Rosendahl v. State
| Decision Date | 08 February 2021 |
| Docket Number | A20-0439 |
| Citation | 955 N.W.2d 294 |
| Parties | Justin Marcus ROSENDAHL, petitioner, Appellant, v. STATE of Minnesota, Respondent. |
| Court | Minnesota Court of Appeals |
Cathryn Middlebrook, Chief Appellate Public Defender, Jennifer Lauermann, Assistant Public Defender, St. Paul, Minnesota (for appellant)
Keith Ellison, Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota; and Mark S. Rubin, St. Louis County Attorney, Kristen E. Swanson, Assistant County Attorney, Duluth, Minnesota (for respondent)
Considered and decided by Cochran, Presiding Judge; Jesson, Judge; and Slieter, Judge.
In this appeal from the district court's order denying postconviction relief, appellant Justin Marcus Rosendahl argues that the district court erred in denying his request to withdraw his guilty pleas to first-degree burglary and second-degree assault because his guilty pleas were not accurate. We conclude Rosendahl's plea colloquy established a sufficient factual basis for his guilty plea to first-degree burglary and we affirm that conviction. However, Rosendahl's plea colloquy did not establish a sufficient factual basis for his guilty plea to second-degree assault. We therefore affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.
The complaint alleged as follows. Duluth police officers were dispatched to a home following a reported domestic assault. The victim, C.M.A., told an officer that Rosendahl, who was her ex-boyfriend, had kicked open a locked door and entered the home. Rosendahl began hitting her in the face with the back of his hand causing her to fall to the floor. C.M.A. said Rosendahl at some point grabbed a knife and held it in a threatening manner.
C.M.A.’s son, who was hiding in his bedroom at the time, told officers he heard "slapping" sounds and Rosendahl tell his mother he was "going to shove [the] knife in [her] forehead" and "kill her."
Officers spoke with C.M.A.’s father, P.A., who told officers that Rosendahl came to his house after the incident at C.M.A.’s home and forced his way inside while holding a knife. Rosendahl then went to the kitchen, took a beer from the refrigerator, and drank it.
Based on this conduct, the state charged Rosendahl in an amended complaint with three counts of first-degree burglary, one count of second-degree assault, and one count of obstructing legal process. Rosendahl pleaded guilty to three counts:
Rosendahl testified to facts in support of his pleas. The district court determined Rosendahl's testimony established a sufficient factual basis of his guilt for each count.
Rosendahl subsequently petitioned for postconviction relief to withdraw his guilty pleas to counts one and three on the ground that his testimony did not establish a factual basis for his guilt. The district court denied the petition and Rosendahl appeals.
Did Rosendahl provide a sufficient factual basis for his guilty pleas to first-degree burglary with a dangerous weapon and second-degree assault?
To be constitutionally valid, a guilty plea must be accurate; and whether a defendant's plea is accurate is a question appellate courts review de novo. State v. Raleigh , 778 N.W.2d 90, 94 (Minn. 2010). "To be accurate, a plea must be established on a proper factual basis." Id. A defendant may be entitled to withdraw an inaccurate guilty plea on the ground that an inaccurate plea is a "manifest injustice." Id. at 93 (quotation omitted); Minn. R. Crim. P. 15.05, subd. 1.
Establishing a proper factual basis is "typically" accomplished "by asking the defendant to express in his own words what happened." Lussier v. State , 821 N.W.2d 581, 589 (Minn. 2012) (quoting Raleigh , 778 N.W.2d at 94 ). "The defendant's statement usually will suggest questions to the court which then, with the assistance of counsel, can interrogate the defendant in further detail." State v. Trott , 338 N.W.2d 248, 251 (Minn. 1983). "The main purpose of the accuracy requirement is to protect a defendant from pleading guilty to a more serious offense than he could be convicted of were he to insist on his right to trial." Id. " ‘It is well established that before a plea of guilty can be accepted, the [district court] judge must make certain 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, 861 (Minn. 2016) (quoting State v. Neumann , 262 N.W.2d 426, 430 (Minn. 1978) ). "It is to be hoped that the [district court] judge, in [accepting a plea], will ask the questions with respect to the factual basis for the crime so as to avoid the rather common inclination of counsel to elicit these facts by leading questions." State v. Hoaglund , 307 Minn. 322, 240 N.W.2d 4, 6 (1976).
