State of Minnesota v. Kevin Trent Johnson
2015 Minn. App. LEXIS 51
| Minn. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- On July 25, 2013, Johnson allegedly grabbed his former girlfriend by the throat and squeezed; she reported difficulty breathing, vision changes, fear of dying, and a red mark on her neck.
- Johnson was charged with felony domestic assault by strangulation and a misdemeanor domestic assault; he later pleaded guilty to the felony and the misdemeanor count was dismissed.
- At plea hearing Johnson said he could not remember the incident due to a medical emergency but had reviewed police reports and agreed the evidence in them could likely lead to conviction.
- The district court asked whether, applying proof beyond a reasonable doubt, the factfinder would convict if the state’s evidence matched the reports; Johnson answered yes and the court accepted the plea.
- Johnson appealed, arguing the district court erred by not making an express on-the-record finding that there was a strong probability he would be convicted (i.e., adequacy of factual basis for a Norgaard plea).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court must make an express on-the-record finding that there is a "strong probability" the defendant would be convicted before accepting a Norgaard plea | The State: no specific argument that such an express finding is required (respondent argued the plea was properly supported) | Johnson: the court erred by not expressly concluding on the record that there was a strong probability he would be found guilty, so the factual basis was not adequately scrutinized | The court held no such express finding is required; the court need only assure itself the factual basis is adequate and may do so without a formal on-the-record pronouncement. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Theis, 742 N.W.2d 643 (Minn. 2007) (explains accuracy requirement and that defendant must acknowledge evidence likely sufficient to convict for Alford/Goulette/Norgaard pleas)
- State v. Ecker, 524 N.W.2d 712 (Minn. 1994) (sets out accuracy, voluntariness, intelligence requirements for guilty pleas)
- State v. Iverson, 664 N.W.2d 346 (Minn. 2003) (pleading guilty does not waive challenge to adequacy of factual basis)
- State ex rel. Norgaard v. Tahash, 110 N.W.2d 867 (Minn. 1961) (original Norgaard rule regarding pleas based on loss of memory)
- Williams v. State, 760 N.W.2d 8 (Minn. App. 2009) (discusses factual-basis procedures for Alford and Norgaard pleas)