State of Minnesota, Respondent,

This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by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
A23-0913

State of Minnesota,
Respondent,

vs.

Bruce George Peck,
Appellant.

Filed July 1, 2024
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded
Bratvold, Judge

Crow Wing County District Court
File No. 18-CR-22-2433

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

Donald F. Ryan, Crow Wing County Attorney, Minnesota; and

Travis J. Smith, Special Assistant County Attorney, Slayton, Minnesota (for respondent)

Cathryn Middlebrook, Chief Appellate Public Defender, Sean McGuire, Assistant Public
Defender, St. Paul, Minnesota (for appellant)

Considered and decided by Larkin, Presiding Judge; Bratvold, Judge; and Frisch,
Judge.
NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION
BRATVOLD, Judge
In this appeal from appellant’s conviction and sentence for misdemeanor domestic
assault, appellant argues that his guilty plea was not voluntary or accurate because (1) the
2
district court imposed a sentence that exceeded the sentence in the plea agreement, (2) the
factual basis was not accurate for an Alford plea,1 and (3) the state used appellant’s
homelessness to induce the plea. We first conclude that the district court did not reject the
plea agreement or allow appellant to affirm or withdraw the plea, but imposed a sentence
that exceeded the sentence in the plea agreement. Thus, the guilty plea is invalid because
it was involuntary, and we reverse appellant’s conviction and remand for the district court
to allow appellant either to affirm his plea and be resentenced or to withdraw his plea and
proceed to trial. Because appellant’s other challenges are relevant if Peck chooses to affirm
his plea on remand, w e also decide the other two i ssues and conclude that the plea was
accurate and that the state did not coerce the plea. Thus, we affirm in part, reverse in part,
and remand.
FACTS
On June 29, 2022, respondent State of Minnesota charged appellant Bruce George
Peck with misdemeanor domestic assault under Minn. Stat. § 609.2242, subd. 1(2) (2020).
The following summarizes the facts in the citation and probable-cause statement, which
the district court received into the record at the plea hearing.
Peck reported a “verbal domestic” between himself and his roommate, S.C., to the
Crosslake Police Department. As Peck spoke with a law-enforcement officer, he explained
that he and S.C. were arguing about a garage sale and identified S.C., who was driving by

1 See North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 38 (1970) (permitting a guilty plea “despite
[the defendant’s] professed belief in his innocence” when there was a “strong factual basis
for the plea”); State v. Goulette, 258 N.W.2d 758, 761 (Minn. 1977) (recognizing Alford
pleas in Minnesota).
3
in a vehicle. The officer spoke with S.C. at a nearby hotel. S.C. stated that she “accidentally
hit the brim of [Peck’s] hat,” which “caused him to get angry and he hit her twice.” The
officer observed a red mark on the side of S.C.’s face. S.C. also showed the officer her
damaged eyeglasses and a photo of her face.
When the officer questioned Peck, he stated that he “stiff-armed” S.C. after “she hit
him and said she was going to get a gun.” The officer examined Peck’s hand and noticed
“a scab with some dried blood and some fresh blood” on his knuckles, which Peck said
occurred when he moved a freezer that morning. The officer arrested Peck, who was later
released on certain conditions. Relevant to this appeal, the conditions included a
domestic-abuse no-contact order (DANCO) that required Peck to have no contact with S.C.
and to stay away from the Crosslake home where Peck and S.C. had lived together.
The district court appointed a public defender to represent Peck. Peck moved to
discharge his appointed attorney and petitioned to proceed pro se. On October 13, 2022,
Peck moved the district court to remove the address restriction from the DANCO, arguing
that he was “sleeping in [his] car.”
At a hearing on these motions, the district court granted Peck’s motion to discharge
his attorney and allowed him to proceed pro se. At the same hearing, Peck claimed that
S.C. had moved out of state and was no longer residing at the address in the DANCO . He
stated that “[t]he landlord has changed the locks [and] . . . has issued orders removing her”
and that the apartment has “been vacant for . . . two months.” The prosecuting attorney
stated that he had “personally talked with [S.C.] in the last two weeks,” she had not moved
out of state, and she wished to stay at the address in the DANCO. The district court
4
amended the order to allow Peck to retrieve his personal belongings with a
law-enforcement escort. The district court did not remove the address restriction from the
DANCO.
On November 7, 2022, Peck was self- represented at his plea hearing. The
prosecuting attorney informed the court that the parties had reached an agreement. Peck
agreed to plead guilty “on an Alford basis,” and the state agreed to recommend a “90-day
jail sentence stayed for a period of one year; unsupervised probation; a 50 dollar minimum
fine; no same or similar offenses; remain law abiding.” The prosecuting attorney added
that, while the state requested a probationary no-contact order related to S.C., the state was
“not requesting any address restrictions.” The prosecuting attorney asked to “leave
restitution open for 60 days, or in the alternative . . . set a separate restitution hearing.”
The district court asked about a domestic-violence inventory (DVI), and the
prosecuting attorney stated that they “did not contemplate completing a DVI” and that it
“wasn’t part of the offer.” The district court stated that it would be ordering a presentence
investigation (PSI). The prosecuting attorney acknowledged that a PSI was required by
statute and asked the district court to “inquire of Mr. Peck if that impacts his desire to go
forward today.”2
The district court discussed with Peck what a PSI involves as well as Peck’s options
without a PSI. The district court informed Peck that they could not “wrap up” the case that