Rosendahl contends his plea colloquy did not establish the following burglary element: that he intended to or did commit a crime while in P.A.’s home. The state asserts the colloquy shows that he committed theft by taking a beer from P.A.’s refrigerator. The record demonstrates that Rosendahl's factual basis satisfies this element.
Minnesota statutes section 609.582, subdivision 1(b) provides:
(Emphasis added.) Rosendahl admitted to entering P.A.’s home without consent and with a dangerous weapon. In response to questioning from the prosecutor, Rosendahl testified that "at that time [he] went in [P.A.’s] house and [he] saw the police were coming, [he] decided to go drink a beer instead of talk[ing] to police."
"[Whoever] intentionally and without claim of right takes, uses, transfers, conceals or retains possession of movable property of another without the other's consent and with intent to deprive the owner permanently of possession of the property" is guilty of theft. Minn. Stat. § 609.52, subd. 2(1) (2014). Rosendahl's admission that he drank a beer belonging to P.A. while inside P.A.’s home is sufficient to infer that he intentionally took movable property without P.A.’s consent, and his drinking it demonstrated his intent to permanently deprive him of its possession. See State v. Thompson , 544 N.W.2d 8, 11 (Minn. 1996) (). As the district court accurately recognized, there is no minimum property value requirement for misdemeanor theft in Minnesota. In sum, Rosendahl's plea colloquy demonstrated a sufficient factual basis to establish his guilt of first-degree burglary.
Rosendahl does not dispute that he possessed a dangerous weapon while inside of C.M.A.’s home. However, Rosendahl argues his plea colloquy did not establish he acted with the necessary specific intent to cause fear in C.M.A. The state appears to concede that Rosendahl's testimony alone is insufficient to support his guilty plea but suggests that we may consider the allegations in the complaint to infer his intent and conclude the plea is accurate. Because Rosendahl's plea colloquy did not support his guilty plea for this count and we may not consider the contents of the complaint to establish by inference a factual basis for his plea, the district court must allow Rosendahl to withdraw his plea and vacate his conviction.
Minnesota statutes section 609.222, subdivision 1 states: "Whoever assaults another with a dangerous weapon may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than seven years or to payment of a fine of not more than $14,000, or both." A "dangerous weapon" is defined as "any firearm, whether loaded or unloaded, or any device designed as a weapon and capable of producing death or great bodily harm." Minn. Stat. § 609.02, subd. 6 (2014). An assault is defined as "an act done with intent to cause fear in another of immediate bodily harm or death." Id. , subd. 10(1) (2014). An assault-fear offense, which is what Rosendahl pleaded guilty to, is a specific-intent crime. State v. Fleck , 810 N.W.2d 303, 309 (Minn. 2012). As a specific-intent crime, the state was required to prove Rosendahl intended to cause the victim fear of immediate bodily harm with the knife.
During the colloquy, the prosecutor questioned Rosendahl as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Bustamante
... ... portion of the complaint to become part of the record, the ... defendant must "expressly testify as to the truthfulness ... and accuracy of the[] allegations of the complaint during his ... colloquy." Rosendahl v. State, 955 N.W.2d 294, ... 298 (Minn.App. 2021). Bustamante did not expressly testify to ... the accuracy of the complaint. To the contrary, Bustamante ... testified that he was not aware of the contents of the ... complaint, had not read the entirety of the complaint, ... ...
-
Bastyr v. State
...the district court erred because it considered evidence at sentencing that she had not expressly acknowledged was accurate or truthful. 955 N.W.2d 294 (Minn.App. 2021). Our holding in Rosendahl, however, is not implicated here. In Rosendahl, a defendant pleaded guilty and subsequently petit......
-
State v. Kong Meng Xiong
...the plea hearing], a district court may nevertheless draw inferences from the facts admitted to by the defendant." Rosendahl v. State, 955 N.W.2d 294, 299 (Minn. App. 2021) (emphasis omitted) (citing Nelson v. State, 880 N.W.2d 852, 861 (Minn. 2016)). "A district court should not accept a g......
-
Mongar v. State
...the words "physically helpless" to describe M.M.G. is not determinative. See Minn. Stat. § 609.341, subd. 9; see also Rosendahl v. State, 955 N.W.2d 294, 299 (Minn.App. 2021) (stating that "[e]ven if an element to an offense is not verbalized by the defendant, a district court may neverthel......