Hernandez v. State

• Decision Date: 23 June 1987
• Docket Number: No. CX-86-2125,CX-86-2125
• Parties: Raul Edelberto HERNANDEZ, Appellant, v. STATE of Minnesota, Respondent.
• Court: Minnesota Court of Appeals

Page 623

408 N.W.2d 623

Raul Edelberto HERNANDEZ, Appellant, v. STATE of Minnesota, Respondent.

No. CX-86-2125.

Court of Appeals of Minnesota.

June 23, 1987.

Syllabus by the Court

The trial court did not err in denying appellant's petition for post-conviction relief.

C. Paul Jones, State Public Defender, Mark F. Anderson, Asst. Public Defender, Minneapolis, for appellant.

Hubert H. Humphrey, III, Atty. Gen., St. Paul, Thomas L. Johnson, Hennepin Co. Atty., Vernon E. Bergstrom, Chief, Appellate Section, Paul R. Jennings, Asst. Co. Atty., Minneapolis, for respondent.

Considered and decided by LANSING, P.J., and HUSPENI and RANDALL, JJ., with oral argument waived.

OPINION

LANSING, Judge.

Appellant pleaded guilty to two counts of first-degree criminal sexual conduct and received consecutive sentences of 43 months on each count. He petitioned for post-conviction relief, contending that he was entitled to concurrent sentences of 43 months under his original plea agreement. The trial court denied appellant's petition, and he appeals from the trial court's order. We affirm.

FACTS

Raul Hernandez was charged under two separate complaints with a total of three counts of first-degree criminal sexual conduct and two counts of kidnapping. He was represented by separate attorneys on each complaint. Hernandez appeared with both his attorneys on October 25, 1984, to plead guilty, pursuant to plea negotiations, to two charges of first-degree criminal sexual conduct. Hernandez, whose native language is Spanish, testified that he reviewed the Spanish translation of the petition, but that he also reads, speaks and understands English. He testified he understood that, pursuant to the negotiations, he would plead guilty to two counts of first-degree criminal sexual conduct, the other charges would be dismissed, and the sentences would be concurrent.

After each of the attorneys questioned Hernandez to establish a factual basis for each plea, the trial judge said:

[Y]ou have to understand that I am not accepting the plea at this time. I am going to order a Pre-Sentence Investigation report and after I consider the information that I get from that report, and I find out more about you, and after I have had time to review the convictions, the charges in this case and the facts, I will determine at that time whether to accept the negotiation. If I do not accept that negotiation you will have the right to withdraw your pleas of guilty to both of these and proceed to trial on both. Do you understand that?

Hernandez stated that he understood.

The sentencing hearing was held on December 3, 1986. The court declined to accept the plea agreement which would permit the sentences to be served concurrently, but agreed reluctantly to accept the agreement if the sentences were served consecutively. One of Hernandez's attorneys stated on the record in the presence of Hernandez that he and the other attorney had discussed with Hernandez his right to withdraw his plea if the court did not accept the negotiations as offered. He stated Hernandez wanted to maintain his guilty pleas despite the change to consecutive sentences of 43 months for each of the offenses. Hernandez was then questioned as follows:

Q: Mr. Hernandez, you and I talked about, and Mr. Wylde and you talked about the change in the contract?

A: Yeah.

Q: The agreement that you have. The Judge is willing to accept your plea of Guilty to those two charges, and she will sentence you to two 43-month sentences that would be served one after the other, consecutive rather than concurrent. Your total sentence then being 86 months which after good time, as you understand it if it's served, would be about 4.7 years. You understand that?

A: Um-hum.

Q: As the negotiation was originally, your original exposure was a 3 years sentence with all of the credits given.

A: Um-hum.

Q: Is it your desire now to maintain your Guilty plea pursuant to that knowledge.

A: Yeah.

The trial court accepted the pleas and sentenced Hernandez to 43 months for each count, to be served consecutively. The other charges were dismissed.

Hernandez petitioned for post-conviction relief, requesting that his sentence be modified to be concurrent. The petition was heard on October 7, 1986, based on legal arguments. The trial court determined at the end of the hearing that the record was sufficient to support entry of the pleas and in an order issued October 8, 1986, denied the petition to modify the sentence. Hernandez appeals from the trial court order.

ISSUE

Was appellant entitled to a modification of his sentence to conform to the original plea negotiation?

ANALYSIS

A valid guilty plea must be accurate, voluntary and intelligent. State v. Trott, 338 N.W.2d 248, 251 (Minn.1983). "The purpose of the requirement that the plea be intelligent is to insure that the defendant understands the charges, understands the rights he is waiving by pleading guilty, and understands the consequences of his plea." Id.

The trial court declined to accept the plea at the initial hearing. This procedure is permitted under Minn.R.Crim.P. 15.04, subd. 3(1), which provides:

If a plea agreement has been reached which contemplates entry of a plea of guilty, the trial court judge may permit the disclosure to him of the agreement and the reasons therefor in advance of the time for tender of the plea. When such plea is tendered and the defendant questioned, the trial court judge shall reject or accept the plea of guilty on the terms of the plea agreement. The court may postpone its acceptance or rejection until it has received the...