2 Under Minn. Stat. § 609.2244, subd. 1(1) (2022), “[a] presentence domestic abuse
investigation must be conducted and a report submitted to the court by the corrections
agency responsible for conducting the investigation when . . . a defendant is convicted” of
domestic abuse as defined in Minn. Stat. § 518B.01, subd. 2(a) (2020).
5
day because a PSI is required before sentencing. The district court also stated that a PSI “is
supposed to include any recommendations or limitations on contact ; whether or not there
should be domestic abuse programming; whether or not there should be any chemical
dependency evaluations or treatments.” Peck asked for “the alternatives,” and the district
court responded, “We have a trial.” The transcript of their discussion about the PSI runs
six pages.
Following this discussion, Peck told the district court that he was “willing to go do”
the PSI and pleaded guilty “under the Alford plea.” Peck was then sworn in, and he testified
that he understood the charge and the maximum penalty for that offense. He testified that
he was waiving his right to a jury trial and all related rights, including the right to have the
state prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Peck agreed that no one made threats or
promises to him to get him to enter a plea of guilty, that his plea was free and voluntary,
and that he was not under the influence of any drugs or alcohol.
Peck agreed that he received the police reports and “that if the state called in
witnesses, including the alleged victim, and they testified consistent with the reports that
they had given, that the jury would find [Peck] guilty of domestic assault.” The prosecuting
attorney then questioned Peck about the factual basis for the plea.
Q: Mr. Peck, you understand that the state would present
evidence at trial?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: And that would be in the form of testimony from [S.C.]?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: And if she did testify consistent with reports, she would
testify that there was a verbal argument between you and her,
that at some point you stiff-armed her or struck her in the face.
You understand that?
6
A: Yes, sir. The report also says that she admitted to hitting
me first.
Q: Well, I don’t know that it does.
A: Okay.
Q: But you understand that there was an officer that
subsequently came and took her statement?
A: Pardon me?
Q: You understand that there was an officer that came
afterwards and took her statement?
A: Yes.
Q: And took photographs of her face. You understand that?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: And the state would at trial submit those photographs
depicting her face and apparent redness and puffiness, and also
a pair of glasses that she said that were broken when she said
she was struck. You understand that’s what the state would
present?
A: Yes.
Q: And if that information was presented to a jury, do you
believe that the jury would find you guilty?
A: Yes.
Finally, Peck testified that he was waiving any claim of self-defense.
The district court found that Peck’s plea was “free[] and voluntar[y]” and that “there
is a factual basis to accept [Peck’s] plea.” The district court accepted Peck’s plea, convicted
Peck, and ordered a PSI, which would “also address the issue of restitution.” The district
court amended the pretrial DANCO to “remove the address restriction.” The district court
scheduled sentencing for January 2023, but it was later continued.
Community corrections prepared a PSI report before sentencing. The PSI report
recommended, among other things, that the district court stay execution of the 90-day
sentence and place Peck on supervised probation for two years. The PSI also recommended
that Peck complete a domestic-violence assessment and education program. Peck filed an
“answer” to the PSI report and challenged its summary of his criminal history.
7
Peck also moved to withdraw his plea and vacate his conviction. Peck argued that
he was not guilty and that the “plea has conditions that [S.C.] tried to get [him] to
break . . . to be put back in jail.” Peck also submitted a brief in support of his motion and
argued that he was not guilty because he was acting to defend himself when he
“stiff-armed” S.C. and that he took the Alford plea to “make this go away.” Peck asked the
district court either to “throw this case out” or to hold a trial. The state opposed Peck’s
