Nathan Christopher Braun, 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This opinion will be unpublished and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
A19-0399

Nathan Christopher Braun, petitioner,
Appellant,

vs.

State of Minnesota,
Respondent.

Filed February 18, 2020
Reversed and remanded
Slieter, Judge

Becker County District Court
File No. 03-CR-16-1744

Cathryn Middlebrook, Chief Appellate Public Defender, Jennifer Workman Jesness,
Assistant Public Defender, St. Paul, Minnesota (for appellant)

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

Brian W. McDonald, Becker County Attorney, Rose A. Hanson, Assistant County
Attorney, Detroit Lakes, Minnesota (for respondent)

Considered and decided by Slieter, Presiding Judge; Larkin, Judge; and Reyes,
Judge.
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
SLIETER, Judge
On appeal from an order denying postconviction relief, appellant Nathan
Christopher Braun argues that he should be permitted to withdraw his guilty plea to fourth-

2
degree burglary because his plea is inaccurate. Because the crime of trespass may not form
the underlying basis for a burglary conviction, Braun’s guilty plea is inaccurate . We
reverse and remand.
FACTS
The state charged Braun with second -degree burglary for entering or being in a
building with burglary tools, in violation of Minn. Stat. § 609.582, subd. 2(a)(4) (2016),
and second -degree burglar y of a government, religious, historic, or school building , in
violation of Minn. Stat. § 609.582, subd. 2(b) (2016) . In December 2016, Braun entered
an Alford plea to an amended charge of fourth-degree burglary, in violation of Minn. Stat.
§ 609.582, subd. 4 (2016) , for entering a building without consent and committing a
misdemeanor in the building.
The state identified the following evi dence that it expected would be received at
trial to support Braun’s Alford plea. On August 2, 2016, after receiving a suspicious-person
report, Detroit Lakes police officers found Braun inside a local church at approximately
10:40 p.m. Officers found Braun in possession of a flathead screwdriver and a set of keys.
Officers then determined that Braun “made forcible entry into the church by prying open a
dead-bolted door.” Moreover, the state explained on the record that it would offer
testimony that Braun did not have permission to be in the church such that Braun “would
have committed the crime of trespass while inside the church.” Braun acknowledged that
there was a substantial likelihood that a jury would find him guilty beyond a reasonable
doubt based on the state’s anticipated evidence. The district court accepted Braun’s Alford

3
plea and sentenced Braun to 365 days in jail, credited him with 134 days served, and placed
him on a two-year probation term.
In October 2018, Braun filed a pro se petition for postconviction relief.1 In January
2019, the district court denied Braun’s postconviction petition for failing to serve the
county attorney and attorney general. The district court also ruled on the merits of Braun’s
pro se claims, concluding that he did not establish grounds for relief.
This appeal follows.2
D E C I S I O N
Braun now argues on appeal with the assistance of counsel that he should be
permitted to withdraw his guilty plea because it is inaccurate. “A postconviction petition
is proper to seek withdrawal of a guilty plea after the time for a direct appeal has expired.”
Kubrom v. State, 863 N.W.2d 88, 91 (Minn. App. 2015). “A defendant does not have an
absolute right to withdraw a guilty plea once it [has been] entered.” Dikken v. State ,
896 N.W.2d 873, 876 (Minn. 2017) (alteration in original) (quotation omitted). But “a
court must allow a defendant to withdraw a guilty plea after sentencing only when the
defendant establishes that withdrawal is ne cessary to correct a manifest injustice.” Id.

1 The district court did not appoint counsel for Braun’s postconviction petition, as is
required by Minn. Stat. § 590.05 (2018). See Paone v. State , 658 N.W.2d 896, 89 9-900
(Minn. App. 2003) (holding that Minn. Stat. § 590.05 grants an indigent defendant the right
to representation in postconviction proceedings when the defendant has not exhausted his
or her right to representation ). We agree that Bra un was entitled to representation, but
because we conclude that his plea was inaccurate, we need not address this issue.
2 Because the state did not file a brief, we determine this case on the merits. See Minn. R.
Civ. App. P. 142.03 (recognizing that a r espondent’s failure to file a brief means that the
case shall be determined on the merits).

4
(quotation omitted). “A manifest injustice exists if a guilty plea is not valid.” State v.
Raleigh, 778 N.W.2d 90, 94 (Minn. 2010). To be valid, a “plea must be accurate,
voluntary, and intelligent.” State v. Trott, 338 N.W.2d 248, 251 (Minn. 1983).
“A proper factual basis must be established for a guilty plea t o be accurate.” State
v. Ecker, 524 N.W.2d 712, 716 (Minn. 1994). This “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 trial.” Trott, 338 N.W.2d at 251. Generally, a factual basis is laid “by questioning the
defendant and asking the defendant to explain in his or her own words the circumstances
surrounding the crime.” Ecker, 524 N.W.2d at 716.
When a defendant enters an Alford plea, however, “the record must establish that
the evidence against the defendant is sufficient to persuade the defendant and his or her
counsel that the defendant is guilty or likely to be convicted of the crime charged.” Id. An
“adequate factual basis” requires “two related components: [1] a strong factual basis and
[2] the defendant’s acknowledgment that the evidence would be sufficient for a jury to find
the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” Williams v. State, 760 N.W.2d 8, 12-13
(Minn. App. 2009), review denied (Minn. Apr. 21, 2009) . “The strong factual basis and
the defendant’s agreement that the evidence is sufficient to support his conviction 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.” Id. (quotation
omitted).
The elements of fourth-degree burglary are met when a person “enters a building
without consent and with intent to commit a misdemeanor other than to steal, or enters a

5
building without consent and commits a misdemeanor other than to steal while in the
building.” Minn. Stat. § 609.582, subd. 4 (emphasis added). As part of the factual basis
to support his guilty plea, the state contended, and Braun admitted, that he committed the
crime of trespass while in the church.
Trespass cannot serve as the underlying crime for a burglary charge. “For a burglary
conviction to stand, the state must prove that a defendant intended to commit some
independent crime other than trespass.” State v. Colvin , 645 N.W.2d 449, 454 (Minn.
2002); see also State v. Larson, 358 N.W.2d 668, 670 (Minn. 1984) (“[T]he state has to do
more than establish an intent to commit the crime of trespass in order to obtain a burglary
conviction or a conviction of possessing burglary tools. The intent must be to commit
some indepe ndent crime after entering the building illegally.”). Because the crime of
trespass may not support the burglary charge, and the state presented no other evidence as
part of the Alford plea of a qualified underlying offense to support burglary, Braun’s guilty
plea is inaccurate. We therefore reverse the district court ’s denial of Braun’s
postconviction petition and remand with instructions to allow Braun to withdraw his guilty
plea, if he so chooses.
Reversed and remanded.