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This opinion will be unpublished and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
A18-0599

State of Minnesota,
Respondent,

vs.

Samuel Louis Chase, Jr.,
Appellant.

Filed April 15, 2019
Affirmed
Worke, Judge

Anoka County District Court
File No. 02-CR-17-1032

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

Anthony C. Palumbo, Anoka County Attorney, Robert I. Yount, Assistant County
Attorney, Anoka, Minnesota (for respondent)

Cathryn Middlebrook, Chief Appellate Public Defender, Erik I. Withall, Assistant Public
Defender, St. Paul, Minnesota (for appellant)

Considered and decided by Schellhas, Presiding Judge; Worke, Judge; and Kirk,
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
WORKE, Judge
Appellant argues that his guilty plea to receiving stolen property was invalid
because the supporting factual basis did not establish that he knew or had reason to know
that he possessed stolen property. We affirm.
FACTS
On February 10, 2017, appellant Samuel Louis Chase Jr.’s f ather reported to law
enforcement that Chase and Chase’s friend, Daniel Miller, brought a Bobcat to his property
that he suspected was stolen. Officers visited the Chase property. Chase told officers that
he was working on a Bobcat that belonged to Miller. Miller stated that he was paying
Chase to fix and paint the Bobcat that he bought a couple of weeks earlier. Officers located
the Bobcat on the property. It had a fresh coat of paint, the VIN plate had been replaced,
and the Bobcat brand stickers had been removed and replaced with Case and International
Harvester brand stickers.
The Bobcat, along with a trailer, bucket, and snow blower, had been reported stolen
on February 7. The Bobcat was identified by unique characteristics described by its owner.
Law enforcement found the trailer and bucket at a different residence. The homeowner
stated that Chase brought the equipment there.
On August 24, 2017, Chase pleaded guilty to receiving stolen property, in violation
of Minn. Stat. § 609.53, subd. 1 (2016). In establishing the factual basis to support the
guilty plea, Chase stated that he began to believe that the Bobcat was stolen “[w]hen [his]
dad pointed out some things.” Chase admitted that the VIN plates had been modified.
3
Chase admitted that the Bobcat had been on his father’s property for only a little over 24
hours and Miller kept moving it to different locations on the property. He agreed that this
was suspicious. Chase admitted that a neighbor indicated to his father “that that wa s
somebody else’s trailer,” and agreed that this “made [him] think this was stolen property.”
Chase also agreed that he took a trailer and a bucket to a different residence, and that those
items were stolen. The prosecutor asked: “[S]o even though . . . it was suspicious and you
knew it was stolen, you continued to work on that Bobcat, correct?” Chase responded:
“Yes.” The district court found that Chase provided a sufficient factual basis to support
his guilty plea, accepted the guilty plea, and sentenced Chase to 21 months in prison. This
appeal followed.
D E C I S I O N
Chase argues that his guilty plea is invalid because it was not supported by a
sufficient factual basis. Chase did not move to withdraw his guilty plea before the district
court, but a defendant may appeal directly from a judgment of conviction contending that
the record made at the time the p lea was entered is inadequate. See Brown v. State, 449
N.W.2d 180, 182 (Minn. 1989). This court reviews the validity of a guilty plea de novo.
State v. Raleigh, 778 N.W.2d 90, 94 (Minn. 2010).
A guilty plea is invalid if it is not “accurate, voluntary and intelligent.” State v.
Ecker, 524 N.W.2d 712, 716 (Minn. 1994). A guilty plea must be accurate to protect a
defendant from pleading guilty to a more serious offense than he could be convicted of
were he to have a trial. State v. Trott, 338 N.W.2d 248, 251 (Minn. 1983). An accurate
guilty plea is supported by a proper factual basis, with “sufficient facts on the record to
4
support a conclusion that [the] defendant’s conduct falls within the charge to which he
desires to plead guilty.” State v. Iverson, 664 N.W.2d 346, 349 (Mi nn. 2003) (quotation
omitted); see also Nelson v. State, 880 N.W.2d 852, 861 (Minn. 2016) (stating that a
sufficient basis includes facts from which the defendant’s guilt of the charged crime can
be reasonably inferred).
Chase pleaded guilty to receiving stolen property. A person is guilty of this offense
if he receives, possess es, transfers, buys or conceals stolen property, knowing or having
reason to know it was stolen. Minn. Stat. § 609.53, subd. 1. Chase concedes that he
admitted to possessing the Bobcat and that the Bobcat was stolen. Chase contends only
that the factual basis is inadequate because he did not admit to knowing or having reason
to know that the Bobcat was stolen. The record, however, shows that Chase’s guilty plea
was accurate because it includes sufficient facts from which Chase’s guilt can be
reasonably inferred.
Chase admitted that the VIN plates were modified. Chase agreed that during the
short time that the Bobcat was on his father’s property, Miller kept moving it. He admitted
that this was suspicious. Chase agreed that when a neighbor indicated to his father that it
was “somebody else’s trailer,” he “th[ought] this was stolen property.” Chase also
admitted that he took a stolen trailer and bucket to a different residence. Moreover, Chase
agreed that he continued to work on the Bobcat even though at some point “it was
suspicious and [he] knew it was stolen.” These are facts in the record that are sufficient to
show that Chase knew or had reason to know that the Bobcat was stolen.
5
Further, the complaint establishes facts demonstrating Chase’s knowledge. See
Trott, 338 N.W.2d at 252 (“The record also contains a copy of the complaint and defendant,
by his plea of guilty, in effect judicially admitted the allegations contained in the
complaint.”); see also Lussier v. State, 821 N.W.2d 581, 589 (Minn. 2012) (stating that a
“plea petition and colloquy may be supplemented by other evidence to establish the factual
basis for a plea”).
According to the complaint, Chase’s father reported to law enforcement that he
suspected that the Bobcat was stolen. When officers located the Bobcat, it had a fresh coat
of paint, the VIN plate had been replaced, and the Bobcat brand stickers had been removed
and replaced with Case and International Harvester brand stickers. See State v. Simonson,
214 N.W.2d 679, 681 (Minn. 1974) (stating that “concealing” property includes converting
the property to make it more difficult to be discovered by its true owner). And the Bobcat
had been reported stolen along with a trailer, bucket, and snow blower; the trailer and
bucket were located at a residence where Chase dropped them off. The complaint provides
sufficient facts from which Chase’s knowledge that the property was stolen can be
reasonably inferred. The record shows that the factual basis sufficiently supports Chase’s
guilty plea, making his guilty plea accurate and valid.
Chase also claims that his testimony negates his knowledge that the property was
stolen. The factual basis is inadequate if a defendant makes statements that negate an
essential element of the charged offense. Iverson, 664 N.W.2d at 350.
Chase argues that his testimony negated his knowledge that the property was stolen.
He claims that, from the outset, Miller brought the Bobcat to the property and “held [it] out
6
as not stolen through his assertion that he purchased the property for $4,000-$4,500.” But
Miller holding the property out as not stolen does not negate Chase’s admission that he
subsequently became suspicious and developed the belief that the property was stolen.
Affirmed.