motion. On March 30, 2023, the district court issued an order denying Peck’s motion to
withdraw his plea after determining that “there has been no showing that the granting of
[Peck’s] motion is necessary to correct a manifest injustice” and that Peck had not “made
a sufficient showing that it would be fair and just to grant his motion to withdraw his guilty
plea.”
On May 18, 2023, the district court sentenced Peck to 90 days in jail stayed for two
years with supervised probation that included compliance with conditions that are
discussed below.
Peck appeals.
DECISION
Peck argues his guilty plea is invalid because it was not voluntary and not accurate,
and he therefore asks this court to reverse his conviction and allow him to withdraw his
guilty plea. “A defendant has no absolute right to withdraw a guilty plea after entering it.”
State v. Raleigh, 778 N.W.2d 90, 93 (Minn. 2010). “At any time the court must allow a
defendant to withdraw a guilty plea upon a timely motion and proof to the satisfaction of
the court that withdrawal is necessary to correct a manifest injustice.” Minn. R. Crim. P.
8
15.05, subd. 1. “[M]anifest injustice exists where a guilty plea is invalid.” State v. Theis,
742 N.W.2d 643, 646 (Minn. 2007).
Validity of a guilty plea is a question of law that appellate courts review de novo.
Raleigh, 778 N.W.2d at 94. A valid guilty plea “must be accurate, voluntary, and intelligent
(i.e., knowingly and understandingly made).” State v. Trott, 338 N.W.2d 248, 251 (Minn.
1983). The appellant has the burden of showing their plea is invalid. Raleigh, 778 N.W.2d
at 94. Peck argues that his plea is invalid because it was not voluntary or accurate for three
reasons, which we consider in turn.
I. Peck’s guilty plea was not voluntary because the plea agreement differed from
the sentence imposed.
Peck argues that his plea is not voluntary because it was based on an “unfulfilled or
unfulfillable promise” by the state, given that “[e]very term of his [plea] agreement was
violated by the [district] court’s sentencing order.” The state argues that “by failing to
object at sentencing [Peck] has waived his objection to the violation of the plea agreement”
and alternatively contends that Peck “did not receive an unqualified promise regarding the
sentence to be imposed.” We consider the parties’ arguments.
A. Peck did not waive his challenge to the validity of his guilty plea.
The state is correct that Peck did not object to his sentence at his sentencing hearing.
Although Peck moved to withdraw his plea before he was sentenced, he did not argue that
the plea was invalid. We rarely consider matters not argued to or considered by the district
court. See Roby v. State, 547 N.W.2d 354, 357 (Minn. 1996) (agreeing that a party’s
“failure to raise the issue before the district court at trial precludes . . . litigation [of the
9
issue] on appeal”). But the general rule does not apply here because the Minnesota Supreme
Court has held that “defendants may challenge the validity of their guilty plea for the first
time on appeal.” State v. Epps, 977 N.W.2d 798, 800 n.4 (Minn. 2022). Peck therefore did
not waive his challenge to the validity of his guilty plea.
B. Peck’s guilty plea was not voluntary because the district court imposed
a sentence that exceeded the sentence in the plea agreement and did not
allow Peck to affirm or withdraw his plea.
To be constitutionally valid, a plea must be voluntary. Raleigh, 778 N.W.2d at 94.
A guilty plea is not voluntary if it is “induced by unfulfilled or unfulfillable promises.”
James v. State, 699 N.W.2d 723, 729 (Minn. 2005) (quotation omitted). “[W]hen a plea
rests in any significant degree on a promise or agreement of the prosecutor, so that it can
be said to be part of the inducement or consideration, such promise must be fulfilled.” Id.
at 728 (quoting Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257, 262 (1971)).
Peck’s brief to this court points out that the district court imposed a sentence stayed
for two years and supervised probation, which differed from the plea agreement. The state
argues that Peck did not “receive an unqualified promise regarding the sentence to be
imposed,” citing Black v. State, 725 N.W.2d 772, 776 (Minn. App. 2007).
3 The state’s brief
describes the plea agreement as a “proposed agreement” and, based on Peck’s colloquy

