This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (1998).


State of Minnesota,


Anthony Olson,

Filed December 14, 1999
Crippen, Judge

Scott County District Court
File No. 9801315

Mike Hatch, Minnesota Attorney General, 1400 NCL Tower, 445 Minnesota Street, St. Paul, MN 55101; and

Lisa Skoog, Scott Joint Prosecution Association, P.O. Box 179, Shakopee, MN 55379 (for respondent)

Richard J. Coleman, 295 Marie Avenue East, West St. Paul, MN 55118 (for appellant)

Considered and decided by Crippen, Presiding Judge, Short, Judge, and Mulally, Judge.[*]

U N P U B L I S H E D   O P I N I O N


Appellant disputes the cause for the trial court's decision to accept his guilty plea seven months after agreeing to hold the plea on certain conditions. Concluding that the record does not demonstrate appellant's right to withdraw his plea, we affirm.


As part of a plea agreement in August 1998, appellant Anthony Olson entered an Alford-Goullette plea to an assault charge. See State v. Goulette, 258 N.W.2d 758, 760 (Minn. 1977) (consistent with North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 91 S. Ct. 160 (1970), permitting plea from defendant who denies guilt). The trial court agreed to hold the guilty plea on certain conditions, including a requirement that appellant "obtain an anger assessment by someone approved by Court Services and comply with the recommendations" the assessor made. Appellant refused an assessment proposed by court services and failed to make satisfactory arrangements for an independent assessor of whom court services would approve. In March 1999, the trial court accepted appellant's guilty plea and sentenced him.


When the defendant moves to withdraw a plea before sentencing, the court may allow withdrawal if it is "fair and just to do so," and, at any time, the court will allow withdrawal to correct a "manifest injustice." Minn. R. Crim. P. 15.05.

Appellant has failed to identify in which respect the trial court's decision to accept his plea and reject his effort to withdraw it was either unfair or manifestly unjust. He contends that he "did not get what he bargained for in court" when he submitted his guilty plea. But it is undisputed that appellant was to fulfill the requirement to obtain a court services-approved anger assessment and to follow any recommendations arising therefrom. Court services attempted to accommodate his desire for an independent assessor, yet appellant still had not completed the required assessment after seven months.

On appeal, appellant suggests that he expected a court services-approved assessment would not be meaningful, and would instead include a recommendation for involvement in a treatment program based on the simple fact that appellant had pleaded guilty--notwithstanding the fact that he denied his guilt when making a plea. The assessment not having occurred, appellant's argument is speculative. Moreover, nothing in the record suggests that appellant's initial decision to enter the plea and accept the court services-approved assessment was anything but knowing and voluntary.

Appellant in oral argument repeats a proposition made to the trial court that he had scheduled a court services assessment for the day following the date of the adjudication and acceptance of his guilty plea. The trial court evidently heard this claim and did not find it based in fact, and that finding is not clearly erroneous.


[*] Retired judge of the district court, serving as judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals by appointment pursuant to Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10.