Cited by

See, -57 (Minn. App. 1993) (determining that the victim’s recantation did not entitle the defendant to plea withdrawal).

-57 (Minn. App. 1993) (affirming district court’s rejection of defendant’s claim of innocence when guilty plea contained admission establishing guilt).

See State v. Tuttle , -57 (Min n. App. 1993) (concluding that “mistaken apprehension of the strength of the state’s case” does not justify withdrawal under the fair-and-just standard); (adopting the plea process in North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 37, 91 S. Ct. 160

See State v. Tuttle , -57 (Minn. A pp. 1993) (affirming a denial of a plea-withdrawal motion where a victim recanted their statement due, in part, because the defendant acknowledged his guilt and showed remorse).

The supreme court rejected a similar argument for plea withdrawal based on a witness ’s recantation, reasoning that the defendant’s guilt was established by “his own plea of guilty, which was based on an admission of guilt and on a statement that he was p leading guilty because he was guilty.” -57 (Minn. App. 1993).

see also State v. Tuttle , -57 (Minn. App. 1993) (finding no merits in claim that plea withdrawal should be permitted based upon “ a mistaken apprehension of the strength of the state’s case”).

State v. Tuttle , –57 (Minn. 1993).

First, he argues that his case is distinguishable from State v. Tuttle , a case in which we affirmed the district court's denial of a defendant's presentencing motion for plea withdrawal.

-57 (Minn. App. 1993); see State v. Risken , (holding that the district court did not err in accepting guilty plea despite witness recantation because of 9 sufficient factual basis for the plea).

First, a district court may rely on a recantation to invalidate the factual basis of a guilty plea, but the court must be “reasonably certain that the recantation is genuine.” State v. Risken, 331 N .W.2d 489, 490 (Minn. 1983); cf. State v. Tuttle , - 587 (Minn. App. 1993) (affirming the denial of a motion to withdraw a guilty plea after an alleged recantation because the strength of the state’s case is not relevant where guilt is 6 Rule 15.05, subdivision 1, includes a second standard for guilt

In any event, Cooper’s alleged “mistaken apprehension of the strength of the state’s case” against him did not entitle him to withdraw “his own plea of guilty, which was based on an admission of guilt and on a statement that he was pleading guilty because he was guilty.” –57 (Minn. App. 1993) (quotation omitted).

See, -57 (Minn. App. 1993) (determining that victim’s recantation of charge did not entitle defendant to withdraw guilty plea under the fair-and-just standard on grounds that plea was based on mistaken belief of strength of state’s case); (holding that district court

–57 (Minn. App. 1993) (affirming district court’s decision to reject defendant’s claim of innocence when guilty plea contained admission establishing guilt).

(trial court acted properly in explaining terms of agreement).