State v. Andren
| Decision Date | 27 November 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. C9-84-734,C9-84-734 |
| Citation | 358 N.W.2d 428 |
| Parties | STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, v. Elmer Carl ANDREN, Appellant, |
| Court | Minnesota Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court
1. Appellant was not misinformed about sentencing alternatives at the time of his guilty plea so as to entitle him to a probationary sentence.
2. The trial court properly considered appellant's prior conviction when sentencing appellant.
3. Appellant was not misinformed about sentencing alternatives at the time of his guilty plea so as to entitle him to withdraw his guilty plea.
4. The trial court's failure to advise appellant of a mandatory minimum sentence was not reversible error under the circumstances of this case.
5. Appellant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea was not timely.
6. Appellant was not denied effective assistance of counsel.
Hubert H. Humphrey, III, Atty. Gen., St. Paul, R. Kathleen Morris, Scott County Atty., Shakopee, for respondent.
William G. Peterson, William Peterson & Associates, Ltd., Bloomington, for appellant.
Considered and decided by POPOVICH, C.J., and PARKER and WOZNIAK, JJ., without oral argument.
Appellant appeals the trial court's refusal to permit him to withdraw his guilty plea. Appellant claims (1) he is entitled to probation because the trial court and prosecutor allegedly misrepresented appellant would be placed on probation when appellant pleaded guilty, (2) the trial court erred by considering appellant's prior conviction when computing appellant's criminal history score, (3) appellant is entitled to withdraw his guilty plea because of the alleged misrepresentations made to appellant when he pleaded guilty, (4) appellant was induced to enter his guilty plea because the trial court did not inform him of the statutory mandatory minimum sentence, (5) appellant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea was timely because the trial court allegedly never accepted appellant's guilty plea, and (6) appellant was denied effective assistance of counsel because his trial counsel did not inform appellant of the mandatory minimum sentence. We affirm.
The facts leading to appellant's conviction for criminal sexual conduct in the second degree are contained in State v. Andren, 347 N.W.2d 846 (Minn.Ct.App.1984) (Andren I). In Andren I, we considered several issues raised by appellant and reduced his sentence from 54 to 36 months. Id. at 848.
Appellant brought a second appeal attempting to raise issues known to him but not presented in Andren I. See State v. Andren, 350 N.W.2d 404 (Minn.Ct.App.1984) (Andren II). We dismissed appellant's second appeal because appellant should have raised the issues in his first appeal, part of the relief requested had already been granted, and because appellant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea was not an appealable order. 350 N.W.2d at 405.
After Andren II was decided, appellant filed a petition for discretionary review with the Minnesota Supreme Court. Without reversing this court's decision in Andren II, the supreme court granted appellant's petition for further review and remanded the matter to this court with instructions to consider and decide the issues raised in appellant's second appeal. State v. Andren, No. C9-84-734 (Minn. Sept. 25, 1984) ().
In Andren II, 350 N.W.2d at 405, we denied oral argument pursuant to Minn.R.Crim.P. 28.02, subd. 13. Having reviewed this matter twice previously, we do not believe the decisional process would be significantly aided by oral argument.
1. Were misrepresentations made to appellant during the entry of his guilty plea entitling him to a probationary sentence?
2. Did the trial court properly consider appellant's prior conviction when sentencing appellant?
3. Were misrepresentations made to appellant during the entry of his guilty plea entitling him to withdraw his guilty plea?
4. Was the trial court's failure to inform appellant of a statutory mandatory minimum sentence reversible error?
5. Was appellant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea timely because the plea was never accepted by the trial court?
6. Was appellant denied effective assistance of counsel because his trial counsel did not inform him of the mandatory minimum sentence?
1. Appellant claims he is entitled to probation because he was not informed of the statutory mandatory minimum sentence when he pleaded guilty. When appellant pleaded guilty, however, he knew the maximum penalty for his offense was 15 years in prison. Appellant did not plead guilty pursuant to a plea agreement, and the record indicates he understood there was "absolutely no agreement or understanding here as to sentencing." The trial court did not err by imposing the presumptive disposition in this matter. Andren I, 347 N.W.2d at 848; see State v. Trott, 338 N.W.2d 248, 252 (Minn.1983).
2. Appellant claims the trial court erred by considering appellant's prior conviction for a similar offense in computing appellant's criminal history score. Appellant claims the state did not sustain its burden of showing the prior conviction met constitutional standards citing State v. Nordstrom, 331 N.W.2d 901 (Minn.1983). This claim is without merit.
Nordstrom applies to matters where the prior conviction is an element of the later offense. Id. at 905. The requirement of a minimum sentence for a crime under Minn.Stat. Sec. 609.346 and the Sentencing Guidelines does not create a new element of the charged offense.
No system of criminal history record keeping ever will be totally accurate and complete, and any sentencing system will have to rely on the best available criminal history information.
Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines II.B.03.
3. Appellant claims he should be allowed to withdraw his guilty plea because he believed he would receive a probationary sentence. The disappointment of receiving a greater sentence than expected is not grounds for withdrawing a guilty plea. Schwerm v. State, 288 Minn. 488, 491, 181 N.W.2d 867, 868 (1970). As noted above, appellant understood there was no agreement regarding his sentencing.
4. The failure of the trial court to inform appellant of the mandatory minimum sentence under Minn.Stat. Sec. 609.346 is not reversible error under the circumstances of this case. Appellant pleaded guilty on May 17, 1983. The provision of Minn.R.Crim.P. 15.01 requiring the court to disclose the length of a mandatory sentence was not effective until August 1, 1983. Appellant knew at all times he could be sentenced to prison for a term of 15 years. Appellant did not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Smith, No. A06-824 (Minn. App. 4/10/2007)
...relies on two cases, State v. Lopez, 379 N.W.2d 633, 636 (Minn. App. 1986), review denied (Minn. Feb. 14, 1986), and State v. Andren, 358 N.W.2d 428, 431 (Minn. App. 1984), in which the petitioners sought to withdraw their guilty pleas, and the district court rejected the petitions as untim......
-
State v. Lopez
...to pleading guilty to a felony drug offense? ANALYSIS 1. The appeal before us contains a procedural error. In State v. Andren, 358 N.W.2d 428 (Minn.Ct.App.1984) (Andren II), the defendant pleaded guilty to second-degree criminal sexual conduct on May 17, 1983 and was sentenced on November 1......
-
State v. Robinson
...is not grounds for withdrawing a guilty plea. Schwerm v. State, 288 Minn. 488, 491, 181 N.W.2d 867, 868 (1970); see State v. Andren, 358 N.W.2d 428, 431 (Minn.Ct.App.1984). In Schwerm the defendant pleaded guilty and received the maximum sentence of 20 years; he then claimed he pleaded guil......
-
Lallier v. State, C1-86-1669
...680, 687 (Minn.1979), or because the defendant was disappointed by receiving a greater sentence than expected. Eg. State v. Andren, 358 N.W.2d 428, 431 (Minn.Ct.App.1984). In Kochevar, the defendant contended he should be permitted to withdraw his guilty plea because it was induced by an un......