Malik Jordan Olsen, petitioner, Appellant,

This opinion will be unpublished and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
A19-0266

Malik Jordan Olsen, petitioner,
Appellant,

vs.

State of Minnesota,
Respondent.

Filed October 21, 2019
Affirmed
Johnson, Judge

Polk County District Court
File No. 60-CR-17-1381

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

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

Greg Widseth, Polk County Attorney, Scott A. Buhler, First Assistant County Attorney,
Crookston, Minnesota (for respondent)

Considered and decided by Johnson, Presiding Judge; Cochran, 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
JOHNSON, Judge
Malik Jorden Olsen pleaded guilty to fourth -degree assault of a peace officer . He
later petitioned for post-conviction relief and argued that his guilty plea is invalid because
it was not supported by a proper factual basis . The post -conviction court denied the
petition. We affirm.
FACTS
On July 10, 2017, at approximately 1:30 a.m., Officer Quanrud of the East Grand
Forks Police Department was on patrol when he saw a suspicious vehicle in an alley. He
approached the vehicle and spoke with the driver . Officer Quanrud detected an odor of
marijuana emanating from the vehicle. He instructed the three occupants of the vehicle to
exit the vehicle so that he and another officer could search it. Olsen became uncooperative.
When asked why he was uncooperative, he said, “Because I hate cops.” When Officer
Quanrud instructed Olsen to stand near his squad car, Olsen took a step toward Officer
Quanrud “in an aggressive manner.” Officer Quanrud twice instructed Olsen to place his
hands behind his back, but Olsen refused to do so. The officers attempted to subdue Olsen,
but the situation escalated. When Officer Quanrud attempted to place handcuffs on Olsen,
he swung at Officer Quanrud and shov ed him in the chest. The officers eventually took
Olsen to the ground and handcuffed him after a physical struggle. Officer Quanrud’s right
forearm was scraped during the struggle, which caused him pain.
The state charged Olsen with the felony offense of fourth-degree assault of a peace
officer resulting in the infliction of demonstrable bod ily harm, in violation of Minn. Stat.

3
§ 609.2231, subd. 1(c)(1) (2016), and obstructing legal process, in violation of Minn. Stat.
§ 609.50, subd. 1(2) (2016). In May 2018, the state and Olsen entered into a plea agreement
in which Olsen agreed to plead g uilty to the gross-misdemeanor offense of fourth-degree
assault of a peace officer, in violation of Minn. Stat. § 609.2231, subd. 1(b) (2016), and the
state agreed to dismiss the other charge. Olsen pleaded guilty pursuant to North Carolina
v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 91 S. Ct. 160 (1970), and State v. Goulette, 258 N.W.2d 758 (Minn.
1977). In his plea petition, Olsen acknowledged that he had “reviewed the evidence that
the state will offer against me if I have a trial.” The plea petition also states:
I am p leading guilty on an Alford basis . . . because the
prosecutor possesses evidence against me that, if believed by a
jury, would make it substantially likely that the jury would
return a verdict of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the
elements of this crime. (Specifically, at trial, East Grand Forks
Police Department Officers Jared Quanrud and Gilbert Trevino
would testify that I physically assaulted Officer Quanrud, who
is a licensed peace officer, while Officer Quanrud was
executing a duty imposed by law on or about July 10, 2017, in
Polk County, Minnesota.)

During the plea hearing, Olsen confirmed that he had read the complaint and
reviewed discovery materials provided by the state. Olsen acknowledged that there was a
substantial likelihood that a jury would find him guilty. The district court accepted Olsen’s
plea. The district court imposed a sentence of one year of imprisonment but stayed
execution of the sentence and placed Olsen on supervised probation for two years . The
district court asked the state to submit its discovery materials to the court within ten days,
but the state neglected to do so.

4
In July 2018, Olsen filed a pro se motion to withdraw his guilty plea on the ground
that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. In Sept ember 2018, an assistant state
public defender appeared on Olsen’s behalf and filed a supplemental post -conviction
petition, seeking relief on the ground that Olsen’s guilty plea is invalid. At a hearing in
October 2018, the state objected to the assistant state public defender’s limited
representation and to Olsen’s insistence on simultaneously proceeding pro se on his
original motion. After discussion, Olsen withdrew his motion and agreed to proceed solely
on the post -conviction petition that had been filed by the assistant state public defender.
After the hearing, t he parties filed additional memoranda. In January 2019, the post -
conviction court denied Olsen’s petition. Olsen appeals.
D E C I S I O N
Olsen argues that the post -conviction court erred by denying his post -conviction
petition.
A defendant does not have an absolute right to withdraw a guilty plea. State v.
Raleigh, 778 N.W.2d 90, 93 (Minn. 2010). But a district court must grant a defendant’s
motion to withdraw a guilty pl ea if necessary to “correct a manifest injustice.” Minn. R.
Crim. P. 15.05, subd. 1. “A manifest injustice exists if a guilty plea is not valid.” Raleigh,
778 N.W.2d at 94. To be constitutionally valid, “a guilty plea must be accurate, voluntary,
and intelligent.” Taylor v. State, 887 N.W.2d 821, 823 (Minn. 2016). The supreme court
has explained each of the three requirements as follows:
The main purpose of the accuracy requirement is to protect a
defendant from pleading guilty to a more serious offense than
he could be convicted of were he to insist on his right to

5
trial. . . . The purpose of the voluntariness requirement is to
insure that the defendant is not pleading guilty because of
improper pressures. The purpose of the requirement that the
plea be intelligent is to insure that the defendant understands
the charges, understands the rights he is waiving by pleading
guilty, and understands the consequences of his plea.

