Cited by

her guilt, an adequate factual basis is usually 3 We have previously observed that the factual basis requirement also “provides a means by which the trial court can test whether the plea is being intelligently entered, since an Alford-type plea could hardly be accepted as an intelligent, rational plea if there were an insufficient factual basis offered to support it.”

North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 37–38 (1970); (adopting Alford pleas in Minnesota).

-61 (Minn. 1977) (discussing North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 238 (1970)).

At the plea hearing, Englund affirmed that she understood the consequences of her decision to enter an Alford plea and affirmed that she was “not just pleading guilty because [she 1 “ [the Minnesota Supreme Court] formally adopted the use of pleas entered in accordance with North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 91 .

and follow all clinical recommendations of that assessment.” The district court further ordered that Clapp submit to random alcohol or drug testing; not use or possess alcohol or drugs, except as 1 the State of Minnesota formally adopted the use of pleas entered in accordance with North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970).

3 During Paulson’s plea, the prosecutor summarized the evidence the 2 Section 627.15 provides that “[a] criminal action arising out of an incident of alleged child abuse may be prosecuted either in the county where the alleged abuse occurred or the county where the child is found.” 3 we formally adopted the use of pleas entered in accordance with North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 91 (1970).

-61 (Minn. 1977) (discussing North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 38 (1970)).

(“Neither the constitution nor our Rules of Criminal Procedure give to a criminal defendant an absolute right to have his plea of guilty accepted.”).

-49 (Minn. 2007) (citing North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 37- 38 (1970)); (adopting Alford rationale).

were arguing about a garage sale and identified S.C., who was driving by 1 See North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 38 (1970) (permitting a guilty plea “despite [the defendant’s] professed belief in his innocence” when there was a “strong factual basis for the plea”); (recognizing Alford pleas in Minnesota).

tion-revocation hearing on September 13, 2021, but continued the proceeding 1 An Alford plea occurs where a defendant pleads guilty while still maintaining their innocence, and the district court accepts the plea after reasonably concluding that the evidence “would support a jury verdict of guilty and that the plea is voluntarily, knowingly, and understandingly entered.” (citing North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970)).

21, 2009); see North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 37 (1970)

-61 (Minn. 1977) (discussing North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970)).

See North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970)

21, 2009); see North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 37 (1970)

-61 (Minn. 1977) (discussing North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970)).

-61 (Minn. 1977) (discussing North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 37 (1970)).

-61 (Minn. 1977) (discussing North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970)).

-61 (Minn. 1977) (discussing North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 37-38 (1970)).

-61 (Minn. 1977) (discussing North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 37 (1970)).

(discussing North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 37 (1970)).

In 2021, appellant’s 1 (relying on North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970) to “hold that a trial court may accept a plea of guilty by an accused even though the accused claims he is innocent if the court, on the basis of its interrogation of the accused and its analysis of the factual basis offered in support of th

-61 (Minn. 1977) (discussing North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 38 (1970)).

Nazir denied that he removed his penis from his underwear or that he exposed M.H.’s 1 North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 38, 91 S. Ct. 160, 167-68 (1970) (holding that a court may constitutionally accept a defendant’s guilty plea even though the defendant maintains innocence); (holding that Minnesota law permits acceptance of Alford pleas).

-61 (Minn. 1977) (discussing North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 38 (1970)).

- 61 (Minn. 1977) (discussing North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 37-38 (1970)).

7 Bustamante also notes that “Minnesota law provides procedures for a defen dant in Bustamante’s position to plead guilty: a Norgaard plea or an Alford plea.” (citing North Carolina v. Alford , 400 U.S. 25 (1970)) (providing that a defendant can plead guilty despite maintaining his innocence); State ex rel.

State v. Goulette , -61 (M inn.

(discussing North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 37 (1970)).

(adopting North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 91 S. Ct. 160 (1970)).

8 trial.” State v. Goulette

9 Alford, 400 U.S. at 37, 91 S. Ct. at 167

Thus, we agree with Veitia that “[w]hether or not the prosecutor’s offer was withdrawn is inconsequential to whether the district court erred in rejecting the plea.” 10 guilty accepted.” accord Klug, d at 726 (“[W]e find no authority to support the assertion that a defendant has a right to have a plea agreement accepted.”).

“Neither the constitution nor [Minnesota] Ru les of Criminal Procedure give to a criminal defendant an absolute right to have his plea of guilty accepted.”