Cited by

holding 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 the plea, reasonably concludes that there is evidence which

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

there is a sufficient factual basis to support [the plea].”

(citing North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 37, 91 S. Ct. 160, 167 (1970)); -61 (Minn. 1977) (recognizing the use of Alford pleas in Minnesota).

“Rule 15.04 reflects case precedent holding that defendants do not have a constitutional right to have a guilty plea accepted.” Pero, d at 325; (“Neither the constitution nor our Rules of Criminal Procedure give to a criminal defendant an absolute right to have his plea of guilty accepted.”).

1(b) (2006) pursuant to North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 91 S. Ct. 160 (1970) with all other charges being dismissed.

North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 37, 91 S. Ct. 160, 167 (1970); (adopting the Alford plea procedure in Minnesota).

A defendant enters an Alford/Goulette plea if he maintains his innocence but “reasonably believes, and the record establishes, the state has sufficient evidence to obtain a conviction.” Ecker, d at 716 (citing North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 37, 91 S. Ct. 160, 167 (1970))

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

orth Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 31, 91 S. Ct. 160, 164 (1970) (stating that the standard for a valid plea is whether the plea represents a voluntary and intelligent choice among the alternative courses of action open to the defendant); (recognizing that a valid guilty plea must be accurate, voluntary, and intelligent); (holding that a district court may accept a guilty plea, though the defendant claims innocence, if it reasonably concludes that the evidence supports a guilty verdict and th

See North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 37-38, 91 S. Ct. 160, 167-68 (1970) (upholding plea to lesser offense when the defendant maintained innocence but the state had a strong case against him for more serious offense); (recognizing the use of Alford pleas in Minnesota).

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

In the context of an *38 Alford plea, an adequate factual basis must be established to “ensure[ ] the plea is voluntary and represents ‘an intelligent choice of the alternative courses of action available.’ ” Ecker, d at 716 ().

1 North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 37, 91 S. Ct. 160, 167 (1970) (“An individual accused of a crime may voluntarily, knowingly, and understandingly consent to the imposition of a prison sentence even if he is unwilling or unable to admit his participation in the acts constituting the crime.”)

Appellant asserts that the district court is required to make such a specific finding under Theis, d at 649

State v. Hoaglund, 307 Minn. 322, 325

See North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 37–38, 91 S. Ct. 160, 167−68 (1970) (holding constitutional court’s acceptance of defendant’s guilty plea, even though defendant maintained his innocence, where state demonstrated strong factual basis for plea and defendant clearly expressed his desire to enter plea based on overwhelming evidence against him); (permitting the acceptance of Alford pleas “if the court, on the basis of its interrogation of the accused and its analysis of the factual basis

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

160 , 27 L.Ed.2d 162 (1970) (concluding that the U.S. Constitution allows a court to accept a guilty plea from a defendant who claims to be innocent); (concluding that a Minnesota court can accept a guilty plea from a defendant who claims to be innocent); State ex rel.

Appellant entered an Alford plea, which permits a defendant to plead guilty while maintaining his innocence, “if the defendant reasonably believes, and the record establishes, the state has sufficient evidence to obtain a conviction.” (citing North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 37, 91 S. Ct. 160, 167 (1970), ).

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