State v. Trott, 338 N.W.2d 248, 251 (Minn. 1983) . If a guilty plea fails to meet any of
these three requirements, it is invalid. See State v. Ecker , 524 N.W.2d 712, 716 (Minn.
1994). Thus, if a person ’s guilty plea is not accurate, not voluntary, or not intelligent, a
district court must permit the person to withdraw the plea. State v. Theis, 742 N.W.2d 643,
650 (Minn. 2007). A defendant bears the burden of showing that his or her guilty plea is
invalid. Raleigh, 778 N.W.2d at 94. This court applies an abuse-of-discretion standard of
review to the denial of a post -conviction petition. Riley v. State, 819 N.W.2d 162, 167
(Minn. 2012).
Olsen contends that his guilty plea is invalid because it is not accurate. To satisfy
the accuracy requirement, a guilty plea must “be established on a proper factual basis.”
Raleigh, 778 N.W.2d at 94. A proper factual basis exists if there are “‘sufficient facts on
the record to support a conclusion that defendant’s conduct falls within the charge to which
he desires to plead guilty.’” State v. Iverson, 664 N.W.2d 346, 349 (Minn. 2003) (quoting
Kelsey v. State, 214 N.W.2d 236, 237 (Minn. 1974)). 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.’” Nelson v. State, 880 N.W.2d 852, 859 (Minn. 2016)
(quoting State v. Genereux, 272 N.W.2d 33, 34 (Minn. 1978)).

6
In a conventional guilty plea, the defendant’s admissions provide the factual basis
of the admission of guilt. Ecker, 524 N.W.2d at 716. But an Alford plea is different; it
allows a defendant to maintain his innocence but plead guilty based on his belief that the
state has sufficient evidence and would be likely to obtain a conviction if the case were to
go to trial. Goulette, 258 N.W.2d at 761. A strong factual basis for an Alford plea is
particularly important because such a plea is “not supported by the defendant’s admission
of guilt, and is actually contradicted by [a defendant’s] claim of innocence.” Theis, 742
N.W.2d at 649 . Accordingly, a defendant submitting an Alford plea must “agree[] that
evidence the State is likely to offer at trial is sufficient to convict.” Id. A defendant should
“specifically acknowledge on the record at the plea hearing that the evidence the State
would likely offer against him is sufficient for a jury, applying a reasonable doubt standard,
to find the defendant guilty.” Id. This agreement and a strong factual basis “provide the
court with a basis to independently conclude that there is a strong probability that the
defendant would be found guilty of the charge to which he pleaded guilty, notwithstanding
his claims of innocence.” Id.; Ecker, 524 N.W.2d at 716-17; see also State v. Johnson, 867
N.W.2d 210, 214-17 (Minn. App. 2015), review denied (Minn. Sept. 29, 2015).
A.
Olsen first contends that there was not a strong factual basis with respect to the
element of intent to inflict bodily harm. The statute setting forth the offense of conviction
requires proof that the defendant “physically assau lt[ed] a peace officer.” Minn. Stat.
§ 609.2231, subd. 1(b). The word “assault” is defined by statute to mean “the intentional
infliction of or attempt to inflict bodily harm upon another.” Minn. Stat. § 609.02,

7
subd. 10(2) (2016). Olsen’s offense is a general-intent crime that “requires the State to
prove that the defendant intended to do the physical act,” but it does not require “proof that
the defendant meant to violate the law or cause a particular result.” State v. Fleck , 810
N.W.2d 303, 308-09 (Minn. 2012).
In the context of an Alford plea, the key question is whether “the evidence the State
would likely offer . . . is sufficient for a jury, applying a reasonable doubt standard, to find
the defendant guilty.” Theis, 742 N.W.2d at 649. This inquiry is not necessarily limited
to the evidence that is recited at the plea hearing; rather the inquiry considers “the evidence
the State would likely offer” if the case were to go to trial. See id.; see also Lussier v. State,
821 N.W.2d 581, 588-89 (Minn. 2012). “The complaint may provide a factual basis for a
defendant’s plea,” and appellate courts “are permitted to examine the complaint to assess
whether a defendant’s plea was accurate.” Sanchez v. State, 868 N.W.2d 282, 289 (Minn.
App. 2015); see also Trott, 338 N.W.2d at 252. In addition, a defendant’s guilty plea may
be accepted based not only on the specific facts admitted at a plea hearing but also the facts
that may be inferred from the admitted facts. See Nelson , 880 N.W.2d at 861. “[A]
defendant may not withdraw his plea simply because the court failed to elicit proper
responses [through questioning of the defendant] if the record contains sufficient evidence
to support the conviction.” Raleigh, 778 N.W.2d at 94.
In this case, the post-conviction court concluded that the record of the plea hearing,
which consisted of the complaint and the plea petition, “provided a sufficient and strong
factual basis to support [Olsen’s] plea.” The post -conviction court reasoned t hat Olsen
“affirmatively agree[d] on the record that there was a substantial likelihood that he would

