Sufficiency of the evidence to support defendant’s conviction of forgery of a document involving real property; MCL 750.248b(1); People v. James; People v. Johnson-El; People v. Grable; The Certification of Abandoned Property for Accelerated Forfeiture Act (the Accelerated Forfeiture Act) (MCL 211.961 et seq.); Abandoned property; MCL 211.962; MCL 211.964; MCL 211.964(1); Local unit of government defined; MCL 211.962(f); MCL 211.963; Late endorsement of the prosecution’s witnesses; People v. Burwick; People v. Everett; MCL 767.40a; People v. Duenaz; Good cause; People v. Callon; People v. Herndon; Whether the addition of the witnesses made defendant alter his trial strategy; People v. Rode; Judgment of sentence (JOS)

The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support defendant’s conviction of forgery of a document involving real property. Also, it was not persuaded that the trial court abused its discretion by allowing the prosecution’s late endorsement of four witnesses. Thus, it affirmed his convictions, but remanded for the ministerial purpose of correcting a clerical error in his JOS. His convictions arose from a “scheme in which he persuaded individuals to pay him sums of money to pay delinquent property taxes on homes in Detroit, in exchange for which defendant promised to assist them in securing title to the homes, even though he did not have any property interest in the parcels.” He was also convicted of obtaining money of $1,000 or more but less than $20,000 by false pretenses and encumbering real property without lawful cause. He contended that witness-E’s affidavit was a document expressing an interest in real property, and thus, “the prosecution did not establish that he was guilty of forgery of a document involving real property.” The court disagreed. The underlying purpose of the E affidavit “was to notify other holders of interests in the Monte Vista property that the person signing the affidavit, [E], has a legal interest in” the property. The foundation of her “purported interest in the property, as set forth in the affidavit that defendant drafted, was the reliance on MCL 211.962, cited in the affidavit, and an accompanying statute that is not expressly identified in the affidavit, MCL 211.963.” The record showed that the property was “vacant, and there was also some indication in the record that the property had delinquent property taxes at one point during the relevant time period.” However, both witnesses-F and G denied that their client received prior notice from E or defendant, aside from the recording of the E affidavit, as to E’s alleged “legal interest in the property. More importantly, the entire foundation of [E’s] purported legal interest in” the property as set forth in the “affidavit, to the extent that the affidavit reflected that a quiet-title action would be pursued on that basis, was that the property constituted ‘abandoned property’ as set forth in MCL 211.962. However, as the relevant statutes make clear, only a local unit of government, after meeting strict statutory requirements, may certify a property as abandoned.” Thus, the entire basis for the E affidavit claiming a legal interest in the “property was false, fraudulent, and not supported by Michigan law.” The evidence supported the jury’s finding that it was a false instrument. This case was similar to Johnson-El. Affirmed.