State of Minnesota v. Richard Allen Altman, A16-0847

In April 2015 Altman was charged with felony DWI, felony test refusal (Minn. Stat. § 169A.20, subd. 2), and gross-misdemeanor driving after cancellation after police stopped his vehicle following a disturbance report.
Officers observed signs (bloodshot/watery eyes, slurred speech, strong odor of alcohol, belligerence) and arrested Altman on an outstanding warrant; at the jail he refused a breath test after receiving the implied-consent advisory.
Altman moved to dismiss, arguing officers lacked probable cause to invoke implied consent; the district court denied the motion.
At a first plea hearing Altman began to provide a factual basis and acknowledged the court’s prior probable-cause finding; the hearing was continued by the prosecutor.
At the resumed plea hearing Altman completed his admissions (that he had been driving, was taken to jail, was advised of implied consent, and refused the breath test), pleaded guilty to felony test refusal, and was sentenced to 51 months under the plea agreement.
On appeal Altman argued his guilty plea was inaccurate/invalid for lack of an adequate factual basis that officers had probable cause and that a condition for implied consent (lawful arrest for DWI) existed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Altman)	Held
1. Was there an adequate factual basis showing officers had probable cause to believe Altman had been driving while impaired?	The plea record (admissions and prior contested-hearing findings) supplies sufficient facts to support probable cause.	The record lacks sufficient factual admissions at the plea acceptance to show probable cause.	Held: Yes. Combined record from both plea sessions shows probable cause (observations and Altman’s admissions).
2. Can admissions made at the earlier, continued plea hearing be used to supply the factual basis for the later accepted plea?	The continuation is part of the same plea process; the full record (both hearings) supplies the factual basis.	Admissions at the earlier hearing that preceded acceptance cannot establish the factual basis for the later plea.	Held: No; the court treated the second hearing as a continuation and considered both hearings’ records.
3. Does the State’s limited briefing on one element waive or forfeit reliance on the record for the other element?	The State has no burden to prove validity; Altman bears the burden to show invalidity, so the State’s briefing omission is irrelevant.	The State’s failure to brief the second element amounts to forfeiture, so the factual basis for that element should be deemed inadequate.	Held: The omission does not matter; Altman bears the burden and the court reviews the record de novo.

State v. Raleigh, 778 N.W.2d 90 (Minn. 2010) (defendant bears burden to show plea invalid; plea must be accurate, voluntary, intelligent)
Perkins v. State, 559 N.W.2d 678 (Minn. 1997) (valid-plea requirements)
State v. Johnson, 867 N.W.2d 210 (Minn. App. 2015) (de novo review of factual basis on direct appeal)
State v. Trott, 338 N.W.2d 248 (Minn. 1983) (accuracy requirement protects against pleading to more serious offense)
State v. Iverson, 664 N.W.2d 346 (Minn. 2003) (plea must be supported by sufficient facts on the record)
State v. Moorman, 505 N.W.2d 593 (Minn. 1993) (probable cause test for arrests)
State v. Koppi, 798 N.W.2d 358 (Minn. 2011) (probable-cause inquiry is objective)
State v. Porte, 832 N.W.2d 303 (Minn. App. 2013) (failure to assert harmless-error argument may constitute waiver)
State v. Craig, 807 N.W.2d 453 (Minn. App. 2011) (state bears burden to prove harmless error)