Jason Elliot Peterson, petitioner, Appellant,

This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by
Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c).

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A22-1482

Jason Elliot Peterson, petitioner,
Appellant,

vs.

State of Minnesota,
Respondent.

Filed April 10, 2023
Affirmed
Larkin, Judge

Rice County District Court
File No. 66-CR-18-864

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

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

Brian M. Mortenson, Rice County Attorney, Sean R. McCarthy, Assistant County
Attorney, Faribault, Minnesota (for respondent)

Considered and decided by Larkin, Presiding Judge; Connolly, Judge; and Slieter,
Judge.
NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION
LARKIN, Judge
Appellant challenges the postconviction court’s denial of his request for plea
withdrawal. We affirm.

2
FACTS
Appellant Jason Elliot Peterson is required to register as a predatory offender with
the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA) based on a 2004 conviction of
gross-misdemeanor criminal sexual conduct in the fifth degree. In April 2018, respondent
State of Minnesota charged Peterson with two counts of knowingly violating predatory-
offender registration requirements and one count of failing to register or update
predatory-offender registration information.
On February 27, 2019, Peterson appeared for a plea hearing with advisory counsel.
Pursuant to a plea agreement, Peterson pleaded guilty to one count of knowingly violating
a registration requirement by failing to register, and the remaining counts were dismissed.
The factual basis for his plea was proffered during the following exchange with the district
court:
COURT: [B]etween March 10 and March 31st of 2017 you
failed to register as a predatory offender. Tell me what that’s
all about?

PETERSON: Um, I never received the paperwork and I should
have contacted them sooner and I didn’t.

COURT: Should have contacted who?

PETERSON: The BCA for the paperwork.

COURT: Okay

PETERSON: I thought they were going to mail it to me but
they never did so.

COURT: All right. So did you understand that during that time
in March of 2017, that as a criminal sexual conduct violator
3
that you were required to register as a predatory offender. Did
you understand that?

PETERSON: Yeah.

COURT: Okay.

PETERSON: Usually --

COURT: And you did not do it?

PETERSON: Usually they send me the paperwork.

COURT: Okay. But I’m not asking about paperwork, did you
in fact register?

PETERSON: No.

