State v. Martinez-Mendoza, 2011 Minn. LEXIS 544

Martinez-Mendoza was charged with first-degree and second-degree criminal sexual conduct regarding A.K.D. The State and Martinez-Mendoza reached a plea: guilty to count two with count one dismissed; presumptive sentence presumed to be 90 months executed, based on the belief count II was severity level B. The district court accepted the plea and set a sentencing date. Later, the State learned the presumptive sentence for count II was actually 36 months stayed, not 90 months executed, creating mutual mistake. The State sought to vacate the plea or reinstate count one; the district court denied, citing double jeopardy concerns. The Minnesota Court of Appeals reversed, holding the plea was void due to mutual mistake. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated the district court’s conviction and sentence for Martinez-Mendoza.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the State may appeal the district court’s denial to withdraw from the plea agreement	Martinez-Mendoza	Martinez-Mendoza	Yes, as to jurisdiction; but the majority ultimately resolves on other grounds
Whether jeopardy attached when the district court accepted the guilty plea	State contends jeopardy attached after plea	State argues no after mutual mistake	Jeopardy attached when plea was recorded, unless defect negates conviction (majority view)
Whether the district court had authority to withdraw its acceptance of the plea	State—district court should withdraw	Martinez-Mendoza—court should adhere to plea	District court erred in not withdrawing; should have withdrawn the plea per the record
Whether the State may recharge Martinez-Mendoza on count one	State could recharge after appeal	Recharge would violate double jeopardy	Premature/advisory; not decided on merits; remanded for potential proceedings
Whether the State’s appeal was moot due to jeopardy and final conviction	State—appeal valid	Jeopardy barred appeal after conviction	Majority held the appeal was improperly pursued and reversed the appellate result; issues moot for that reason

State v. Rourke, 773 N.W.2d 913 (Minn. 2009) (interpretation of prosecutorial appeal rights; strict construction of statutes)
In re C.W.S., 267 N.W.2d 496 (Minn. 1978) (necessary implication for State appeals; pretrial orders)
Hankerson v. State, 723 N.W.2d 232 (Minn. 2006) (jeopardy attaches after conviction; double jeopardy protections)
State v. Thompson, 754 N.W.2d 352 (Minn. 2008) (conviction defined by acceptance and recording of guilty plea)
State v. Schmidt, 612 N.W.2d 871 (Minn. 2000) (guidelines; interpretation of conviction and sentencing)
Ohio v. Johnson, 467 U.S. 493 (1984) (double jeopardy; continuing prosecution on remaining charges allowed in lesser offenses)
Crist v. Bretz, 437 U.S. 28 (1982) (jeopardy attaches in plea context; factors for finality and government overreach)
State v. Large, 607 N.W.2d 774 (Minn. 2000) (acquittal/merits; double jeopardy limits on appeal after acquittal)
State v. Lewis, 656 N.W.2d 535 (Minn. 2003) (upward departure vs. plea terms; impact on entire agreement)
State v. Robledo-Kinney, 615 N.W.2d 25 (Minn. 2000) (mutual mistake; withdrawal of plea after discovery of error)