State of Minnesota, Respondent,

This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2018).

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A18-0464

State of Minnesota,
Respondent,

vs.

Anddrew Leta Ole Fua Sesifeo Hawkins,
Appellant.

Filed January 22, 2019
Affirmed
Klaphake, Judge*

Hennepin County District Court
File No. 27-CR-16-8325

Keith M. Ellison, Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota; and

Michael O. Freeman, Hennepin County Attorney, Michael Richardson, Assistant County
Attorney, Minneapolis, Minnesota (for respondent)

Melissa Sheridan, Eagan, Minnesota (for appellant)

Considered and decided by Rodenberg, Presiding Judge; Hooten, Judge; and
Klaphake, Judge.

* Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, serving by appointment pursuant to
Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10.

2
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
KLAPHAKE, Judge
Appellant Anddrew Leta Ole Fua Sesifeo Hawkins challenges the validity of his
guilty plea, arguing that his plea is not supported by a proper factual basis. Because the
record contains evidence which would support a jury verdict that Hawkins is guilty, we
affirm.
D E C I S I O N
The validity of a guilty plea is a question of law that we review de novo. State v.
Raleigh, 778 N.W.2d 90, 94 (Minn. 2010). There is no absolute right to withdraw a guilty
plea. Perkins v. State, 559 N.W.2d 678, 685 (Minn. 1997). However, “a court must allow
withdrawal of a guilty plea if withdrawal is nec essary to correct a ‘manifest injustice.’”
Raleigh, 778 N.W.2d at 93 (citing Minn. R. Crim. P. 15.05, subd. 1). A manifest injustice
occurs if a plea is not valid. Id. at 94. A constitutionally valid plea must be voluntary,
intelligent, and accurate. Id. To be accurate, a guilty plea must be supported by a proper
factual basis. Id. The factual-basis requirement is satisfied if the record contains credible
evidence which would support a jury verdict that the defendant is guilty of the crime to
which he pleaded guilty. Nelson v. State , 880 N.W.2d 852, 859 (Minn. 2016) ; see also
Kelsey v. State, 214 N.W.2d 236, 237 (Minn. 1974) (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”).
In this case, Hawkins pleaded guilty to identity theft under Minn. Stat. § 609.527,
subd. 2 (2014), which provides that, “A person who transfers, possesses, or uses an identity

3
that is not the person’s own, with the intent to commit, aid, or abet any unlawful activity is
guilty of identity theft.” “Unlawful activity” within the meaning of the identity-theft statute
is defined in Minn. Stat. § 609.527, subd. 1(g) (2014) , and includes any felony violations,
as well as nonfelony violations involving theft, theft by swindle, forgery, fraud , and false
information. Hawkins argues that his guilty plea did not contain a proper fact ual basis
because he did not testify to a specific “unlawful activity” that he intended to commit.
Police found Hawkins in a hotel room with several other men, equipment to make
fraudulent credit cards, and numerous fraudulent credit cards. During his pl ea hearing,
Hawkins testified that the group of men were creating “false credit cards,” that the intent
“was to commit criminal activity,” that he participated “[t]o some degree,” and that his
name was on “a couple of the[ ]credit cards.” Hawkins also admitted that the credit cards
with his name had credit information from some other person, and that he intended to use
those credit cards. Although Hawkins did not specifically state that he intended to commit
theft by swindle, his testimony is nonetheless sufficient to supp ort such a conclusion .
Because the record contains sufficient evidence to support the conclusion that Hawkins’s
conduct falls within the charge to which he plead ed guilty, there is a proper factual basis
to support his plea.
Affirmed.