3 In Black, the district court did not accept Black’s plea pending the PSI and stated that it
would consider the negotiated terms if no aggravating circumstance occurred before
sentencing. Id. at 774 -75. Black absconded to Massachusetts and did not appear for
sentencing; the district court did not sentence him according to the plea agreement and did
not allow him to withdraw his guilty plea during postconviction proceedings. Id. at 775.
Black does not help our analysis. As discussed below, a district court has different options
when it defers accepting a plea pending a PSI report. Minn. R. Crim. P. 15.04, subd. 3(2).
Here, the district court accepted Peck’s plea before receiving a PSI report.
10
with the district court about the PSI, urges us to conclude that Peck “was on notice that the
district court was going to entertain condition[s] of [the] sentence other than those recited
in the proposal.”
We reject the state’s view of the plea hearing. While Peck agreed to cooperate with
a PSI and to delay sentencing, he did not agree that the district court could modify his
sentence based on the PSI. At the plea hearing, the prosecuting attorney recited the terms
of the plea agreement as including a “90-day jail sentence stayed for a period of one year”
and that Peck would be placed on “unsupervised probation,” would pay a “50 dollar
minimum fine,” would not commit any “same or similar offenses,” and would “remain law
abiding.” (Emphasis added.)
Yet, at the sentencing hearing, the district court modified the length and terms of
the stay. The district court imposed a 90-day jail sentence stayed for two years and required
Peck to comply with different and additional conditions: (1) supervised probation,
(2) remain “law abiding and of good behavior,” (3) commit “no same or similar offenses,”
(4) “pay a fine of $135,” (5) complete an intake with probation, (6) pay $413.10 in
restitution, (7) have no contact with S.C., (8) “complete a domestic violence assessment,”
(9) complete a “domestic violence education program” and cooperate with the intake and
recommendations, (10) “authorize the release of the PSI to the domestic violence assessor
and the domestic violence program,” (11) complete any required or requested cognitive
skills, (12) not “display assaultive, threatening, disorderly, harassing or stalking
behaviors,” (13) not possess a firearm, (14) submit to searches by the probation
11
department, and (15) “follow the general rules of probation.” Conditions (5)-(15) were not
mentioned until the sentencing hearing.
Minnesota Rule of Criminal Procedure 15.04, subdivision 3(2), provides that
“[w]hen a plea is entered and the defendant questioned, the district court judge must reject
or accept the plea of guilty on the terms of the plea agreement.” Alternatively, the same
rule allows a district court to “postpone its acceptance or rejection until it has received the
results of a presentence investigation.” Minn. R. Crim. P. 15.04, subd. 3(2). If a district
court “rejects the plea agreement, it must advise the parties in open court and then call upon
the defendant to either affirm or withdraw the plea.” Id.
Caselaw illustrates this rule. In State v. Noreen, this court remanded to allow the
appellant to affirm or withdraw his guilty plea. 354 N.W.2d 77, 79 (Minn. App. 1984).
Because Noreen’s sentence included restitution that was not “articulated in the plea
bargain,” we determined that the district court “imposed additional conditions of probation
which were not contemplated by the plea agreement.” Id. at 78 (quotation omitted).
At Peck’s plea hearing, the district court accepted the plea, convicted Peck, and
deferred sentencing until after it received a PSI report. The district court left restitution
open, but the parties had agreed on the length of the stay—one year—and unsupervised
probation. At sentencing, however, the district court increased the stay to two years and
imposed supervised probation. The district court also added several conditions to Peck’s
12
stay that were not contemplated in the plea agreement. 4 We conclude that Peck’s guilty
plea was not voluntary because it was induced by a sentence in the plea agreement that the
district court accepted but did not impose.
We note that the district court also imposed probation conditions consistent with the
PSI report’s recommendations. If, after receiving the PSI report, the district court decides
to reject the plea agreement, rule 15.04, subdivision 3(2), states that the district court “must
advise the parties in open court and then call on the defendant to either affirm or withdraw
the plea.” The district court did not advise the parties that it was rejecting the plea
agreement; nor did it allow Peck to affirm or withdraw his plea.
Accordingly, we reverse Peck’s conviction and remand for the district court to allow
Peck to affirm his plea, or to withdraw his plea and go to trial, or to grant other relief that
the district court deems appropriate. See State v. Brow n, 606 N.W.2d 670, 674 (Minn.
2000) (“On demonstration that a plea agreement has been breached, the court may allow
withdrawal of the plea, order specific performance, or alter the sentence if appropriate.”).
While we reverse on these grounds, we also address Peck’s other arguments about accuracy
and voluntariness because the issues may recur on remand.

