This opinion will be unpublished and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,
Keno Shane Fernando Richards,
Filed September 12, 2006
Hennepin County District Court
File No. 05017743
Mike Hatch, Attorney General, 1800 Bremer Tower, 445 Minnesota Street, St. Paul, MN 55101-2134; and
Amy Klobuchar, Hennepin County Attorney, Linda K. Jenny, Assistant County Attorney, C-2000 Government Center, Minneapolis, MN 55487 (for respondent)
John M. Stuart, Minnesota Public Defender, Cathryn Middlebrook, Assistant Public Defender, 2221 University Avenue Southeast, Suite 425, Minneapolis, MN 55414 (for appellant)
Considered and decided by Stoneburner, Presiding Judge; Toussaint, Chief Judge; and Shumaker, Judge.
Appellant challenges his conviction of criminal sexual conduct in the first degree, arguing that his guilty plea was not knowing, voluntary, and intelligent. Because appellant’s challenge is without merit, we affirm.
Appellant Keno Shane Fernando Richards was charged with one count of criminal sexual conduct in the first degree in violation of Minn. Stat. § 609.342, subd. 1(g) (2004). The charge was based on a match of Richards’s DNA with DNA samples collected from 13-year-old K.D., who lived with her mother and Richards at the time of the alleged incident, and Richards’s admission to police that he had sexual intercourse with K.D.
Richards pleaded guilty to the charge. Richards asserts in his brief that he did not admit the conduct at the time of the guilty plea, but the record shows that Richards specifically admitted that he “had sex” with K.D.
Richards was sentenced to a negotiated downward durational departure of 96 months in prison. On appeal, appellant argues that his conviction must be reversed because his guilty plea lacked a factual basis.
D E C I S I O N
are three basic prerequisites to a valid guilty plea: the plea must be (a)
accurate, (b) voluntary, and (c) intelligent (that is, knowing and
understanding).” Brown v. State, 449 N.W.2d 180, 182 (
Richards argues that his plea did not provide a factual basis for his conviction and specifically that “[he] did not admit having sexual relations with K.D.” Butappellant was asked at the time of the plea: “So, [K.D.] was 13 in January of 2005 when you had sex with her, correct?” And he responded: “Yeah, she was 13.” Richards also admitted that he lived with K.D. Because the record contains Richards’ admission that he had sex with a 13-year old, we find no merit in Richards’s claim that he did not provide a factual basis for his conviction.