Cited by

“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.”

See State v. Tuttle , -57 (Min n. App. 1993) (concluding that “mistaken apprehension of the strength of the state’s case” does not justify withdrawal under the fair-and-just standard); (adopting the plea process in North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 37, 91 S. Ct. 160, 16 7 (1970), which allows a defendant to plead guilty while maintaining innocence, as long as the defendant acknowledges that a jury would convict based on the State’s evidence).

But when a defendant pleads guilty while simultaneously denying his or her guilt, “the rationa lity of the defendant ’s decision is immediately called into question.”

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

Alford, 400 U.S. at 37, 91 S. Ct. at 167; see also State v. Goulette , (recognizing Alford pleas in Minnesota).

See North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 37-38, 91 S. Ct. 160, 167-68 (1970); -61 (Minn. 1977) (recognizing Alford pleas in Minnesota).

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

Under the plain -error standard, the appellant must show: “(1) error; (2) that was plain; and (3) that affected [his] substantial 1 (stati ng that in an Alford plea, a defendant, while maintaining his innocence, pleads guilty because he believes that the state has sufficient evidence to obtain a conviction at trial).

See North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 37-38, 91 S. Ct. 160, 167-68 (1970); (recognizing Alford pleas in Minnesota).

(stating that in an Alford plea, a defendant, while maintaining his innocence, pleads guilty because he believes that the state has sufficient evidence to obtain a conviction at trial).

See North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 37-38, 91 S. Ct. 160, 167-68 (1970); (recognizing Alford pleas in Minnesota).

The name of the plea comes from North Carolina v. Alford , 400 U.S. 25, 91 S. Ct. 160 (1970), adopted in Minnesota in State v. Goulette

Olsen pleaded guilty pursuant to North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 91 S. Ct. 160 (1970)

North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 37-38, 91 S. Ct. 160, 167 -68 (1970); accord State v. Goulette , (adopting Alford pleas in Minnesota).

obtain a conviction”; and in a Norgaard plea, a defendant cannot remember the facts of the offense, “but the record establishes that the defendant is guilty or likely to be convicted of the crime charged.” Johnson, d at 215 (quotation omitted); see North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 37, 91 S. Ct. 160, 167 (1970); d 758, 760 (Minn. 1977); State ex rel.

(explaining that, under an Alford plea, a defendant maintains her innocence).

at 645 (citing North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 38, 91 S. Ct. 160, 167–68 (1970)); (holding that a district court may accept an Alford plea).

(discussing North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 37, 91 S. Ct. 160, 167 (1970)).

see North Carolina v. Alford , 400 U.S. 25, 38, 91 S. Ct. 160, 168 (1970).

See Alford, 400 U.S. at 37, 91 S. Ct. at 167; State v. Goulette

(discussing North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 37, 91 S. Ct. 160, 167 (1970)).

See North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 37, 91 S. Ct. 160, 167 (1970)

a knowing and intelligent choice [among] the ' alternative courses of action available.”

d 758, 761 (Minn. 1977) (allowing Alford-type pleas to be accepted).

A district court should not accept a guilty plea “unless the record supports the conclusion that the defendant actually committed an offense at least as serious as the crime to which he is pleading guilty.” Trott, d at 251 -52 ().

(citing North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 91 S. Ct. 160 (1970)); see also Doe 136 v. Liebsch

North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 37, 91 S. Ct. 160, 167 (1970); (recognizing Alford pleas in Minnesota).

See North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 91 S. Ct. 160 (1970) (holding that a district court may accept a guilty plea even though the defendant claims innocence if there is enough evidence to support a guilty verdict and if the plea is voluntarily and knowingly entered); (approving Alford pleas in Minnesota courts).

Ecker, d at 716 (citing North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 37, 91 S. Ct. 160, 167 (1970))

“If the record supports findings that substantial and compelling circumstances exist, this court will not 1 In an Alford plea, the accused maintains his innocence but “reasonably concludes that there is evidence which would support a jury verdict of guilty.”