4 Peck’s brief to this court suggests that the fine imposed differed from the $50 fine
discussed at the plea hearing. The state’s brief to this court notes that the “fine pronounced
at the sentencing hearing was $135, but the sentencing order indicates that the pronounced
$135 fine consisted of a $50 fine as agreed and $85[] in mandatory fees and surcharges.”
Indeed, the sentencing order lists a $50 fine, a $75 surcharge, and $10 in law-library fees.
Accordingly, the district court imposed a fine at sentencing that followed the plea
agreement.
13
II. Peck’s Alford plea was accurate.
A valid plea must be accurate. Williams v. State, 760 N.W.2d 8, 11 (Minn. App
2009), rev. denied (Minn. Apr. 21, 2009). This “requirement is intended to protect the
defendant from pleading guilty to a charge more serious than he or she could be convicted
of were the defendant to go to trial.” Id. at 12 (quotation omitted). Accordingly, the
defendant’s testimony at a plea hearing must include a “factual basis” for a plea to be
accurate. Id.
When a defendant enters a guilty plea under Alford, they plead guilty while
maintaining their innocence. Alford, 400 U.S. at 37-38. In Alford, the United States
Supreme Court held that it was constitutional for a court to accept a guilty plea when there
was a “strong factual basis for the plea demonstrated by the State” and the defendant
“clearly expressed” that he wanted to enter a guilty plea “despite his professed belief in his
innocence.” Id. at 38. The Minnesota Supreme Court has stated that Alford pleas require
“careful scrutiny” of the factual basis. Theis, 742 N.W.2d at 648-49. Because the defendant
maintains their innocence in an Alford plea, the defendant does not testify to facts showing
that they are guilty of the offense; rather, the “evidence [is] discussed with the defendant
on the record at the plea hearing.” Id. at 649.
Accordingly, the factual basis for an Alford plea requires two components: (1) “a
strong factual basis” for the offense to which the defendant is pleading guilty 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, 760 N.W.2d at 12-13. The supreme
court instructs that the “best practice for ensuring” that an Alford plea is accurate “is to
14
have the defendant 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 of the offense to which he is
pleading guilty.” Theis, 742 N.W.2d at 649.
Peck argues that his Alford plea was not accurate because “he never acknowledged
a jury would find the elements of the offense applying the beyond -a-reasonable-doubt
standard and the court never reviewed the record to determine whether there was a strong
factual basis.” We discuss the strong factual basis first, then the reasonable-doubt standard.
A. Strong Factual Basis
Peck argues that his plea did not have a strong factual basis “[b]ecause the [district]
court did not evaluate the strength of the state’s case” and did not determine that “there
was a strong probability of conviction.” The state argues that the district court need not
expressly find that there was a strong probability of conviction.
“A 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. Johnson, 867 N.W.2d 210, 215 (Minn. App. 2015) (quotation omitted),
rev. denied (Minn. Sept. 29, 2015). The supreme court in Theis held that an Alford plea is
accurate if the district court can “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.” 742 N.W.2d at 649 (emphasis added).
Caselaw suggests that Peck’s plea has a strong factual basis for two reasons. First,
the prosecuting attorney summarized the state’s case against Peck, and Peck agreed that a
15
jury would find him guilty. The supreme court in Theis stated that the “better practice” for
developing an Alford plea is to discuss the evidence with the defendant on the record. Id .
In Goulette, the factual basis for an Alford plea “consisted of a recitation by defense
counsel, in summary form, of some of the key evidence.” 258 N.W.2d at 760. The supreme
court affirmed the district court’s determination that the recitation, which “show[ed] that
there [was] evidence which would support a jury verdict,” provided a sufficient factual
basis for an Alford plea. Id. at 762.
The prosecuting attorney’s presentation of the factual basis for Peck’s guilty plea
was like the defense attorney’s presentation in Goulette. The prosecuting attorney
summarized the underlying facts and the evidence that would be offered at trial, and Peck
acknowledged that the state’s evidence against him is sufficient for the jury to find him
guilty. The prosecuting attorney questioned Peck on the record about the underlying
evidence and facts. Peck agreed that, based on the police report, S.C. would testify that
“there was a verbal argument” between the two of them and that he “stiff-armed or struck
her in the face,” that an officer “took photographs of [S.C.’s] face,” that the photographs
would show that S.C.’s face was red and puffy, and that S.C.’s eyeglasses were broken.
Peck also agreed that, if a jury was presented with this evidence, it would find him guilty.
Second, this court has rejected the claim that a district court must expressly find a
strong probability of conviction before accepting a Norgaard plea,
which also has an
16
accuracy requirement.5 In Johnson, we affirmed that a Norgaard plea to felony domestic
assault was accurate based on plea-hearing testimony discussing police reports that
included the victim’s statements that Johnson had strangled her. 867 N.W.2d at 213-15,
217. At his plea hearing, Johnson testified that he did not remember much of the incident
because of a medical emergency, but he had an opportunity to review the police report. Id.
at 213. Johnson agreed that, if his case went to trial and “the prosecution called witnesses
who would testify to what is in [the] police reports about what happened that night at [his]
residence,” a fact -finder “applying the presumption of innocence and burden of proof
beyond a reasonable doubt” would convict him. Id. at 214.
This court determined that the district court in Johnson did not err by failing to make
“an express finding” that “there is a strong probability that the defendant would be found
guilty” if the case went to trial. Id. at 216 (quotation omitted). We also determined that the
requirement that a district court must “independently conclude” a strong factual basis exists
“indicates merely that a district court must assure itself that the accuracy standard is
satisfied.” Id. (quotation omitted).
Given that the prosecuting attorney summarized the state’s case, Peck agreed that a
jury would find him guilty based on this evidence, and caselaw has held that a district court

