State v. Dickson
| Decision Date | 30 June 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 42886,42886 |
| Parties | STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, v. Grover Augustus DICKSON, Appellant. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
C. Paul Jones, Public Defender, Rosalie E. Wahl, Asst. Public Defender, Minneapolis, for appellant.
Warren Spannaus, Atty. Gen., St. Paul, George M. Scott, County Atty., David G. Roston and Henry W. McCarr, Jr., Asst. County Attys., Minneapolis, for respondent.
Heard before KNUTSON, C.J., and ROGOSHESKE, PETERSON, and KELLY, JJ.
Defendant was charged with aggravated robbery for his participation in the armed robbery of a grocery store. Minn.St. 609.245 and 609.05. He pleaded guilty to the lesser offense of simple robbery, Minn.St. 609.24, for which an indeterminate sentence of up to 5 years was imposed. He appeals from the judgment of conviction and also seeks review of a postconviction order denying his petition to withdraw his plea, the matter having been remanded, during the pendency of his direct appeal, for an evidentiary hearing on such application.
Defendant claims that no factual basis for the plea was disclosed on the record and that he did not understand the nature and elements of the offense. The factual basis for the plea is found in defendant's admission that he drove the getaway automobile from the store, knowing that his companion had just robbed the store. Although he asserts that he did not know that the robbery was to occur and was therefore no more than an accomplice after the fact, it appears from the transcript of his preliminary hearing, introduced at the postconviction hearing by stipulation, that his companion had testified that the two had planned the robbery in advance, the defendant to serve in the role of driver of the robbery vehicle. As in North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 91 S.Ct. 160, 27 L.Ed.2d 162 (1970), due process was not denied defendant by the acceptance of his plea of guilty in circumstances where, had he stood trial, he may well have been convicted and sentenced to a term of as much as 10 years. Defendant had a prior criminal record and was here represented by highly experienced defense counsel, so it is presumed that he was advised and knew of the nature and elements of the offense. State v. Hopkins, Minn., 198 N.W.2d 542, filed June 16, 1972. He did acknowledge on the record that he had been fully advised.
Defendant claims that he pleaded guilty only in reliance upon the unfulfilled promise of his counsel that he would...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Propotnik, 43825
...counsel informed him adequately concerning this right. See, State v. Reinke, 296 Minn. 501, 207 N.W.2d 282 (1973); State v. Dickson, 294 Minn. 459, 199 N.W.2d 423 (1972); State v. Hopkins, 293 Minn. 522, 198 N.W.2d 542 (1972); State v. Feather, 288 Minn. 556, 181 N.W.2d 478 (1970). Further,......
-
State v. Lyle
...nature of the offense and of his alternatives. State v. Russell, 306 Minn. 274, 275, 236 N.W.2d 612, 613 (1975); State v. Dickson, 294 Minn. 459, 460, 199 N.W.2d 423, 424 (1972). Where a guilty plea is uncounseled, however, the factual basis requirement is particularly important to show tha......
-
State v. Reinke
...adequately informed his client of the nature and elements of the offense, including the meaning of Minn.St. 609.05. State v. Dickson, 294 Minn. 459, 199 N.W.2d 423 (1972); State v. Hopkins, 293 Minn. 522, 198 N.W.2d 542 (1972); State v. Feather, 288 Minn. 556, 181 N.W.2d 478 (1970). In any ......
- State v. Gustafson, 42781