This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2006).
STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
State of Minnesota,
Filed September 25, 2007
Toussaint, Chief Judge
Lori Swanson, Attorney General, 1800 Bremer Tower, 445 Minnesota Street, St. Paul, MN 55101-2134; and
Michael O. Freeman, Hennepin County Attorney, Michael K. Walz, Assistant County Attorney, C-2000 Government Center, 300 South Sixth Street, Minneapolis, MN 55487 (for respondent)
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
TOUSSAINT, Chief Judge
Appellant John A. Whitelaw challenges the postconviction court’s denial of his petition to withdraw his guilty plea, arguing that the postconviction court abused its discretion because his plea was not made intelligently. Because the postconviction court did not abuse its discretion, we affirm.
We will reverse a
postconviction court’s determination of whether to permit a withdrawal of a
guilty plea only if the postconviction court abused its discretion. Barragan
v. State, 583 N.W.2d 571, 572 (
defendant has the right to withdraw a guilty plea if the defendant can show
“that withdrawal is necessary to correct a manifest injustice.”
Appellant argues that his plea was not made intelligently because he did not understand the meaning of the mandatory conditional-release period included in his plea agreement and sentence. We disagree.
The record shows that appellant pleaded guilty to fourth-degree criminal sexual conduct. Minn. Stat. § 609.345 (2004). A plea agreement placed appellant on probation with a stay of execution of a 21-month term. The agreement included the mandatory five-year conditional-release period. Minn. Stat. § 609.109, subd. 7(a) (2004). Appellant’s attorney agreed with the terms of the agreement, and appellant also indicated that he understood and discussed the agreement with his attorney. The district court also reminded appellant at sentencing that the conditional-release period attaches if his probation is revoked, and neither appellant nor his attorney objected. Appellant challenged his plea after the district court revoked his probation.
Our review of the record fully supports the postconviction court’s finding that “[appellant] knew of and agreed to the conditional release term” as a part of his plea agreement. The postconviction court further explained that it
reviewed the transcript of the plea hearing and finds that the conditional release term was expressly covered. The conditional release term was noted on the record at the sentencing hearing and when [appellant] and his counsel were given an opportunity to speak, neither made any statement concerning the conditional release term. The judgment included the conditional release term.
Indeed, the plea agreement contains the term, and appellant
indicated his understanding of the agreement after discussing it with his
attorney. Moreover, neither appellant
nor his attorney objected at sentencing when reminded about the
conditional-release period. See State ex rel Rankin v. Tahash, 276
We conclude that there is sufficient evidence in the record to sustain the postconviction court’s finding that appellant understood the terms of his plea agreement, and therefore the postconviction court did not abuse its discretion by denying appellant’s postconviction petition to withdraw his guilty plea.