State of Minnesota v. Gary Wayne Smith

This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by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
A24-1628

State of Minnesota,
Respondent,

vs.

Gary Wayne Smith,
Appellant.

Filed September 2, 2025
Affirmed
Halbrooks, Judge *

Beltrami County District Court
File No. 04-CR-23-2175

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

David L. Hanson, Beltrami County Attorney, David P. Frank, Chief Assistant County
Attorney, Bemidji, Minnesota (for respondent)

Cathryn Middlebrook, Chief Appellate Public Defender, Erik I. Withall, Assistant Public
Defender, St. Paul, Minnesota (for appellant)

Considered and decided by Wheelock, Presiding Judge; Frisch, Chief Judge; and

Halbrooks, Judge.

*
Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, serving by appointment pursuant to
Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10.
 NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION

HALBROOKS, Judge

In this direct appeal from the final judgment of conviction of failure to register as a

predatory offender, appellant seeks to withdraw his guilty plea to correct a manifest

injustice, arguing that the factual basis of his plea was inaccurate and negated an essential

element of the offense. Because we conclude that appellant’s plea colloquy adequately

established his guilt, we affirm.

FACTS

In August 2023, respondent State of Minnesota charged appellant Gary Wayne

Smith with failure to register as a predatory offender in violation of Minn. Stat. § 243.166,

subd. 5(a)(1), (b) (2022). The charge arose after Smith, a homeless registrant, stopped

completing his statutorily required weekly check-in reports with law enforcement, despite

reminders from law enforcement to do so. Smith’s registering and reporting requirements

began in 2016, and he had reported routinely until July 2023. After Smith failed to report

for a few weeks, law enforcement arrested him on a warrant.

Smith pleaded guilty to the charged offense. 1 At a sentencing hearing, the district

court accepted Smith’s guilty plea and sentenced him to 26 months in prison with credit

for 345 days’ time served.

This appeal follows.

1
As part of the plea agreement, Smith also entered guilty pleas for two separate theft counts
that are not challenged on appeal.

2
 DECISION

Smith seeks to withdraw his guilty plea on the ground that the factual basis of his

plea was inaccurate and negated an essential element to prove his guilt. Specifically, Smith

argues that because he testified that “he had daily in-person contacts with local law

enforcement where they discussed his registration obligation,” his plea negated his guilt of

the statute’s weekly in-person reporting element. See Minn. Stat. § 243.166, subd. 3a(e)

(2022).

“Once a guilty plea has been entered, there is no absolute right to withdraw it.”

State v. Mikulak, 903 N.W.2d 600, 603 (Minn. 2017). Rather, a court “must allow a

defendant to withdraw a guilty plea” after sentencing only when the defendant establishes

“that withdrawal is necessary to correct a manifest injustice.” Minn. R. Crim. P. 15.05,

subd. 1. “A manifest injustice exists if a guilty plea is not valid. To be constitutionally

valid, a guilty plea must be accurate . . . .” State v. Raleigh, 778 N.W.2d 90, 94 (Minn.

2010) (citation omitted).

A plea is accurate if an adequate factual basis is established on the record, meaning

that “facts exist from which the defendant’s guilt of the crime charged can be reasonably

inferred.” Nelson v. State, 880 N.W.2d 852, 859, 861 (Minn. 2016) (quotation omitted).

But “a factual basis is inadequate when the defendant makes statements that negate an

essential element of the charged crime because such statements are inconsistent with a plea

of guilty.” Mikulak, 903 N.W.2d at 603 (quotation omitted). We “must examine a

defendant’s admissions in light of all surrounding circumstances and in the context of an

3
entire plea colloquy.” State v. Jones, 7 N.W.3d 391, 396 (Minn. 2024) (quotation omitted).

Plea validity is a question of law that we review de novo. Nelson, 880 N.W.2d at 858.

The relevant language of the predatory-offender-registration statute provides:

(c) A person who lacks a primary address shall register
with the law enforcement authority that has jurisdiction in the
area where the person is staying within 24 hours after entering
the jurisdiction. Each time a person who lacks a primary
address moves to a new jurisdiction without acquiring a new
primary address, the person shall register with the law
enforcement authority that has jurisdiction in the area where
the person is staying within 24 hours after entering the
jurisdiction.