8
be found guilty at trial.” Olsen contends that a proper factual basis was lacking because
the district court merely “conditionally” determined that there was a proper factual basis
and accepted the plea in anticipation of the submission of discovery materials that the state
never submitted. The post-conviction court rejected this argument. T he post-conviction
court identified the issue as “whether the record, at the time of plea, contained a sufficient
factual basis to support” the plea. The post-conviction court acknowledged that Olsen’s
plea hearing was “imperfect” in that neither the district court nor counsel specifically
outlined the anticipated witness testimony, but the post-conviction court stated that “those
imperfections did not render his plea invalid.” The post-conviction court stated that, during
the plea hearing, it relied on both the complaint and the plea petition, which outlined the
anticipated testimony of Officer Quanrud and Officer Trevino, in concluding that there was
sufficient evidence to support the conviction. The post-conviction court concluded that the
complaint and petition were sufficient to provide a strong factual basis for Olsen’s guilty
plea at the time of the plea hearing.
The record supports the post -conviction court’s analysis. The complaint describes
the assault in detail, including physical acts committed by Olsen that resulted in injury to
Officer Quanrud, as well as Olsen’s expressed motivation for his actions, which allows an
inference of Olsen’s intent. Olsen’s plea petition states that police officers “would testify
that I physically assaulted Officer Quanrud, who is a licensed peace officer, while officer
Quanrud was executing a duty imposed by law .” These parts of the record are sufficient
to establish that Olsen “intended to do the physical act,” even if he did not “mean[] to
violate the law or cause a particular result.” See Fleck, 810 N.W.2d at 308-09. In this way,

9
this case is similar to Williams v. State, 760 N.W.2d 8, 13-14 (Minn. App. 2009), in which
this court reasoned that the complaint and the defendant’s admissions were sufficient to
establish a strong factual basis for a Norgaard guilty plea. See id. at 13-14.
Thus, the post -conviction court did not err by concluding that Olsen’s guilty plea
was supported by a proper factual basis with respect to the element of intent.
B.
Olsen also contends that he did not acknowledge that there was a substantial
likelihood that a jury would find him guilty. The post-conviction court determined that
Olsen agreed, both in writing in his plea petition and orally during the plea hearing, that
there was a substantial likelihood that a jury would find him guilty of fourth-degree assault.
The post-conviction court also determined that Olsen’s guilty plea is not invalid on the
ground that he did not specifically acknowledge that a jury would conclude that the state
had proved the requisite intent.
The record and the caselaw support the post-conviction court’s analysis. In the plea
petition, Olsen acknowledged that he had reviewed the state’s evidence and agreed that he
was “pleading guilty on an Alford basis . . . because the prosecutor posse sses evidence
against me that, if believed by a jury, would make it substantially likely that the jury would
return a verdict of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the elements of this crime.” At the
plea hearing, Olsen agreed that he had received the complaint and discovery materials and
that, based on his review, he believed that there was a substantial likelihood that he would
be found guilty of fourth -degree assault. Because a criminal defendant is allowed to
maintain his or her innocence while entering an Alford plea, a defendant need only

10
acknowledge the sufficiency of the state’s evidence to support a conviction; he or she need
not admit to each element of the underlying crime. Ecker, 524 N.W.2d at 717; State v.
Klug, 839 N.W.2d 723, 728 (Minn. App. 2013). Thus, the post -conviction court did not
err by concluding that Olsen made a sufficient acknowledgment of the likelihood of
conviction.
C.
We note that Olsen filed a pro se supplemental brief in which he makes several
additional arguments for r eversal. None of the issues raised in the supplemental pro se
brief were raised in Olsen’s post-conviction petition or memorandum. In his pro se motion
to withdraw his guilty plea, Olsen alleged ineffective assistance of counsel , but he later
voluntarily withdrew the motion and opted to proceed solely on the post-conviction petition
filed by his attorney . Because the arguments in the pro se supplemental brief were not
presented to the post-conviction court, they have been forfeited. See Powers v. State, 731
N.W.2d 499, 502 (Minn. 2007); Schleicher v. State, 718 N.W.2d 440, 445 (Minn. 2006);
Azure v. State, 700 N.W.2d 443, 446-47 (Minn. 2005).
In sum, the post -conviction court did not err by denying Olsen’s petition for post -
conviction relief.
Affirmed.