence can constitute satisfactory proof of the elements 

of a crime.” Id. (quotation marks and citation omitted). “[B]ecause it can be difficult to prove a 

defendant’s state of mind on issues such as knowledge and intent, minimal circumstantial 

evidence will suffice to establish the defendant’s state of mind, which can be inferred from all 

the evidence presented.” Id. (quotation marks and citation omitted). 

In order to prove the elements of false pretenses under MCL 750.218(4)(a), the 

prosecution must prove the following:

(1) the defendant must have used a pretense or made a false statement 

relating to either past or then existing facts and circumstances, (2) at the time the 

pretense was used the defendant must have known it to be false, (3) at the time the 

pretense was used the defendant must have intended to defraud someone, (4) the 

accuser must have relied on the false pretense made by the defendant, (5) because 

of this reliance that person must have suffered the loss of some money or other 

valuable thing, and (6) the property obtained by the defendant must have had a 

fair market value of [$1,000 or more but less than $20,000]. [People v Lueth, 253 

Mich App 670, 680-681; 660 NW2d 322 (2002).] 

A “false pretense” is defined as “a false or fraudulent representation, writing, 

communication, statement, or message, communicated by any means to another person, that the 

maker of the representation, writing, communication, statement, or message knows is false or 

fraudulent.” MCL 750.218(11).

We conclude that there was sufficient evidence presented that Martin used a false 

pretense or made a false statement relating to either past or existing facts and circumstances. At 

trial, Martin’s 30-day notice to vacate his apartment was read into evidence. In the 30-day 

notice, Martin wrote that he no longer felt safe in his own home and that he did not wish to live 

in an apartment complex where he felt that his life was in danger. The prosecution presented 

evidence that this writing was false by calling expert and lay witnesses to testify as to Martin’s
-4-

involvement in the vandalism and the distribution of the flyers. In doing so, the prosecution 

presented evidence that Martin was present in Cadillac Square at the time the vandalism 

occurred, that Martin’s fingerprints were found on a flyer accompanying the vandalism, that 

Martin’s DNA was found on the tape used to hang a flyer, and that Martin had admitted to his 

former girlfriend that he vandalized Cadillac Square. This evidence supports that Martin could 

not have believed that his life was in danger at the time he submitted the 30-day notice and that

he used a false pretense by making this representation. Therefore, taking this evidence in the 

light most favorable to the prosecution, the evidence was sufficient to establish that Martin used 

a false pretense. 

With respect to whether the prosecution presented sufficient evidence that Martin made a 

false writing with knowledge of its falsity and with the intent to defraud another, “[m]inimal 

circumstantial evidence will suffice to establish the defendant’s state of mind, which can be 

inferred from all the evidence presented.” Bosca, 310 Mich App at 16 (quotation marks and 

citation omitted). At trial, the prosecution presented evidence that Martin intended to use the 

vandalism as a justification for prematurely terminating his lease with Cadillac Square. Martin’s

former girlfriend testified that Martin admitted to vandalizing Cadillac Square and to hanging the 

flyers because he had lost his job and wanted to avoid eviction. Martin refuted this testimony at 

trial and testified that he never confessed to his former girlfriend that he committed the charged 

crimes. Nonetheless, we resolve all conflicts in the evidence in favor of the prosecution, and this 

Court will not interfere with the jury’s determinations regarding the weight of the evidence and 

the credibility of the witnesses. Id. Thus, we defer to the jury’s determination that Martin’s 

former girlfriend’s testimony was credible, and we conclude that the prosecution presented 

sufficient evidence to support that Martin made a false writing with knowledge of its falsity and 

with the intent to defraud.

Furthermore, the prosecution presented sufficient evidence that another person relied on 

Martin’s false pretense. The director of operations for Cadillac Square testified that he approved 

Martin’s request to prematurely terminate the lease with no penalty because Martin claimed to be 

intimidated by the vandalism. Evidence was also presented that it was rare for Cadillac Square 

management to approve early lease termination requests without imposing a penalty. Taking this 

evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, the evidence was sufficient to establish 

that another person relied on Martin’s false pretense. 

The prosecution also presented sufficient evidence that, by relying on the false pretense, 

Cadillac Square’s losses exceeded $1,000. At trial, the prosecution presented evidence that 

Martin’s monthly rent was $700. Evidence was also presented that the director of operations for 

Cadillac Square allowed Martin to prematurely terminate his lease as a result of Martin’s 

representations that he was afraid to remain in the complex. Martin moved out in February 2017, 

and his apartment was not re-let until July 2017. Cadillac Square lost $2,800 worth of rent

during that time, which is an amount in excess of the $1,000 statutory threshold. 

In sum, taken in the light most favorable to the prosecution, the evidence presented at 

trial was sufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that Martin used a false pretense to 

intentionally defraud Cadillac Square. 
-5-

B. INCONSISTENT VERDICTS

Martin argues in a cursory manner that because the jury acquitted him of malicious 

destruction of a building, the jury could not find him guilty of false pretenses. To the extent that 

Martin is attempting to argue that the verdicts are inconsistent, he cites no authority in support of 

the argument. People v Hanna, 223 Mich App 466, 470; 567 NW2d 12 (1997). In any event, 

the two verdicts are not inconsistent because the jury could have found that Martin was guilty of 

false pretenses but not malicious destruction of a building. 

Affirmed.

/s/ Thomas C. Cameron 

/s/ Mark J. Cavanagh 

/s/ Douglas B. Shapiro