....

(e) Except as otherwise provided in paragraph (f), if a
person continues to lack a primary address, the person shall
report in person on a weekly basis to the law enforcement
authority with jurisdiction in the area where the person is
staying. This weekly report shall occur between the hours of
9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. The person is not required to provide
the registration information required under subdivision 4a each
time the offender reports to an authority, but the person shall
inform the authority of changes to any information provided
under this subdivision or subdivision 4a and shall otherwise
comply with this subdivision.

Minn. Stat. § 243.166, subd. 3a(c), (e) (2022) (emphasis added).

During the plea hearing, Smith affirmed that he had a “sufficient amount of time to

speak with” his attorney and that he was “satisfied with [his attorney’s] representation.”

Smith also agreed that he was “waiving [his] right to a trial,” and he was “entering this

[guilty plea] freely and voluntarily.” Prior to establishing the factual basis, the district

court confirmed with Smith’s attorney that the plea would be “in [Smith’s] own words,”

4
with guidance from Smith’s attorney at “various points” to cover the statute’s

technicalities.

The factual-basis portion of the plea colloquy followed. Smith testified that he was

required to register as a predatory offender for ten years after his release from prison in

2016 and that he had a registering and reporting obligation on the date of the offense. Smith

also testified that he had registered “quite a few times since [he] got out in 2016.” Smith,

Smith’s counsel, and the district court then had the following exchanges:

DEFENSE: But on [August 9, 2023], did you register your
updated address?

SMITH: No, I didn’t. I was—I didn’t register. I mean, I go
down and sign the papers across the street at the court—I mean
at the jail there—or the police station. And the last time I did
was in June or July, and then I was homeless. And I skipped a
few times because you’re supposed to go in like every week, I
guess. You know, so it wasn’t like once a month because we—
you know, when I was living with somebody—with my
girlfriend, we had a place in Ridgeway and got kicked out. And
then I had to start going up there every week. So, the last time
I think was in July, pretty sure.

And then I was going to court up here for them theft
charges in August. And they seen me at the gas station at 6:30
or so in the morning walking down here, and they said I had a
warrant for—I didn’t register—or I didn’t come in, you know,
to update whatever—

....

DEFENSE: . . . And so you just indicated, Mr. Smith, that you
skipped a few times. So that meant you didn’t register as
required by law; correct?

SMITH: Yeah, I guess so. Yeah.

5
 DEFENSE: And so you’re not claiming innocence and you are
indicating that you are guilty, in fact, of that failure to register?

SMITH: Yeah, I guess. Yes, that’s what I’m saying.

....

COURT: All right. And, Mr. Smith, probably feels repetitive
but you told your lawyer you knew, when you were homeless,
you had to check in weekly across the street at the police
station; is that right?

SMITH: Yeah, yeah. But, like, I seen this lady cop a lot, you
know, on the street because they see me like every day in the
neighborhood, you know? I mean, it wasn’t like I was running
off or anything like that, you know? I mean, they even said it
in the police report; they’d seen me on a daily basis. You
know, and they would stop me and tell me, you know, “Hey,
Gary. You got to go down to the station, you know, and let
them know what’s going on with you,” and stuff.

You know, so I go down there, and . . . like, me and my
girl, . . . we didn’t have no place to stay. . . . [W]e were trying
to figure out when to go and times to eat at different places,
you know, churches and stuff . . . . And it just kind of like
slipped my mind . . . for a little bit.

And then, . . . they finally put the warrant out on me, I
guess, after I didn’t go in for a month. And then that’s when
they arrested me on this.

COURT: All right. And so, you do agree that you are guilty
of this offense?

SMITH: Yeah.

Looking at the totality of Smith’s plea colloquy, it is apparent that Smith knew the

registering and reporting requirements, had followed them successfully in the past, and had

“slipped” on his obligation to do so for a few weeks. It is also clear that Smith’s comment

about interacting with law enforcement was not intended to establish his satisfaction of the

6
statute’s reporting requirements. Rather, Smith was simply stating that law-enforcement

officers knew him and would remind him of his obligation to go report. Smith himself did

not view these interactions as meeting his reporting obligations.

