This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2004).
IN COURT OF APPEALS
State of Minnesota,
Edward Andre Washington,
Hennepin County District Court
File No. 03068351
Beau D. McGraw, McGraw Law Firm, P.A., 600 Inwood Avenue North, Suite 200, Oakdale, MN 55128 (for appellant)
Mike Hatch, Attorney General, 1800 Bremer Tower, 445 Minnesota Street, St. Paul, MN 55101; and
Amy Klobuchar, Hennepin County Attorney, Thomas A. Weist, Assistant County Attorney, C-2000 Government Center, 300 South Sixth Street, Minneapolis, MN 55487 (for respondent)
Considered and decided by Halbrooks, Presiding Judge; Klaphake, Judge; and Wright, Judge.
Appellant challenges the denial of his petition to withdraw his guilty pleas, arguing that plea withdrawal is necessary to correct a manifest injustice arising from his mistaken belief that he would be eligible for the Challenge Incarceration Program. The district court determined that appellant’s ineligibility for the program is a collateral consequence of the guilty pleas. We affirm.
On May 19, 2004, appellant Edward Washington pleaded guilty to second-degree controlled substance possession, a violation of Minn. Stat. § 152.022, subd. 2(1) (2002); fleeing a peace officer in a motor vehicle resulting in substantial bodily harm, a violation of Minn. Stat. § 609.487, subd. 4(c) (2002); and child endangerment, a violation of Minn. Stat § 609.378, subd. 1(b)(1) (2002). In exchange for Washington’s guilty pleas, the state dismissed five other criminal charges pending against him.
Prior to entering his guilty pleas, Washington completed a plea petition with the assistance of counsel, was advised of his constitutional rights in open court, and participated in a colloquy with the district court and Washington’s counsel to establish that Washington was entering the guilty pleas knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily. The plea petition and the guilty-plea hearing satisfied the requirements of Minn. R. Crim. P. 15.01. Washington was advised that the maximum sentence that the district court could impose was 25 years’ imprisonment and a fine of $150,000.
the guilty-plea hearing, the state recommended a sentence of 54 months’
imprisonment. Washington’s counsel stated that Washington
understood that the district court would recommend Washington for the Challenge
Incarceration Program (CIP), commonly referred to as “boot camp.” Addressing the district court, Washington’s
attorney said, “Based on what you know at this time you see no reason to not recommend
that to the Commissioner of Corrections.”
In response, the district court agreed to make the recommendation and
advised, “But, Mr.
Washington subsequently was sentenced to 54 months’ imprisonment. After arriving at the Minnesota Correctional Facility-St. Cloud, Washington met with his caseworker who informed him that, because he was convicted of fleeing a police officer in a motor vehicle, he was ineligible for the CIP.
Washington petitioned to withdraw his guilty pleas, claiming that his guilty pleas were not intelligently made because he had been misled about his eligibility for the CIP. The district court denied Washington’s petition, and this appeal followed.
will reverse a district court’s determination of whether to permit withdrawal
of a guilty plea only if the district court abused its discretion. Barragan
v. State, 583 N.W.2d 571, 572 (
Here, there is no dispute that the petition was timely filed. Rather, Washington argues that withdrawal of the pleas is necessary to correct a manifest injustice. A manifest injustice is established when a guilty plea fails the constitutional requirement of being accurate, voluntary, and intelligent. Alanis, 583 N.W.2d at 577.
contends that his guilty pleas were not intelligently made because his counsel
misinformed him regarding his eligibility for the CIP. A guilty plea is intelligently made if the
defendant understands the nature of the charges, his or her rights under the
law, and the direct consequences of pleading guilty.
claims that denial of admission into the CIP is a direct consequence of his
guilty plea to fleeing a peace officer because the consequence arose immediately
upon pleading guilty to that offense. But
caselaw does not support that assertion.
In Alanis, the Minnesota Supreme
Court held that the defendant’s admission into the CIP was a collateral
consequence of his guilty pleas. 583 N.W.2d
at 578-79. Pursuant to a negotiated plea
agreement, Alanis pleaded guilty to offenses resulting in a maximum term of 54
months in prison so that he would be eligible for the CIP.
Washington attempts to distinguish Alanis based on when his ineligibility arose. Washington reasons that he became ineligible when he entered a guilty plea to the disqualifying offense, rather than after a discretionary administrative action, as in Alanis. See id. But Washington’s CIP ineligibility is based on criteria established by the Commissioner of Corrections with whom the discretion to decide which offenders may participate in the CIP rests. Ineligibility for the CIP is not a direct consequence of a guilty plea simply because a basis for disqualification arises from the nature of the offense. Applicants must meet physical and psychological screening standards and other minimum-security guidelines. Similar to the disqualification in Alanis, Washington’s disqualification from the CIP is the result of a discretionary decision made by an administrative authority, not the district court.
Washington was not guaranteed admission to the CIP. “Although a plea of guilty may be set aside
where an unqualified promise is made as a part of a plea bargain, [and is] thereafter
dishonored, a solemn plea of guilty should not be set aside merely because the
accused has not achieved an unwarranted hope.” Schwerm
v. State, 288
Accordingly, the district court correctly determined that Washington failed to prove that withdrawal of his guilty pleas is necessary to correct a manifest injustice.
In his brief and at oral argument,
Washington was unable to provide details on the admission restrictions for CIP
applicants. Washington has the burden of
providing an adequate record to support his claims. State
v. Smith, 448 N.W.2d 550, 557 (