State of Minnesota, Respondent,

This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2016).

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A17-0453

State of Minnesota,
Respondent,

vs.

Ladena Pacheco,
Appellant.

Filed December 26, 2017
Affirmed
Jesson, Judge

Hennepin County District Court
File No. 27-CR-16-1132

Lori Swanson, Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota; and

Michael O. Freeman, Hennepin County Attorney, Kelly O’Neill Moller, Assistant County
Attorney, Minneapolis, Minnesota (for respondent)

Cathryn Middlebrook, Chief Appellate Public Defender, Sara Euteneuer, Assistant Public
Defender, St. Paul, Minnesota (for appellant)

Considered and decided by Connolly, Presiding Judge; Jesson, Judge; and Florey,
Judge.
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
JESSON, Judge
As appellant Ladena Pacheco discovered, keeping a rental car past the agreement’s
expiration date can lead to criminal liability. After failing to return a rental car when it was
2
due, Pacheco pleaded guilty to theft of rental property with indifference to the owner’s
rights. The district court accepted the gui lty plea and convicted her. On direct appeal,
Pacheco argues the guilty plea was inaccurate because it did not establish the necessary
elements: that she took the rented property with intent to exercise temporary control only
and that the control exercised manifest ed an indifference to the rights of the owner . We
determine that there is a sufficient factual basis for her plea and we affirm.
FACTS
In January 2016, the state charged appellant Ladena Pacheco with theft of rented
personal property under Minnesota Statutes section 609.52, subdivision 2(a)(9), 2(a)(9)(iii)
(2014).1 The probable cause affidavit stated that Pacheco rented a car from Budget Car
Rental on October 30, 2015, but did not return it on the date the rental agre ement ended,
October 31, 2015. On November 3, 2015, Pacheco went into the rental office , paid all
outstanding costs, and extended the rental agreement through November 4, 2015.
However, the new due date soon passed, and Pacheco failed to return the car. Budget Car
Rental unsuccessfully attempted to contact Pacheco an d request that she return the car .
Eventually, police located the car unoccupied in a hotel parking lot on December 18, 2015.
In January 2017, Pacheco pleaded guilty to an amended charge of theft of rental
property with indifference to the owner’s rights under Minnesota Statutes section 609.52,
subdivision 2(a)(5)(i) (2014), in exchange for a three-year stay of imposition. At the guilty

1 This provision applies to individuals who “lease[] or rent[] personal property under a
written instrument and . . . do[] not return the property to the lessor at the end of the lease
or rental term, plus agreed-upon extensions, with intent to wrongfully deprive the lessor of
possession of the property.” Minn. Stat § 609.52, subd. 2(a)(9), (2)(a)(9)(iii).
3
plea hearing, the district court ensured that Pacheco had sufficient time with her attorney
to discuss her rights, options, and consequences of pleading guilty. Pacheco stated that she
was comfortable with her decision to plead guilty.
To develop a factual basis for the plea, Pacheco’s attorney asked a seri es of
questions. Pacheco testified that she rented a car and then extended the lease. She admitted
that the rental agreement expired, she had possession of the car, she was supposed to bring
the vehicle back, and she did not return it. Pacheco did explain that the car was stolen from
her at one point after the rental agreement expired, but she admitted that she had possession
of the car prior to it being stolen. The testimony continued, in relevant part:
Q: But before the vehicle was stolen from you -- and of course
you had no control over the vehicle being stolen and whether
or not that was going to happen and how to track down where
the vehicle was at. Of course when it was taken from you that
was outside of your control. But before that occurred you had
control of the vehicle?

A: Yes.

Q: And they wanted -- the Budget rental car agency wanted
their vehicle back, but you didn’t bring it back to them?

A: It was kind of an argument thing that was going on, and I
should have been more on top of that.

Q: You should have brought it back to them, but you didn’t; is
that correct?

A: Yeah, but then there was a contract saying that, you know,
I could keep it more because we switched from one credit card
to the next and --

Q: And in all of that, they asked you to bring the vehicle back,
but you didn’t bring the vehicle back? You disregarded what
they asked for?
4

A: Yeah, I did think everything was going to be fine, and I
should have paid more attention definitely, for sure.

Q: And you knew that they wanted their vehicle back and that
that put them at a disadvantage being the owners of the
vehicle?

. . . .

A: Yes. I didn’t comply the way that I should have with the
situation.

