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This opinion will be unpublished and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
A18-1279

State of Minnesota,
Respondent,

vs.

Jackie Mae Leonard,
Appellant.

Filed April 8, 2019
Affirmed
Worke, Judge

Wright County District Court
File No. 86-CR-17-3274

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

Thomas N. Kelly, Wright County Attorney, Greg T. Kryzer, Assistant County Attorney,
Buffalo, Minnesota (for respondent)

Cathryn Middlebrook, Chief Appellate Pu blic Defender, St. Paul, Minnesota (for
appellant)

Considered and decided by Schellhas, Presiding Judge; Worke, Judge; and Slieter,
Judge.

2
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
WORKE, Judge
Appellant argues that the district court abused its discretion by denying her
presentence motion to withdraw her guilty plea to driving while impaired (DWI). We
affirm.
FACTS
On July 2, 2017, a deputy responded to a disturbance report at a residence. The
deputy observed a vehicle drive away from the residence. When the vehicle returned a
short time later, appellant Jackie Mae Leonard exited the driver’s side. Leonard had an
odor of an alcoholic beverage, unsteady gait, and glossy eyes. Leonard showed impairment
while performing one field sobriety test, and was unable to perform additional tests due to
her lack of balance. A preliminary breath test showed Leonard’s alcohol content to be
.167. Leonard was arrested and refused the deputy’s request that she submit to chemical
testing. Leonard was charged with DWI , DWI —test refusal, and driving after
cancellation—inimical to public safety.
On November 22, 2017, Leonard agreed to enter an Alford plea to DWI, and the
remaining counts would be dismissed. Leonard agreed that she understood that she was
not admitting “guilt,” but admitting that a jury would likely find her guilty if presented
with the state’s evidence. But when the district court asked Leonard if she pleaded guilty
or not guilty, Leonard stated: “I’m sorry, I didn’t quite understand this part.” The district
court explained an Alford plea, but noted that Leonard still seemed confused. Leonard’s
attorney asked for time to talk to her, and the district court agreed to recall the case.
3
When the matter was recalled, Leonard entered an Alford plea, indicating that she
understood the plea , was pleading guilty to obtain the benefit of the agreement, and was
entering the plea voluntarily. The district court found that Leonard made a knowing,
voluntary, and intelligent waiver of her rights, and ordered a presentence investigation
(PSI).
Following a continuance, Leonard was to appear for sentencing on March 20, 2018,
but she instead indicated that she wanted to withdraw her guilty plea. Leonard argued that
her plea was not intelligent or voluntary, maintained that she was innocent, and raised
concerns over her prior attorney’s representation. Leonard stated:
I mean, [my attorney] knew I was getting exhausted. I
was tired. I had informed him that I am a TBI [traumatic brain
injury] patient. I’ve had three brain injuries, and I was getting
really overwhelmed and I did not understand.
So I got home and I realized – I’m, like, now, I said
“yes” to the prosecuting attorney to things that I would not
have said “yes” to if I was in a good frame of mind, you know.
So, I don’t know, I think that I should be able to take this back
because I do not agree with it at all.

