State of Minnesota v. Abass Warsame Mumin, A15-1829

Background

Appellant Abass Warsame Mumin faced felony charges for fifth-degree domestic assault and violating a domestic-abuse no‑contact order (both enhanced by prior record).
On April 30, Mumin entered Alford pleas to both charges under a plea agreement calling for concurrent presumptive sentences (with a dispositional departure to probation conditioned on compliance with release terms).
At the plea hearing Mumin acknowledged mental‑health treatment and medication but stated his mind was clear, waived trial rights, and agreed the state’s likely evidence could lead to conviction.
After the plea but before sentencing, probation reported drug‑related violations of release conditions; Mumin then moved to withdraw his plea, claiming he only pled to go home, had short‑term memory loss, and did not understand he could face prison for violating release conditions.
The district court denied withdrawal, found Mumin’s plea was accurate, voluntary, and intelligent, and that withdrawal would not be fair and just; it adjudicated guilt and imposed concurrent executed prison terms. Appeal followed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the plea constituted a manifest injustice because it was not accurate	Mumin: record lacks independent factual analysis; plea not supported by sufficient factual basis	State: Mumin on the record acknowledged the witnesses, reports, and that evidence could likely convict him; court found sufficient factual basis	Court: Plea was accurate—Mumin’s admissions and acknowledgment of the state’s likely evidence provided an adequate factual basis (affirmed)
Whether the plea was voluntary	Mumin: pleaded only because counsel told him to and to get out of jail	State: Mumin expressly stated at the plea hearing he was not pleading just to get out of jail and understood the terms	Court: Credited plea‑hearing testimony; plea was voluntary (affirmed)
Whether the plea was intelligent (knowing consequences)	Mumin: did not understand maximum penalties or potential for prison for violating release conditions	State: Mumin signed a plea petition stating five‑year maximums and affirmed understanding at hearing	Court: Plea was intelligent—defendant knew charges, rights waived, and direct consequences (affirmed)
Whether withdrawal should be allowed under the pre‑sentence "fair and just" standard	Mumin: mental‑health/memory issues and misunderstanding of prison risk make withdrawal fair and just	State: District court found these assertions not credible and defendant failed to show fair and just reasons; prejudice need not be shown if reasons are inadequate	Court: No abuse of discretion; defendant failed to carry burden to show withdrawal was fair and just (affirmed)

Key Cases Cited

State v. Theis, 742 N.W.2d 643 (Minn. 2007) (standards for accepting Alford pleas and factual‑basis scrutiny)
State v. Raleigh, 778 N.W.2d 90 (Minn. 2010) (manifest‑injustice review and factual‑basis guidance)
Barnslater v. State, 805 N.W.2d 910 (Minn. App. 2011) (accuracy requirement for guilty pleas)
State v. Johnson, 867 N.W.2d 210 (Minn. App. 2015) (district court must assure accuracy standard satisfied for Alford pleas)
State v. Brown, 660 N.W.2d 670 (Minn.) (voluntariness requires absence of improper pressure)
State v. Danh, 516 N.W.2d 539 (Minn. 1994) (standard of review for voluntariness findings)
State v. Aviles‑Alvarez, 561 N.W.2d 523 (Minn. App. 1997) (intelligent plea requires knowledge of charges, rights, and consequences)
State v. Byron, 683 N.W.2d 317 (Minn. App. 2004) (presumption defendant reviewed plea petition with counsel)
Kim v. State, 434 N.W.2d 263 (Minn. 1989) (fair‑and‑just standard and plea‑withdrawal abuse‑of‑discretion review)
State v. Lopez, 794 N.W.2d 379 (Minn. App. 2011) (factors for fair‑and‑just withdrawal include reasons and state prejudice)
State v. Cubas, 838 N.W.2d 220 (Minn. App. 2013) (defendant must advance valid reasons to avoid requiring state prejudice)