A23-0510 State of Minnesota v. Timothy David Johnson, (A23-0505), Sarah Nicole Johnson, ...

This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by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
A23-0505
A23-0510

State of Minnesota,
Respondent,

vs.

Timothy David Johnson,
Appellant (A23-0505),

Sarah Nicole Johnson,
Appellant (A23-0510).

Filed November 20, 2023
Affirmed
Frisch, Judge

Hennepin County District Court
File Nos. 27-CR-16-33299, 27-CR-16-33300

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

Mary F. Moriarty, Hennepin County Attorney, Adam Petras, Assistant County Attorney,
Minneapolis, Minnesota (for respondent)

John Leunig, Justin J. Duffy, The Law Office of John J. Leunig, Bloomington, Minnesota
(for appellant Timothy Johnson)

Gordon G. (Jeff) Mohr, Law Office of Gordon G. Mohr, Bloomington, Minnesota (for
appellant Sarah Johnson)

Considered and decided by Johnson, Presiding Judge; Larkin, Judge; and Frisch,

Judge.
 NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION

FRISCH, Judge

In this combined direct appeal from their judgments of conviction for gross-

misdemeanor child neglect, appellants argue that because the imposition of the maximum

gross-misdemeanor sentence was manifestly unjust, they are entitled to a reversal of their

convictions and remand to the district court so that they may withdraw their guilty pleas.

Because appellants’ challenge to their gross-misdemeanor sentences is not authorized by

law and their guilty pleas were otherwise valid, we affirm.

FACTS

On December 29, 2016, the state charged appellants Timothy David Johnson and

Sarah Nicole Johnson with gross-misdemeanor child neglect. The charges were based on

events that took place on or around March 30, 2015, when officers responded to a report

that the Johnsons’ seven-year-old son was not breathing. Officers discovered the child

dead at the Johnsons’ home. The Johnsons had previously noticed that the child’s health

was deteriorating and that he may have needed medical attention. Neither parent took any

action. The Johnsons testified that their willful failure to seek aid for the child was likely

to have physically harmed the child.

The Johnsons each entered into identical plea agreements with the state whereby

they agreed to plead guilty to one count of gross-misdemeanor child neglect and serve no

additional executed jail time. The Johnsons thereafter entered guilty pleas. After the plea

hearings but before sentencing, the district court informed the Johnsons that it would not

accept the plea agreements. The district court gave the Johnsons the option of withdrawing

2
their guilty pleas. The Johnsons declined to withdraw their guilty pleas and at a later

hearing reaffirmed their guilty pleas. The district court thereafter held sentencing hearings

and imposed the maximum gross-misdemeanor sentence authorized by law, 365 days’

imprisonment. See Minn. Stat. § 609.378, subd. 1(a)(1) (2014).

The Johnsons petitioned this court for discretionary review of the sentences, arguing

that the district court abused its discretion by imposing the maximum gross-misdemeanor

sentence. We denied the petitions. State v. Timothy David Johnson, No. A23-0501 (Minn.

App. Apr. 18, 2023) (order); State v. Sarah Nicole Johnson, No. A23-0502 (Minn. App.

Apr. 18, 2023) (order). The Johnsons now directly appeal from their final judgments of

conviction.

DECISION

The Johnsons seek a reversal of their convictions for gross-misdemeanor child

neglect and remand to the district court so they may withdraw their guilty pleas. They

argue that the sentences imposed by the district court are manifestly unjust and that they

are therefore entitled to plea withdrawal. We discern no basis to reverse the convictions.

“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); see also Minn. R. Crim. P. 15.05. However,

“a court must allow withdrawal of a guilty plea if withdrawal is necessary to correct a

manifest injustice.” Raleigh, 778 N.W.2d at 93 (quotation omitted). “A manifest injustice

exists if a guilty plea is not valid.” Id. at 94. And to be valid, a plea must be “accurate,

voluntary, and intelligent.” Id. Whether the manifest-injustice standard has been met is a

question of law subject to de novo review. Id.

3
 The Johnsons do not dispute that their guilty pleas were valid and in fact concede

that their pleas were accurate, voluntary, and intelligent. Instead, the Johnsons argue that

they have a right to withdraw their pleas because the district court’s imposition of the

maximum sentence authorized by law was excessive and constitutes a manifest injustice.

As the Johnsons’ counsel admitted at oral argument before this court, the Johnsons are

challenging not the validity of the pleas, but the sentences imposed. This challenge is

unavailing for three reasons.

First, the Johnsons have no right to appeal the district court’s imposition of a lawful

gross-misdemeanor sentence on the grounds that the sentence is excessive, unreasonable,

or not appropriate. See State v. Whitledge, 500 N.W.2d 488, 489 (Minn. 1993) (explaining

that a defendant may appeal a gross-misdemeanor sentence on the grounds that it is

unconstitutional or otherwise not authorized by law); Minn. R. Crim. P. 28.02, subd. 2(3)

(providing an appeal of right from a sentence imposed or stayed in a felony case). To

challenge their gross-misdemeanor sentences on any of these bases, the Johnsons were

required to seek discretionary review. Minn. R. Crim. P. 28.02, subd. 3. Indeed, the

Johnsons petitioned this court for discretionary review of their sentences. And we denied

review, declining to exercise the discretion afforded to us under Minn. R. Crim. P. 28.05,

subd. 3, to review the appropriateness of the sentences.

Second, there is no legal authority to support the argument that Minn. R. Crim.

P. 15.05, subd. 1, allows for plea withdrawal where the sentence is manifestly unjust. The

rule provides, “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

4
correct a manifest injustice.” Minn. R. Crim. P. 15.05, subd. 1. The rule applies to the

validity of guilty pleas, not to the validity of sentences. Compare Minn. R. Crim. P. 15

(guilty pleas) with Minn. R. Crim. P. 27 (sentencing).

Third, even assuming that the Johnsons had a right to directly appeal their gross-

misdemeanor sentences, our independent review of the record supports the conclusion that

the Johnsons’ pleas were valid. To be valid, a plea must be “accurate, voluntary, and

intelligent.” Raleigh, 778 N.W.2d at 94. The Johnsons’ guilty pleas satisfy all three

requirements. The pleas were accurate because the Johnsons explained, in their own

words, how their conduct satisfied each of the elements of gross-misdemeanor child

neglect. The pleas were voluntary, as the Johnsons acknowledged that they were entering

their guilty pleas of their own volition. And the pleas were intelligent. The Johnsons were

advised of the maximum possible consequence as a result of entering their pleas. The

district court informed the Johnsons that it would not be accepting the plea agreements

recommending no jail time and afforded them the opportunity to withdraw their guilty

pleas. The Johnsons then, informed of the possibility of imprisonment for up to a year,

reaffirmed their pleas. Although the Johnsons argue that the district court’s exercise of

discretion in imposing executed gross-misdemeanor sentences was unusual given the

charged crime, unfair given the facts of the case, and inappropriate in light of the remorse

demonstrated by the Johnsons, these arguments are unrelated to the validity of the

Johnsons’ guilty pleas and are not a basis to reverse the convictions.

Affirmed.

5