This opinion will be unpublished and

may not be cited except as provided by

Minn. Stat. ß 480A.08, subd. 3 (2002).

 

 

STATE OF MINNESOTA

IN COURT OF APPEALS

A04-631

 

State of Minnesota,

Respondent,

 

vs.

 

Garrick Robert Sneed,

Appellant.

 

Filed January 25, 2005

Affirmed

Willis, Judge

 

Olmsted County District Court

File No. K6-03-2313

 

Mike Hatch, Attorney General, 1800 NCL Tower, 445 Minnesota Street, St. Paul, MN† 55101-2134; and

 

Raymond F. Schmitz, Olmsted County Attorney, Lisa R. Swenson, Assistant County Attorney, 151 4th Street SE, Rochester, MN† 55904 (for respondent)

 

John M. Stuart, State Public Defender, Susan J. Andrews, Assistant Public Defender, 2221 University Avenue SE, Suite 425, Minneapolis, MN† 55414 (for appellant)

 

††††††††††† Considered and decided by Peterson, Presiding Judge; Willis, Judge; and Hudson, Judge.


U N P U B L I S H E D†† O P I N I O N

WILLIS, Judge

Appellant challenges his conviction of second-degree controlled-substance crime, arguing that the state breached a plea agreement with him and that, therefore, the district court abused its discretion by denying appellantís motion to withdraw his guilty plea.† Because we find no abuse of discretion, we affirm.

FACTS

In September 2003, after appellant Garrick Robert Sneedís second methamphetamine-related arrest, the district court released him on bail on the condition, inter alia, that he refrain from using alcohol or other chemicals unless they were prescribed by a physician.† In November 2003, Sneed pleaded guilty to second-degree controlled-substance crime in exchange for the stateís dismissal of six other charges and the stateís agreement to allow Sneedís continued release pending sentencing.† The district court ordered that Sneedís existing release conditions remain in effect, including the condition that he refrain from using alcohol or other unprescribed chemicals, after Sneed testified that he understood and agreed to those conditions.† At the conclusion of the hearing, Sneed submitted a urine sample that tested positive for cocaine and methamphetamine.†

On the basis of the urinalysis, the state requested that the district court revoke Sneedís release and order him held in custody until sentencing.† The district court granted the stateís request, and Sneed moved to withdraw his guilty plea on the ground that the state breached the plea agreement by requesting the revocation of his release.†

In January 2004, the district court denied Sneedís motion to withdraw his guilty plea, determining that the continued-release element of the plea agreement was conditional and that the stateís request to revoke Sneedís release was not a breach of the agreement but rather a response to Sneedís violation of a condition of his release.† The court subsequently sentenced Sneed to 94 months in prison.

D E C I S I O N

Generally, the question of whether to permit withdrawal of a guilty plea is ďleft to the sound discretion of the trial court, and it will be reversed only in the rare case in which the appellate court can fairly conclude that the trial court abused its discretion.Ē† Kim v. State, 434 N.W.2d 263, 266 (Minn. 1989).† A district court may permit the withdrawal of a defendantís guilty plea ď[o]n demonstration that a plea agreement has been breached.Ē† State v. Brown, 606 N.W.2d 670, 674 (Minn. 2000).† The question of whether a party has breached a plea agreement requires the district court to determine what the parties understood as terms of the agreement.† Id.† ďWhat the parties agreed to involves an issue of fact to be resolved by the district court.Ē †Id.† We will reverse a district courtís findings of fact only if they are clearly erroneous.† State v. Critt, 554 N.W.2d 93, 95 (Minn. App. 1996), review denied (Minn. Nov. 20, 1996).

Sneed argues that the state breached its agreement to allow his continued release pending sentencing when it requested the revocation of his release after Sneed tested positive for cocaine and methamphetamine.† The district court found no breach because Sneedís continued release was based on the condition that he refrain from using alcohol or chemicals unless they were prescribed by a physician.† Because Sneed submitted to a urinalysis that tested positive for cocaine and methamphetamine, the district court found that the stateís request for the revocation of his release was not a violation of any condition of the plea agreement and that there was no basis for Sneed to withdraw his plea.†

The record supports the district courtís determination that the continued-release element of the plea agreement was conditional; and, because Sneed failed to meet one of those conditions, the district court did not clearly err by finding that the state did not breach the plea agreement.† Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Sneedís motion to withdraw his guilty plea.†

††††††††††† Affirmed.