Peterson stated that he called the BCA to get the registration paperwork “because it
was never sent to [him]” and denied an allegation in the complaint that Peterson “had not
returned the registration forms [because] he was falsely convicted.” The state claimed on
the record that “[t]he letters were mailed to [Peterson’s] house” and that they had “evidence
that the letters were mailed to [his] house.” Peterson maintained that he never received the
letters.
The state asked Peterson, “do you agree that you were required to register in March
of 2017?” Peterson agreed that he was required to register. The state asked Peterson if he
was “aware that [he] had a requirement to register?” Peterson replied that he was aware of
his registration requirement. T he district court accepted Peterson’s guilty plea and
sentenced Peterson consistent with the parties’ plea agreement.
Peterson petitioned for postconviction relief, seeking to withdraw his guilty plea as
inaccurate and therefore invalid, because he “did not admit during the plea colloquy to
4
intentionally violating the registration statute.” Peterson did not request a hearing on his
petition. On August 17, 2022 , the postconviction court summarily denied Peterson’s
petition to withdraw his guilty plea.
Peterson appeals.
DECISION
We review the denial of a petition for postconviction relief for an abuse of
discretion. Pearson v. State, 891 N.W.2d 590, 596 (Minn. 2017); see also Andersen v.
State, 913 N.W.2d 417, 422 (Minn. 2018) (stating the summary dismissal of a
postconviction petition is reviewed for an abuse of discretion). A postconviction court
abuses its discretion if it “exercised its discretion in an arbitrary or capricious manner,
based its ruling on an erroneous view of the law, or made clearly erroneous factual
findings.” Pearson, 891 N.W.2d at 596 (quotation omitted).
Peterson challenges the postconviction court’s denial of his petition for plea
withdrawal. He contends that he should be allowed to withdraw his guilty plea because it
was inaccurate and therefore invalid. 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 court
“must allow a defendant to withdraw a guilty plea . . . 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. A constitutionally valid guilty plea “must be accurate, voluntary, and intelligent.” Id.
“A proper factual basis must be established for a guilty plea to be accurate.” State v. Theis,
742 N.W.2d 643, 647 (Minn. 2007) (quotation omitted). “The main purpose of the
5
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 trial.” State v. Trott,
338 N.W.2d 248, 251 (Minn. 1983). An assessment of the validity of a guilty plea presents
a question of law that this court reviews de novo. Raleigh, 778 N.W.2d at 94.
Peterson admitted to failing to register as a predatory offender and pleaded guilty to
knowingly violating a predatory-offender registration requirement under Minn. Stat.
§ 243.166, subd. 5(a) (2016). Under that statute, a person is guilty of an offense if he
“knowingly violates any of its provisions or intentionally provides false information.”
Minn. Stat. § 243.166, subd. 5(a). “[K]nowledge of the law at the time of the violation is
an element of the offense of knowingly violating a provision of the predatory-offender-
registration statute.” State v. Mikulak, 903 N.W.2d 600, 604 (Minn. 2017).
Peterson does not dispute that he failed to register. Instead, Peterson argues that
the factual basis for his plea was inadequate to establish his guilt because he insisted that
he “never received the paperwork that was usually sent to him prior to registering” and
“appeared to believe receipt of paperwork was necessary” to register.
Peterson relies on Mikulak, in which the supreme court held that a guilty plea to
knowingly violating a provision of the predatory offender registration statute under Minn.
Stat. § 243.166, subd. 5(a), was inaccurate and therefore invalid for lack of knowledge. Id.
at 605. When proffering the factual basis for his guilty plea, the Mikulak defendant stated
that he did not register as a predatory offender because “he assumed he had a week” to
register after a triggering event, when in fact he was required to register within 24 hours.
Id. The defendant stated that although he previously may have been told about the 24-hour
6
registration requirement, he did not remember the requirement at the time of the triggering
event. Id. The supreme court determined that the factual basis was inadequate because
“knowledge of the law is an element of the offense of knowingly violating a provision of
the predatory-offender-registration statute.” Id.
Peterson argues that, as in Mikulak, his plea did not establish the statutorily required
knowledge because the “implication” of his statements wa s that “he did not knowingly
violate the statute. Rather, he was waiting for the BCA to send him the paperwork.”
Peterson’s reliance on Mikulak is unavailing because the defendant in that case stated that
although he may have been told about the 24-hour registration requirement, he did not
remember the requirement at the time of the triggering event. Id. In contrast, Peterson
agreed that he was “aware that [he] had a requirement to register” when he failed to register
and stated that he “should have contacted” the BCA sooner about his missing paperwork.
The postconviction court determined that Peterson’s statements admitted to a knowing
failure to register, which it determined was an “essential element” of the statute.
1 At no
point during the plea colloquy did Peterson state that he believed his duty to register was
legally triggered by receipt of the paperwork, as he now alleges in his brief. In sum, this
case is unlike Mikulak because the Mikulak defendant stated that he was unaware of his
registration requirement whereas Peterson stated that he was aware of his duty to register.

1 The postconviction court relied on the 2019 amendment of Minn. Stat. § 243.166, rather
than the 2016 version under which Peterson was charged. The amendment did not alter
the offense element requiring a knowing violation of the registration law.
7
Peterson also relies on State v. Alarcon, 932 N.W.2d 641 (Minn. 2019). In that case,
Alarcon argued that the state failed to prove that he was aware of the event that triggered
his duty to register. Alarcon, 932 N.W.2d at 645. The supreme court held that because the
circumstances proved were consistent with the reasonable inference that Alarcon did not
know of the event that triggered his 24-hour registration requirement, the state did not
present sufficient evidence at trial to support Alarcon’s conviction for knowingly failing to
register within 24 hours. Id. at 649-50. Unlike the circumstances in Alarcon, Peterson
admitted that he knew of his registration requirement and that he should have contacted the
BCA to fulfill it.
Once again, the accuracy requirement protects 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. The postconviction court determined that “[t]he facts contained
in the record, including [Peterson’s] own words, point to the conclusion that [Peterson] was
aware of his requirement to register at the time when he failed to register.” We agree.
Peterson’s statements during the plea hearing are more accurately categorized as an excuse
for why he did not comply with his registration requirement than proof that he did not know
of his registration requirement.
In conclusion, the plea colloquy shows that Peterson did not plead guilty to an
offense greater than he could have been convicted of if he had gone to trial. Peterson ’s
guilty plea is accurate under that standard. Thus, the postconviction court did not abuse its
discretion in denying Peterson’s request for plea withdrawal.
Affirmed.