Cited by

The voluntariness requirement protects a defendant from pleading guilty “due to improper pressure or coercion.” (quota tion omitted).

7 But intent is generally “proved by infe rences drawn from a person’s words or actions in light of all the surrounding circumstances.” (quo tation omitted).

See Nelson v. State , -60 (Minn. 2016) (determining that defendant’s statements made during plea colloquy regarding the circumstances of the offense were sufficient to support a finding that defendant intended to kill victim).

And intent may be shown by inferences from a person’s actions in certain circumstances and may be inferred “from the idea that a person intends the natural consequences of his or her actions.” (quotation omitted).

Stated differe ntly, a proper factual basis exists if “the record contains a showing that there is credible evidence available which would support a jury verdict that defendant is guilty of at least as great a crime as that to which he pled guilty.” (quotations omitted).

Intent may be inferred “from the idea that a person intends the natural consequences of his or her actions.” (quotation omitted).

The well-established standard is that “before a plea of guilty can be accepted, the trial judge must make certain that facts exist from which the defendant’s guilt of the crime charged can be reasonably inferred .” (emphasis added).

See, e.g., Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742, 750, 90 S. Ct. 1463, 1470 (1970) (“[A]gents of the State may not produce a plea by actual or threatened physical harm or by mental co ercion overbearing the will of the defendant.”); (noting the fact that a defendant denied that he had been “subjected to threats or promises” was further evidence that his plea was voluntary); (“A guilty plea cannot be induced by unfulfilled or unfulfillable promises .

Stated somewhat differently, a proper factual basis exists if “‘the record contains a s howing that there is credible evidence available which would support a jury verdict that defendant is guilty of at least as great a crime as that to which he pled guilty.’” ().

A proper factual basis exists “i f the record contains a showing that there is credible e vidence available which would s upport a jury verdict that defendant is guilty of at least a s great a crime as that to whi ch he pled guilty.” (quotation omitted).

A proper factual basis exists “if the record contains a showing that there is credible evidence available wh ich would support a jury verdict that defendant is guilty of at least as great a crime as that to which [s]he pled guilty.” (quotation omitted).

(“Intent is generally proved by inferences drawn from a person’s words or actions in light of all the surrounding circumstances.” (quotation omitted)).

A proper factual basis exists “if the record contains a showing that there is credible evidence available which would support a jury verdict that defendant is guilty of at least as great a crime as that to which he pled guilty.” (quotation omitted).

“To be constitutionally valid, a guilty plea must be accurate, voluntary, and intelligent.” (quotation omitted).

A proper factual basis exists “i f the record contains a showing that there is credible e vidence available which would s upport a jury verdict that defendant is guilty of at least a s great a crime as that to whi ch he pled guilty.” (quotation omitted).

Stated somewhat differently, a proper factual basis exists if “ ‘the record contains a showing that there is credible evidence available which would support a jury verdict that defendant is guilty of at least as great a crime as that to which he pled guilty.’” ().

“To be constitutionally valid, a guilty plea must be accurate, voluntary, and intelligent.” (quotation omitted).

“Intent is generally proved by inferences drawn from a person’s words or actions 5 in light of all the surrounding circumstances.” (quotati on omitted).

2003) (quotation omitted); (stating that a sufficient basis includes facts from which the defendant’s guilt of the charged crime can be reasonably inferred).

(stating defendant’s denial that he had been “subjected to threats or promises” evidenced that his plea was voluntary).

A proper factual basis requires that there be “sufficient facts on the record to supp ort a conclusion that defendant’s conduct falls within the charge to which he desires to plead guilty.” (“The factual-basis requirement is satisfied if the record contains a showing that there is credible evidence available which would support a jury verdict that defendant is guilty.” (quotation omitted)).

A proper factual basis exists “if the record contains a showing that there is credible evidence available which would support a jury verdict that defendant is guilty of at least as great a crime as that to which he pled guilty.” (quotation omitted).

(“Intent is generally proved by inferences drawn from a person’s words or a ctions in light of all the surrounding circumstances.” (quotation omitted)).

Nelson v. State , ; (explaining that a proper factual basis requires that there be “sufficient facts on the record to support a conclusion that defendant’s conduct falls within the charge to which he desires to plead guilty”).

A proper factual basis exists “if the record contains a showing that there is credible evidence available which would support a jury verdict that defendant is guilty of at least as great a crime as that to which he pled guilty.” (quotation omitted).

See, e.g., Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742, 750, 90 S. Ct. 1463, 1470 (1970) (“[A]gents of the State may not produce a plea by actual or threatened physical harm or by mental coercion overbearing the will of the defendant.”); Nelson v. State , (noting the fact that a defendant denied that he had been “subjected to threats or promises” was further evidence that his plea was voluntary); (“A guilty plea cannot be induced by unfulfilled or unfulfillable promises .

d 852, 858 (Minn. 2016).

“The factual-basis requirement is satisfied if the record contai ns a showing that ther e is credible evidence available which would support a ju ry verdict that defendant is guilty of at least as great a crime as that to which he pled guilty.” (quotation omitted).

n.2 (Minn. 2016) (quotation omitted).

A defendant need not expressly state that he had the specific intent to defraud in order for a plea colloquy to establish a proper factual basis because intent is most often proved circumstantially by the inferences that can be drawn from the defendant’s words or his actions “in light of all the surrounding circumstances.” Nelson v. State , (quotation omitted).

(“Intent can be inferred from the idea that a person intends the natural consequences of his or her actions.” (quotation omitted)).

“Intent is generally proved by inferences drawn from a person’s words or actions in light of all the surrounding circumstances.” (quotation omitted).

“Intent is generally proved by inferences drawn from a person’s words or actions in light of all the surrounding circumstances.” (quotation omitted).

“[T]he factual basis of a plea is inadequate when the defendant makes statements that negate an essential element of the charged crime because such statements are inconsistent with a plea of guilty.” (quoting Iverson, d at 350).

” Nelson v. State , (quotation omitted).

In other words, “before a plea of guilty can be accepted, the [district court] must make certain that facts exist from 5 which the defendant’s guilt of the crime charged can be reasonably inferred.” (quotation omitted).

consequences of the plea.”

“To be constitutionally valid, a guilty plea must be accurate, voluntary, and intelligent.” (quotation omitted).