5 While Norgaard pleas differ from Alford pleas because Norgaard pleas are based on a
lack of memory of the events that occurred rather than a claim of innocence, the same
accuracy requirements apply to both Norgaard and Alford pleas. Williams, 760 N.W.2d at
12-13; see also State ex rel. Norgaard v. Tahash, 110 N.W.2d 867, 870-71 (Minn. 1961)
(determining that the district court did not err by accepting a defendant’s guilty plea when
he could not remember his state of mind well enough to testify about the factual basis for
the intent requirement of the crime).
17
need not expressly find a strong probability of guilt, we conclude that Peck’s testimony
provided a strong factual basis for his conviction.
B. Beyond-a-Reasonable-Doubt Standard
Peck next argues that his plea was not accurate because he did not testify that he
believed a jury would find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Peck’s brief to this court
acknowledges that he agreed at the plea hearing that, “if the state called in witnesses,
including the alleged victim, and they testified consistent with the reports that they had
given, that the jury would find [him] guilty of domestic assault.” Peck argues that this
acknowledgment was not enough to make his plea accurate because his testimony did not
specify that evidence met the state’s burden to provide his guilt “beyond a reasonable
doubt.” The state argues that the supreme court “has not mandated . . . specific
acknowledgement” that a jury would find the defendant guilty ‘“beyond reasonable doubt’
during the Alford plea colloquy.”
Peck supports his argument by citing Theis, 742 N.W.2d at 649. In Theis, the
supreme court determined that an Alford plea was not accurate when the defendant merely
agreed that “if this case were to proceed there is a risk to [him] that [he] would be found
guilty.” 742 N.W.2d at 645, 650. On the other hand, in State v. Ecker, the supreme court
determined that a plea was accurate when the defendant testified that “he believed a jury
could convict him . . . based on the evidence against him.” 524 N.W.2d 712, 715 (Minn.
1995).
Neither Theis nor Ecker supports Peck’s assertion that the plea colloquy must
include the words “beyond a reasonable doubt.” The supreme court rejected Theis’s plea
18
because he merely admitted that there was a “risk” that he would be “found guilty.” Theis,
742 N.W.2d at 650. The supreme court accepted Ecker’s plea because Ecker acknowledged
that he believed a jury could convict him based on the evidence presented. Ecker,
524 N.W.2d at 715.
The supreme court stated in Theis that the “best practice” for a guilty-plea colloquy
“is to have the defendant 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 of the offense to which he is
pleading guilty.” 742 N.W.2d at 649 (emphasis added). But no caselaw holds that a failure
to do so is reversible error. Accordingly, Peck’s Alford plea is not inaccurate because his
plea colloquy did not discuss the state’s evidence using the “beyond a reasonable doubt”
standard.
We acknowledge the supreme court’s urging that the best practice for a plea
colloquy about the state’s evidence is to include the beyond- a-reasonable-doubt standard.
Id. Here, Peck acknowledged the reasonable-doubt standard only when waiving all his trial
rights. Still, Peck’s plea testimony provided a strong factual basis fo r his conviction, and
