State of Minnesota v. Morrell Grant, A15-1880

In July 2014 Morrell Grant was arrested after police found numerous American Express prepaid cards, other gift cards, and merchandise; cards were linked to 22 identified account holders nationwide.
Grant pleaded guilty under an Alford plea in June 2015 to one count of identity theft (Minn. Stat. § 609.527, subd. 2).
At the plea hearing the state summarized evidence and Grant admitted he believed a jury might convict based on that evidence, though he maintained factual innocence.
The district court sentenced Grant to 41 months and ordered $1,000 restitution to each of the 22 identified victims plus $3,121.07 to American Express.
Grant appealed, arguing (1) the factual basis for his Alford plea was insufficient and (2) the mandatory $1,000-per-victim restitution was improper because many victims suffered no loss and some did not request restitution (and claiming a due-process violation).

Issue	Appellant's Argument	Respondent's Argument	Held
Whether the Alford plea lacked a sufficient factual basis (accuracy)	Grant: record lacks facts showing he possessed others’ identities with intent to commit unlawful activity; he bought gift cards and didn’t know they were tied to individuals	State: record shows cards were tied to individual American Express accounts, Grant admitted the cards were fraudulent and he used them to defraud banking institutions	Court: Factual basis sufficient; Grant admitted state’s evidence could lead a jury to convict and cards constituted possession of others’ identity with unlawful intent; plea not withdrawn
Whether restitution of $1,000 per direct victim was improper or violated due process	Grant: many victims did not request restitution or waived it; no proof of actual loss, so mandatory restitution was erroneous and violates due process	State: Identity-theft statute mandates $1,000 to each direct victim regardless of loss affidavits or victim requests	Court: Statute’s plain language requires minimum $1,000 per direct victim; victims need not request restitution and waiver is not an exception; due-process challenge forfeited on appeal

State v. Theis, 742 N.W.2d 643 (Minn. 2007) (standards for accepting an Alford plea and requiring strong factual basis)
North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970) (constitutional basis for pleading guilty while asserting innocence)
State v. Iverson, 664 N.W.2d 346 (Minn. 2003) (factual-basis requirement for guilty pleas)
State v. Genereux, 272 N.W.2d 33 (Minn. 1978) (record must show credible evidence to support conviction)
State v. Ecker, 524 N.W.2d 712 (Minn. 1994) (guilty plea must be accurate, voluntary, intelligent)
State v. Raleigh, 778 N.W.2d 90 (Minn. 2010) (defendant bears burden to show plea invalid)
Anderson v. State, 794 N.W.2d 137 (Minn. App. 2011) (identity-theft statute requires $1,000 restitution per victim without need for loss affidavits)
State v. Moua, 874 N.W.2d 812 (Minn. App. 2016) (loss or harm from identity theft occurs when name/private identifying information is involved)