Jimmie Dunlap, Jr. v. State of Minnesota
A16-171
| Minn. Ct. App. | Aug 15, 2016Background
- Jimmie Dunlap Jr. entered his former girlfriend’s apartment in Brooklyn Center while a domestic-abuse no-contact order protected her.
- He was charged with and pleaded guilty to first-degree burglary (Minn. Stat. § 609.582, subd. 1(a)).
- At the plea hearing Dunlap admitted entering the apartment, committing a crime while there, and that the protected person was present.
- The complaint alleged Dunlap grabbed the victim’s arm while inside.
- After sentencing Dunlap filed a postconviction petition to withdraw his plea, arguing the plea was inaccurate; the district court denied relief.
- The court of appeals reviewed the denial and affirmed, finding the plea had an adequate factual basis.
Issues
| Issue | Dunlap's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Dunlap’s guilty plea was accurate | Plea lacked factual basis: admitted facts did not establish the independent crime supporting burglary | Plea was supported: violating the no-contact provision was an independent crime and facts (and complaint) show intentional contact | Plea was accurate; conviction affirmed |
| Whether a violation of a protection order can supply burglary’s independent crime element | The admitted violation (no-contact) was not sufficiently admitted or intentional | Colvin dicta and complaint allegations support treating no-contact violation as an independent crime; intent shown by complaint allegation of grabbing | Court adopts Colvin dicta: violating no-contact provision can be an independent crime; admission plus complaint sufficed to show intent |
Key Cases Cited
- Matakis v. State, 862 N.W.2d 33 (Minn. 2015) (standard of review for postconviction denials)
- Raleigh v. State, 778 N.W.2d 90 (Minn. 2010) (withdrawal of guilty plea post‑sentencing only to avoid manifest injustice)
- State v. Colvin, 645 N.W.2d 449 (Minn. 2002) (no-entry violation of protection order cannot satisfy burglary’s entry element; dicta suggests no-contact violation can be an independent crime)
- State v. Trott, 338 N.W.2d 248 (Minn. 1983) (complaint allegations may supplement factual basis for a guilty plea)