Peck agreed that the state’s evidence was sufficient for the jury to find him guilty. We
conclude, therefore, that Peck’s Alford plea was accurate.
III. Peck’s plea was voluntary and not based on improper pressure or coercion.
“The voluntariness requirement assures a defendant is not pleading guilty due to
improper pressure or coercion.” Raleigh, 778 N.W.2d at 96. A plea is not voluntary if the
government induces the plea “through actual or threatened physical harm, or by mental
19
coercion overbearing the will of the defendant.” Ecker , 524 N.W.2d at 719 (quotation
omitted). Courts consider “all relevant circumstances” to determine whether a guilty plea
is voluntary. Raleigh, 778 N.W.2d at 96.
Peck argues that he was coerced into pleading guilty because “he was homeless and
living in his car, and . . . the prosecutor offered to drop the residence restriction of the
DANCO in exchange for a guilty plea.” He argues on appeal that the state used removal of
the address restriction as leverage to make him plead guilty, which he claims is shown by
the state’s agreement to remove the address restriction as part of the plea agreement. The
state argues that removing the address restriction as part of the plea agreement was not
improper.
Caselaw supports the state’s argument. In Raleigh, the appellant claimed that his
guilty plea was involuntary because “he was under extreme stress and not thinking
rationally when he entered his plea.” Id. The supreme court noted that Raleigh did not
provide “further explanation of how stress, irrational thinking, improper pressure, or
coercion influenced his plea decision, nor [did] he cite any authority permitting a plea
withdrawal under these circumstances.” Id. The supreme court concluded that “neither
stress nor irrational thinking rendered Raleigh’s plea involuntary.” Id.
While we acknowledge that Peck’s homelessness was stressful, we conclude that
the record does not support Peck’s claim that the state used his homelessness to induce the
plea for three reasons. First, the record supports the district court’s decision to impose the
DANCO with the address restriction, given that Peck violated the no-contact order. Peck
20
does not dispute his violation of the no- contact order on appeal. 6 Second, based on the
record at the plea hearing, S.C. was no longer living at the apartment at the time Peck
entered his guilty plea. Thus, the address restriction was removed at the plea hearing
because there was no longer a reason to maintain the restriction. Third, Peck testified at the
plea hearing that his testimony was free and voluntary and not the result of any threats or
promises.
For all these reasons, we conclude that Peck has failed to meet his burden to show
that his plea was involuntary. Accordingly, we reject Peck’s argument that his guilty plea
was involuntary.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

6 Peck’s brief to this court argues that “the record does not support the conclusion that the
[address restriction] . . . was appropriate.” Peck relies on the absence of any evidence that
S.C. “was entitled” to reside in the apartment. Peck also acknowledges that the district
court rejected modifying the DANCO based on this argument. Nowhere does Peck’s brief
to this court acknowledge that the address restriction was added to the DANCO when Peck
violated the no-contact provision by going to the apartment when S.C. was present.