The prosecutor objected to Leonard’s motion, stating that her claims were not
substantiated by the record and that the state would be prejudiced b ecause the case was
getting old. The district court stated that it would review everything and that it would grant
the motion if Leonard was coerced into pleading guilty. Leonard responded: “I don’t mean
I was totally coerced . . . . I think [my attorney] was the one in the hurry to get it done and
over with and . . . I don’t believe I was properly represented.”
The district court denied Leonard’s motion to withdraw her guilty plea. The district
court found that Leonard’s guilty plea was valid because she acknowledged that she
4
understood the plea agreement and had sufficient time to discuss the issue with her attorney
who properly advised Leonard about the plea agreement and its effect. The district court
sentenced Leonard to 365 days in jail, to serve ten days on work release or sentence to
service, with the remaining 355 days stayed for four years. This appeal followed.
D E C I S I O N
Leonard argues that the district court should have granted her presentence motion
to withdraw her guilty plea. There is no absolute right to withdraw a guilty plea. State v.
Raleigh, 778 N.W.2d 90, 93 (Minn. 2010). But when a defendant moves to withdraw a
guilty plea before sentencing, a district court has discretion to grant the motion “if it is fair
and just to do so.” Minn. R. Crim. P. 15.05, subd. 2. In applying the fair-and-just standard,
the district court considers the defendant’s reasons as to why she should be allowed to
withdraw her plea and any prejudice the state would suffer. Id. The district court’s denial
of a plea-withdrawal motion “will be reversed only in the rare case in which the appellate
court can fairly conclude that the [district] court abused its discretion.” State v. Kaiser,
469 N.W.2d 316, 320 (Minn. 1991) (quotation omitted).
The defendant has the burden to establish a fair-and-just reason for withdrawing her
guilty plea. State v. Farnsworth, 738 N.W.2d 364, 371 (Minn. 2007). Leonard argues that
she should have been permitted to withdraw her guilty plea because it was not voluntary
or intelligent.
“To be constitutionally valid, a guilty plea must be accurate, voluntary, and
intelligent.” Raleigh, 778 N.W.2d at 94. A defendant has the burden of showing that her
guilty plea was invalid. Id. The validity of a guilty plea is a question of law reviewed de
5
novo. Id. But when credibility weighs in the district court’s determination, we defer to the
“primary observations and trustworthiness assessments made by the district court” in
determining the factual circumstances surrounding a defendant’s guilty plea. State v.
Aviles-Alvarez, 561 N.W.2d 523, 527 (Minn. App. 1997), review denied (Minn. June 11,
1997).
Leonard claims that her guilty plea was not voluntary because she felt coerced and
did not think that her attorney wanted to continue representing her and prove her innocence.
“The voluntariness requirement ensures a defendant is not pleading guilty due to improper
pressure or coercion.” Raleigh, 778 N.W.2d at 96. Improper coercion generally requires a
threat or promise made to induce a defendant to plead guilty. See Nelson v. State, 880
N.W.2d 852, 861 (Minn. 2016) (stating defendant’s denial that he had been “subjected to
threats or promises” evidenced that his plea was voluntary). The voluntariness of a plea is
determined by considering all of the relevant circumstances. State v. Danh, 516 N.W.2d
539, 544 (Minn. 1994).
Here, the record shows that Leonard indicated that she was pleading guilty to obtain
the benefit of the plea bargain and was not “forced, threatened, or coerced.” But at the
hearing on her plea-withdrawal motion, Leonard stated that she felt coerced by her attorney
to enter the plea because he told her it “wouldn’t be worth it to [her]” to prove her
innocence, it was what she “need[ed] to do,” and it was “the best thing to do.” Leonard
stated that her attorney told her that if she had hired him and paid him, he would tell her to
do the same thin g. These comments that Leonard claims that her attorney made
demonstrate his advice after weighing the evidence against her and her options. Reviewing
6
the state’s evidence and the charges against Leonard, this advice does not amount to
coercion. Additionally, when the district court told Leonard that it would likely permit her
to withdraw her guilty plea if the record showed that she had been coerced, she admitted
that she was not “totally coerced.”
Leonard also claims that her guilty plea was not intelligent because she has
traumatic brain injuries, she was exhausted, she was overwhelmed, and she did not
understand. A guilty plea is intelligently made if it is “entered after a defendant has been
informed of and understands the charges and direct consequences of a plea.” State v.
Byron, 683 N.W.2d 317, 322 (Minn. App. 2004), review denied (Minn. Sept. 29, 2004).
If the “record reveals careful interrogation by the [district] court and the defendant had full
opportunity to consult with [her] counsel before entering [her] plea, the court may safely
presume that the defendant was adequately informed of [her] rights.” Hernandez v. State,
408 N.W.2d 623, 626 (Minn. App. 1987).
At the plea hearing, Leonard indicated that she understood the rights she waived by
pleading guilty. The district court offered to go over the plea petition with Leonard, but
she declined the offer. Leonard never claimed that she was exhausted or overwhelmed.
She expressed confusion only regarding the nature of the Alford plea and was allowed more
time to discuss the matter with her attorney. After the district court recalled the case,
Leonard indicated that she understood the plea.
At the plea-withdrawal hearing, Leonard stated that her attorney knew that she was
exhausted, overwhelmed, and has traumatic brain injuries. But there is nothing in the
record supporting Leonard’s claim. The PSI noted only that Leonard meets the criteria for
7
major depressive disorder, and that a “diagnosis of PTSD was considered,” but Leonard
“did not report or exhibit enough symptoms to meet criteria f or such a diagnosis at this
time.” We defer to the district court’s consideration of whether these issues invalidated
Leonard’s guilty plea, and in denying the motion, the district court rejected Leonard’s
claims. See Butala v. State, 664 N.W.2d 333, 340-41 (Minn. 2003) (rejecting argument
that “mental stress at the time of the plea[]” affected validity of the plea, when the argument
contradicted the district court’s recollection of the plea hearing); see also Williams v. State,
760 N.W.2d 8, 15 (Minn. App. 2009) (rejecting claim that guilty plea was invalid because
“medication [defendant] was taking at the time of the plea hearing ‘distorted’ her mental
focus and ‘clogged’ her thinking”), review denied (Minn. Apr. 21, 2009).
Further, Leonard claims that she is innocent of the charges, but this assertion is
consistent with her Alford plea and does not provide a reasonable basis for its withdrawal.
See State v. Goulette, 258 N.W.2d 758, 761 (Minn. 1977) (explaining that, under an Alford
plea, a defendant maintains her innocence). Additionally, Leonard has a history of DWI-
related offenses. See State v. Bryant, 378 N.W.2d 108, 110 (Minn. App. 1985) (stating an
extensive criminal history makes it unlikely that a defendant did not understand the
proceedings), review denied (Minn. Jan. 23, 1986). The circumstances show that
Leonard’s guilty plea was valid and the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying
her motion to withdraw her guilty plea.
Leonard also argues that the state failed to show prejudice. A district court may
deny a plea-withdrawal motion even when the state does not show prejudice if a defendant
fails to meet her burden of showing a fair-and-just reason for withdrawing the plea. See
8
Raleigh, 778 N.W.2d at 98; State v. Cubas, 838 N.W.2d 220, 224 (Minn. App. 2013),
review denied (Minn. Dec. 31, 2013). Therefore, although the record shows that the district
court engaged in a proper legal analysis, giving due consideration to Leonard’s reasons for
withdrawal and any potential prejudice to the state, we do not need to consider whether the
state showed prejudice. The district court pr operly exercised its discretion by denying
Leonard’s request to withdraw her guilty plea.
Affirmed.