(per curiam). Because the participating Justices were equally divided, the decision below, State v. Pendergraft, 238 N.C. App. 516 (Dec. 31, 2014), was left undisturbed and without precedential value. In the decision below the court of appeals had held, over a dissent, that an indictment alleging obtaining property by false pretenses was not fatally defective. After the defendant filed false documents purporting to give him a property interest in a home, he was found to be occupying the premises and arrested. The court of appeals rejected the defendant’s argument that the indictment was deficient because it failed to allege that he made a false representation. The indictment alleged that the false pretense consisted of the following: “The defendant moved into the house … with the intent to fraudulently convert the property to his own, when in fact the defendant knew that his actions to convert the property to his own were fraudulent.” Acknowledging that the indictment did not explicitly charge the defendant with having made any particular false representation, the court of appeals found that it “sufficiently apprise[d] the defendant about the nature of the false representation that he allegedly made,” namely that he falsely represented that he owned the property as part of an attempt to fraudulently obtain ownership or possession of it. The court of appeals also rejected the defendant’s argument that the indictment was defective in that it failed to allege the existence of a causal connection between any false representation by him and the attempt to obtain property, finding the charging language sufficient to imply causation.

In this Wake County case, defendant appealed his convictions for six counts of obtaining property by false pretenses and six counts of felony obstruction of justice, arguing error in denying his motions to dismiss the charges. The Court of Appeals agreed, reversing the denial of the motion to dismiss the obtaining property by false pretenses charges, and vacating the convictions for obstruction of justice. 

Defendant was elected Granville County Sheriff in 2010, and between the years of 2013 and 2019, defendant reported that he had completed voluntary in-service training and firearm qualification classes. However, a 2019 investigation determined that defendant’s signatures on training class rosters were falsified. At trial, defendant admitted he did not complete the required trainings and submitted false records, testifying “he submitted the false records for ‘a personal reason’ and that he ‘wanted to get credit for it.’” Slip Op. at 3. 

The Court of Appeals first considered the obtaining property by false pretenses convictions, noting defendant’s argument that he did not submit the false records in an attempt to obtain a thing of value from another, an essential element of the charge. Instead, defendant argued “that he did not obtain anything because of his misrepresentation but only maintained possession of a certification obtained prior.” Id. at 5. The court considered whether renewal of his certification represented “obtaining property” for purposes of the applicable statute, concluding “that renewing a previously acquired law enforcement certification does not constitute obtaining property.” Id. at 6. Because defendant did not attempt to obtain property, the trial court erred by denying his motion to dismiss, and the court reversed.

Moving to the obstruction of justice charges, the court explained that it did not reach the sufficiency of the evidence issue for these charges because the indictments were facially invalid. The court looked back to State v. Coffey, 898 S.E.2d 359, 364, disc. review denied 901 S.E.2d 796 (2024), where the defendant in that case certified the current defendant’s falsified attendance and firearms records. Considering the indictment, the court held that “[i]t does not allege that [defendant’s] wrongful acts were done to subvert a potential investigation or legal proceeding . . . [t]he indictment therefore fails entirely to charge Defendant with a criminal offense.” Slip Op. at 11. Because the indictment failed to charge defendant with a criminal offense, the trial court lacked jurisdiction, and the court vacated the convictions. 

Over a dissent, the court held that an obtaining property by false pretenses indictment was not defective where it alleged that the defendant obtained “a quantity of U.S currency” from the defendant. The court found that G.S. 15-149 (allegations regarding larceny of money) supported its holding. 

Indictments charging obtaining property by false pretenses were not defective. The charges arose out of the defendant’s acts of approaching two individuals (Ms. Hoenig and Ms. Harward), falsely telling them their roofs needed repair, taking payment for the work and then performing shoddy work or not completing the job. At trial, three other witnesses testified to similar incidents. On appeal, the defendant argued that the indictments failed to “intelligibly articulate” his misrepresentations. The court disagreed:

The indictments clearly state that defendant, on separate occasions, obtained property (money) from Ms. Hoenig and Ms. Harward by convincing each victim to believe that their roofs needed extensive repairs when in fact their roofs were not in need of repair at all. In each indictment, the State gave the name of the victim, the monetary sum defendant took from each victim, and the false representation used by defendant to obtain the money: by defendant “approaching [Ms. Hoenig] and claiming that her roof needed repair, and then overcharging [Ms. Hoenig] for either work that did not need to be done, or damage that was caused by the defendant[.]” As to Ms. Harward, the false representation used by defendant to obtain the money was “by . . . claiming that her shed roof needed repair, [with defendant knowing] at the time [that he] intended to use substandard materials and construction to overcharge [Ms. Harward].” Each indictment charging defendant with obtaining property by false pretenses was facially valid, as each properly gave notice to defendant of all of the elements comprising the charge, including the element defendant primarily challenges: the alleged misrepresentation (i.e., that defendant sought to defraud his victims of money by claiming their roofs needed repair when in fact no repairs were needed, and that defendant initiated these repairs but either failed to complete them or used substandard materials in performing whatever work was done).