This opinion will be unpublished and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,
James Edward Crew
Filed August 1, 2006
File No. K2-05-780
John M. Stuart, State Public Defender, Ngoc Nguyen, Assistant State Public Defender, 2221 University Avenue Southeast, Suite 425, Minneapolis, MN 55414 (for appellant)
Mike Hatch, Attorney General, 1800 Bremer Tower, 445 Minnesota Street, St. Paul, MN 55101; and
Susan Gaertner, Ramsey County Attorney, Mark N. Lystig, Assistant County Attorney, Ramsey County Government Center, 50 West Kellogg Boulevard, Suite 315, St. Paul, MN 55102 (for respondent)
Considered and decided by Wright, Presiding Judge; Shumaker, Judge; and Ross, Judge.
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
Appellant challenges his conviction of aiding and abetting simple robbery, arguing that his guilty plea was invalid and the conviction should be reversed. We affirm.
Appellant James Crew was charged with aiding and abetting second-degree aggravated robbery in March 2005. The complaint alleged that, when Crew’s brother robbed a St. Paul market, Crew aided the commission of this offense by indicating to employees of the market that he had a gun and helping his brother flee the scene by threatening to fight the employees.
At a June 2005 guilty-plea hearing, pursuant to a plea agreement with the state, Crew pleaded guilty to the lesser offense of aiding and abetting simple robbery, a violation of Minn. Stat. §§ 609.24, .05 (2004). During the rule 15 colloquy, and in his guilty-plea petition, Crew stated under oath that he understood his trial rights and agreed to waive them. Crew denied that he had displayed his fists as if he were prepared to fight. But he admitted that he aided and abetted the simple robbery by helping his brother try to get away. Crew also attested that he had freely and voluntarily signed the guilty-plea petition.
At the July 2005 sentencing hearing, Crew’s attorney advised the district court that he and Crew had discussed withdrawing the guilty plea and that Crew did not wish to do so. Based on Crew’s criminal history, the district court imposed an executed sentence of 48 months’ imprisonment and ordered Crew to pay a fine of $100. After the sentence was pronounced, Crew disputed the fine amount and told the district court, “You know we didn’t commit this, Your Honor.” The district court advised Crew that he had pleaded guilty to the offense; therefore, the sentence and fine were warranted. This appeal followed.
D E C I S I O N
To be valid, a guilty plea “must be accurate, voluntary and intelligent (i.e., knowingly and understandingly made).” State v. Trott, 338 N.W.2d 248, 251 (Minn. 1983). Crew argues summarily that his plea was invalid and “[did] not comport with . . . constitutional requirements.” A guilty plea can be withdrawn after imposition of sentence if necessary to correct a manifest injustice. Minn. R. Crim. P. 15.05, subd. 1. But Crew never moved the district court to withdraw his guilty plea. Although Crew does not explain how his guilty plea was in any way inaccurate, involuntary, or unknowing, he requests that we review the record, identify the infirmities of his guilty plea, and reverse his conviction.
Notwithstanding Crew’s statement at the sentencing hearing, which seems to contradict his testimony as to the factual basis for his guilty plea, the record establishes that the guilty plea was accurately, voluntarily, and intelligently entered. Crew admitted under oath that his brother stole merchandise from the market and physically intimidated the employees, and that Crew helped his brother flee the scene. When credibility determinations are crucial in determining whether a guilty plea was accurate, voluntary, and intelligent, we “give deference to the primary observations and trustworthiness assessments made by the district court.” State v. Aviles-Alvarez, 561 N.W.2d 523, 527 (Minn. App. 1997), review denied (Minn. June 11, 1997). Because Crew’s sworn admissions at the guilty-plea hearing provided the district court with a factual basis sufficient to support a conviction of aiding and abetting simple robbery, and because the record establishes that Crew’s guilty plea was accurately, voluntarily, and intelligently made, we affirm the conviction.