State v. Lopez, 2011 Minn. App. LEXIS 13

Lopez pleaded guilty to December 2009 misdemeanor theft of Walmart CDs worth $30; not a citizen, but a permanent resident, age 18.
He had an active warrant for failure to pay a prior $30 Walmart theft fine and faced a probation violation on the prior conviction.
At plea, Lopez elected not to hire counsel; the district court advised him on Rule 15.02 requirements except the 1(3) immigration advisory and no written petition was provided or signed.
After pleading guilty, the district court addressed the probation violation; Lopez requested appointment of counsel.
Before sentencing (and after appointment of counsel), Lopez moved to withdraw his plea arguing lack of understanding of deportation risk and missing Rule 15.02(1)(3) advisory; the district court denied.
We review under the fair-and-just standard before sentencing and reverse, on the law, to permit withdrawal; the case does not address his alternative waiver-of-counsel argument because relief is granted on the premise above.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the record satisfies the fair-and-just standard for plea withdrawal	Lopez argues the plea withdrawal is fair and just due to lack of 15.02(1)(3) advisory and unrepresented prior counsel.	State argues standard is manifest injustice, not fair-and-just; records show no prejudice and stronger requirement met for withdrawal.	Yes; record shows fair-and-just reason to withdraw and prejudice not shown

Kim v. State, 434 N.W.2d 263 (Minn.1989) (protect integrity of pleas; required for withdrawal standards)
Perkins v. State, 559 N.W.2d 678 (Minn.1997) (manifest injustice standard defines intelligibility of plea)
Shorter v. State, 511 N.W.2d 743 (Minn.1994) (timely plea-withdrawal if manifest injustice shown)
State v. Theis, 742 N.W.2d 643 (Minn.2007) (fair-and-just standard is less demanding than manifest injustice)
State v. Raleigh, 778 N.W.2d 90 (Minn.2010) (two-factor consideration for fair-and-just withdrawal)
Abdisalan, 661 N.W.2d 691 (Minn.App.2003) (contextual record of plea bears on fair-and-just analysis)
State v. Motl, 337 N.W.2d 664 (Minn.1983) (strict treatment of unrepresented defendants)
Doughman, 340 N.W.2d 348 (Minn.App.1983) (verbatim adherence to rule 15.01 questions not required)
Foncesa, 505 N.W.2d 370 (Minn.App.1993) (omission of rule 15 advisories can support withdrawal when it violates rights)
Wiley, 420 N.W.2d 234 (Minn.App.1988) (prior right-to-counsel awareness affects intelligent-plea assessment)
Padilla v. Kentucky, 130 S. Ct. 1473 (2010) (deportation is a critical consequence of plea; requires informed decision-making)
Alanis v. State, 583 N.W.2d 573 (Minn.1998) (direct vs collateral consequences analysis for advisory duties)