The district court accepted the guilty plea and stayed the imposition of the sentence,
placing Pacheco on probation for three years. After successfully completing probation, the
conviction would be reduced from a felony to a misdemeanor. Minn. Stat. § 609.13,
subd. 1(2) (2014). This appeal follows.
D E C I S I O N
Pacheco argues on direct appeal that she should be able to withdraw her guilty plea
due to its inaccuracy , because it was not supported by a sufficient factual basis. To be
constitutionally valid, guilty pleas must be accurate, voluntary, and intelligent. State v.
Raleigh, 778 N.W.2d 90, 94 (Minn. 2010). An accurate plea is one established by a proper
factual basis. Id. While this court should be “wary” of situations where the defendant is
asked only a series of leading questions, a plea is not invalidated simply because the court
failed to “elicit proper responses[,] if the record contains sufficient evidence to support the
conviction.” Id. This court assesses the validity of a guilty plea de novo. Id.
Pacheco pleaded guilty to theft of rental property with i ndifference to the owner’s
rights under Minnesota Statutes section 609.52, subdivision 2(a)(5)(i). This crime required
5
the state to prove Pacheco (1) took the rented property with intent to exercise temporary
control only and (2) the control exercised man ifests an indifference to the rights of the
owner or the restoration of the property to the owner. Minn. Stat § 609.52, subd. 2(a)(5),
2(a)(5)(i); see also State v. Beito , 332 N.W.2d 645, 648 (Minn. 1983). We first address
each element separately, and then address Pacheco’s argument that a sufficient factual basis
was not established because there were leading questions and there was other testimony,
regarding the car being stolen and confusion over the expiration date, that undercut the
evidence.
The first contested element is whether Pacheco took the rented property with intent
to exercise temporary control over it. At the hearing, Pacheco testified that the rental
extension expired and she knew she was supposed to bring the car back. Yet she continued
to keep control of the vehicle for some period of time and chose not to return it. This
testimony is sufficient to establish Pacheco’s intent to exercise control over the car.
The second contested element is whether the control exercised by Pacheco
manifested an indifference to the rights of the owner , or the restoration of the property to
the owner. This manifests-an-indifference element has not been explicitly defined, but is
discussed in several cases. In Beito, the court determined that the eleme nt was satisfied
when the defendant stole a truck, drove it to another location, and abandoned it in a parking
lot. 332 N.W.2d at 647, 648-49. In State v. O’Hagan, the court held the district court did
not abuse its discretion when it did not include “willful, reckless, or malicious disregard”
in its jury instruction for the manifests-an-indifference element. 474 N.W.2d 613, 620
(Minn. App. 1991) , review denied (Minn. Sept. 25, 1991) . The court instead stated the
6
element is satisfied by “using or abusing the property in a manner that exposes it to risk of
damage, or using it so that it is in fact damaged. Examples might be . . . leasing, renting
or borrowing the property for a period and continuing to use it beyond the period.” Id.
Here the testimony shows that Pacheco had possession of the car after the rental agreement,
knew that the rental company wanted the car back, and chose not to return it. Importantly,
Pacheco knew not returning the car put Budget Car Rental at a disadvantage. This fits
within the scope of the element’s requirements pursuant to Beito and O’Hagan, and there
are sufficient facts to show that the control exercised manifested an indifferen ce to the
rights of the rental company.
Pacheco argues that the use of leading questions by her attorney to create the factual
record invalidates the accuracy of her plea . We disagree. W hile leading questions are
discouraged in a guilty plea hearing, this court has held that using leading questions “does
not by itself invalidate a guilty plea.” Barnslater v. State , 805 N.W.2d 910, 914 (Minn.
App. 2011). Here, the questions and answers on the record establish the required elements
and provide a sufficient factual basis.
Pacheco also contends that testimony that the car was stolen, and that she was
confused about the rental expiration date, establish that the she did not exercise temporary
control over the car and that she did not have an indifference to the rights of the owner.
We again disagree. It is accurate that s tatements that negate an essential element of the
crime may destroy the factual basis of a plea. State v. Iverson, 664 N.W.2d 346, 350 (Minn.
2003). However, the testimony Pacheco points to does not negate any essential element of
the crime. T here is testimony that the car was stolen, but Pacheco nonetheless admitted
7
that she had possession of the car after the agreement expired, but before it was stolen, and
decided not to return it. The fact the car was later stolen does not absolve Pacheco of these
facts. Similarly, while Pacheco did express that there was some confusion over the
expiration date, she testified that after the confusion, Budget Car Rental asked that she
bring the car back and she disregarded that request. This testimony does provide context
for some of the facts, but it does not change or negate the testimony that Pacheco had
possession of the rental car past the expiration date, knew she was supposed to return it,
and decided not to.
This is unlike Mikulak, where the defendant pleaded guilty to “knowingly
violat[ing]” the predatory offender registration statute. State v. Mikulak, ___ N.W.2d ___,
2017 WL 5474128, at *3 (Minn. Nov. 15, 2017). The court determined that knowledge of
the law at the time of the violation was an element of the offense, thus the defendant
testifying at the plea hearing that he was unaware of the law at the time of the offense failed
the accuracy requirement, as it explicitly negated an element of the charged offense. Id. at
*4-5. Here on the other hand, there was no testimony from Pacheco, including that the car
was stolen and her initial confusion about the expiration end date, that negated an element
of the crime. This is because there was a period of time – before her car was stolen and
after her confusion – where Pacheco had possession of the car, knew she was supposed to
return it, but did not.2

2 Additionally, theft of rental property with indifference to the owner’s rights does not
encompass a knowledge-of-the-law element, but instead requires (1) intent to exercise
temporary control over rented property and (2) the control exercised must manifest an
indifference to the rights of the owner or the restoration of the property to the owner. See
8
Because there was a sufficient factual basis for both of the required elements, we
determine that the guilty plea was accurate.
Affirmed.

Minn. Stat § 609.52, subd. 2(a)(5), 2(a)(5)(i). Both of these elements are satisfied, and no
testimony negates either element.