In support of his argument that he should be permitted to withdraw his guilty plea,

Smith seeks to analogize his case with Mikulak, 903 N.W.2d at 602-05, and Jones, 7

N.W.3d at 394-99. But these cases are distinguishable.

In Mikulak, the defendant, after moving from his primary address, failed to register

with the law-enforcement authority in his new jurisdiction within 24 hours, as required by

the statute. 903 N.W.2d at 602 (citing Minn. Stat. § 243.155, subd. 3a(a), (c) (2016)). At

his plea hearing, Mikulak pleaded guilty but testified that he thought he had one week,

rather than 24 hours, to register in his new jurisdiction. Id. The Minnesota Supreme Court

reversed Mikulak’s conviction, determining that Mikulak’s guilty plea failed the accuracy

requirement because he did not knowingly fail to register within the 24-hour registration

period. Id. at 605.

Here, Smith testified clearly that he knew of the weekly in-person reporting

requirements, and he acknowledged that he had not completed these requirements since

July because he “skipped a few times” and it “slipped [his] mind.” And Smith’s subsequent

comment about his daily interactions with law enforcement does not reasonably suggest

that he was retracting his previous statements that outlined his understanding of the

reporting requirements. Thus, unlike Mikulak, Smith’s knowledge of the reporting

requirements was not negated by his statements.

7
 In Jones, the defendant pleaded guilty to third-degree criminal sexual conduct by

responding to his counsel’s leading questions. 7 N.W.3d at 394, 398. When questioned

about whether he understood that future charges against him may be enhanced, Jones made

a comment that he “never raped [his] baby momma.” Id. at 394 (emphasis omitted). This

statement was not clarified, rehabilitated, or addressed by the district court or the attorneys.

Id. Then, at the sentencing hearing, Jones again made a similar comment, saying he “did

not do that to [his] babies’ mom.” Id. at 395.

On appeal, Jones argued that his guilty plea was inaccurate and he was entitled to

withdrawal. Id. The Minnesota Supreme Court agreed, determining that Jones’s comments

“effectively asserted that he did not commit third-degree criminal sexual conduct” and that

“Jones’s affirmative responses to exclusively leading questions were not sufficient to

rehabilitate his plea after he asserted his innocence.” Id. at 397-98. But unlike Jones,

Smith’s guilty plea was based largely on his own admissions of guilt and clearly established

his failure to comply with the reporting requirements. And Smith’s single comment at the

end of his plea colloquy about interacting with law enforcement in the community, who

reminded Smith to complete his reporting obligation, does not “effectively assert[]”

Smith’s compliance with the statute’s reporting requirements. 2

2
We also note that Smith’s plea colloquy does not establish compliance with the statute’s
other reporting requirements. His statements do not reflect that he affirmatively “reported”
anything to law enforcement during the interactions. See Minn. Stat. § 243.166,
subd. 3a(e). And even if it we broadly construed his interactions as a “report,” there is no
evidence that he reported between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. See id.

8
 Smith also raises a statutory interpretation argument about the statute’s phrase, “the

person shall report in-person on a weekly basis to the law enforcement authority with

jurisdiction in the area where the person is staying.” Minn. Stat. § 243.166, subd. 3a(e)

(emphasis added). Because “report” is not defined by the statute, Smith asserts that the

phrase can be interpreted to mean that an offender can also “satisfy their in-person reporting

requirement by making contact with local law enforcement who are aware of the

registrant’s obligation and homeless status.” But we do not need to reach the issues of

where and to whom reporting must occur in this case because the facts establish that Smith

understood the reporting requirements, having successfully reported “quite a few times”

before he lapsed in July 2023. Further, it is clear from Smith’s plea colloquy that he knew

that he was not satisfying the reporting requirements by having these casual interactions

with law enforcement in the community.

We therefore conclude that because Smith entered an accurate guilty plea, he is not

entitled to plea withdrawal.

Affirmed.

9