Lussier v. State, 821 N.W.2d 581

Background

Lussier fatally stabbed his wife on March 17, 2003 and was indicted for first-degree murder while committing domestic abuse.
He pled guilty to the charged offense and was sentenced to life imprisonment with possible parole; no direct appeal was filed.
Lussier filed a postconviction petition arguing the guilty plea lacked a proper factual basis for two elements.
The State did not respond to the petition or to Lussier’s appeal; the postconviction court denied relief as untimely and meritless.
The postconviction court relied on the grand jury transcript and accompanying evidence to evaluate the factual basis for the plea and for the two contested elements.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the guilty plea had an accurate factual basis.	Lussier contends the plea lacked a proper factual basis for past pattern of domestic abuse and extreme indifference.	The State argues the grand jury transcript, plea colloquy, and record evidence establish sufficient facts.	The court held the plea had a sufficient factual basis.
Whether Lussier’s Rule 15.05 motion to withdraw was timely and warranted.	Lussier argues timely withdrawal to correct manifest injustice under 15.05 and James v. State.	The State maintains timeliness follows postconviction procedures and James governs timing.	The court held the timeliness arguments fail on the merits and does not further reach issues.
Whether the postconviction petition was timely under Minn. Stat. § 590.01 and its exceptions.	Lussier asserts timely relief under 590.01 4(b)(5) “interests of justice.”	State disputes timeliness; argues petition lacks substantive merit.	The court concluded the petition was untimely but addressed merits under 4(b)(5) and found no substance to grant relief.
Whether the time limit in Minn. Stat. § 590.01 4(a) is unconstitutional for due process or separation-of-powers reasons.	Lussier contends the two-year limit violates due process and separation of powers.	State defends statute as a proper procedural bar.	The court rejected the constitutional challenges as unsupported.
Whether the grand jury transcript can supply a sufficient factual basis when the plea colloquy is deficient.	Lussier argues the grand jury transcript alone cannot establish a proper basis nor that he admitted those facts.	State argues the record, including the grand jury transcript, provides a valid factual basis.	The court held the grand jury transcript could provide a proper factual basis and affirmed.

Key Cases Cited

State v. Sanchez-Diaz, 683 N.W.2d 824 (Minn. 2004) (defines past pattern of domestic abuse and necessary elements)
State v. Grube, 531 N.W.2d 484 (Minn. 1995) (establishes pattern requires more than a single act and proximity in time)
State v. Clark, 739 N.W.2d 412 (Minn. 2007) (pattern must be proximate in time to constitute a pattern)
State v. Robinson, 539 N.W.2d 231 (Minn. 1995) (defines ‘regular way of acting’ in pattern analysis)
State v. Genereux, 272 N.W.2d 33 (Minn. 1978) (recognizes admissible forms of factual basis when credible evidence supports conviction at least as great as pled)
Raleigh v. State, 778 N.W.2d 90 (Minn. 2010) (facts-based adequacy for guilty pleas; accuracy requirement)
State v. Trott, 338 N.W.2d 248 (Minn. 1983) (record as a whole may supply factual basis for a plea)
State v. Hoaglund, 307 Minn. 322, 240 N.W.2d 4 (Minn. 1976) (record may supplement plea factual basis; not required verbatim in plea transcript)
Burnett v. State, 292 Minn. 485, 195 N.W.2d 187 (Minn. 1972) (discusses sufficiency of factual basis in plea proceedings)
State v. Ecker, 524 N.W.2d 712 (Minn. 1994) (cautions against exclusive reliance on leading questions for factual basis)
James v. State, 699 N.W.2d 723 (Minn. 2005) (timeliness of withdrawal of plea treated as postconviction issue; applies 2005 statute timing)
Johnson v. State, 801 N.W.2d 173 (Minn. 2011) (applies postconviction timeliness to plea-related relief issues)