State v. Cubas
2013 Minn. App. LEXIS 97
| Minn. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Cubas pleaded guilty in 2004 to third-degree sale of a controlled substance pursuant to a plea agreement that included an appeal-waiver and release pending sentencing.
- Sentencing was scheduled for October 2004; Cubas failed to appear and a warrant issued; he was not arrested until April 2018.
- After arrest and before sentencing, Cubas moved to withdraw his guilty plea, arguing the appeal-waiver provision was invalid under Spann v. Minnesota and seeking either trial or a new plea.
- The State opposed withdrawal, noting prejudice from delay (destroyed evidence, faded witness memories) and arguing Spann invalidates only post-trial appeal waivers, not pretrial plea waivers.
- The district court granted withdrawal, citing public-policy concerns about appeal waivers and stating it acted "in the interest of justice," but did not apply Rule 15.05's fair-and-just standard or analyze prejudice to the prosecution.
- The Court of Appeals found the district court misapplied the law, held the State met the critical-impact threshold (prosecution materially prejudiced by delay), reversed, and remanded for reconsideration under Minn. R. Crim. P. 15.05, subd. 2.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Cubas) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the State shows "critical impact" to allow pretrial appeal | Withdrawal greatly reduces likelihood of successful prosecution due to delay, lost evidence, faded witness memory | N/A (issue framed by State) | Yes; delay materially jeopardizes prosecution success, so critical-impact standard met |
| Whether Spann requires automatic plea withdrawal when plea includes appeal-waiver | Spann does not control pretrial plea waivers; Spann addressed post-trial waivers and restored the right to appeal after trial | Spann's rationale renders any appeal-waiver unenforceable and thus requires withdrawal | No; Spann was limited to post-trial waivers and does not mandate plea withdrawal here |
| Whether district court applied correct standard under Minn. R. Crim. P. 15.05, subd. 2 | Court must consider both defendant's reasons and prejudice to the prosecution before granting withdrawal | Court below improperly relied on public-policy/Spann rationale and did not consider prejudice | No; district court misapplied the fair-and-just standard and abused its discretion |
| Appropriate remedy on appeal | Remand for district court to re-evaluate plea-withdrawal motion applying Rule 15.05, subd. 2, including prejudice analysis | Cubas seeks withdrawal; court must reassess under correct standard | Reverse and remand for reconsideration under Rule 15.05, subd. 2 |
Key Cases Cited
- Spann v. Minnesota, 704 N.W.2d 486 (Minn. 2005) (held appeal waiver after trial and conviction unenforceable; limited to post-trial context)
- State v. Underdahl, 767 N.W.2d 677 (Minn. 2009) (critical-impact standard for State appeals of pretrial orders)
- Black v. State, 725 N.W.2d 772 (Minn. App. 2007) (delay can erode witness memory and prejudice prosecution)
- Kim v. State, 434 N.W.2d 263 (Minn. 1989) (standard of review and policy against unfettered pre-sentence plea withdrawals)
- State v. Raleigh, 778 N.W.2d 90 (Minn. 2010) (court may deny plea withdrawal under fair-and-just standard even if claimed prejudice to State is overstated)
- Johnson v. State, 733 N.W.2d 834 (Minn. App. 2007) (appellate review of plea-withdrawal decisions limited to court’s on-the-record reasons; misapplication of law is abuse of discretion)