State v. Mikulak, 903 N.W.2d 600

Background

Mikulak, a registered predatory offender from a 2008 conviction, stayed with a friend in Renville County in October 2014 and did not re-register there within 24 hours.
He was charged under Minn. Stat. § 243.166, subd. 5(a) with “knowingly violating” the predatory-offender-registration statute (specifically subdivision 3a timing requirements).
At plea colloquy Mikulak said he had assumed he had a week to register, did not remember the 24-hour requirement, but also acknowledged signing a 2008 form stating the 24-hour rule and later said, “Yeah, now I am” satisfied that seven days didn’t apply.
The district court accepted his guilty plea and imposed a presumptive sentence; Mikulak appealed claiming the factual basis was inadequate because his statements negated the mens rea element.
The court of appeals affirmed; the Minnesota Supreme Court granted review and reversed, holding that knowledge of the law at the time of the violation is an element of § 243.166, subd. 5(a), and Mikulak’s plea colloquy contained unwithdrawn statements negating that element.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 243.166, subd. 5(a) requires knowledge of the law at the time of the violation (i.e., mistake of law defense available)	State: “knowingly violates” means defendant knew or used to know requirements; ignorance is no excuse	Mikulak: must have known at the time he was violating the statute; mistake-of-law defense applies when statute requires knowledge	Held: “knowingly” modifies “violates”; defendant must know of the legal requirement at the time of the violation; mistake of law can negate mens rea here
Whether Mikulak’s plea colloquy provided an adequate factual basis given his statements	State: other evidence (forms, intake, witness statement) supports conviction; plea adequate	Mikulak: his statements that he believed he had a week and did not remember the 24-hour rule negate the mens rea element	Held: Colloquy contained unwithdrawn statements negating mens rea; factual basis was inadequate and plea may be withdrawn to correct manifest injustice
Whether extrinsic documents can cure an inadequate factual basis when defendant makes statements negating an element	State: factual basis may be supplemented by other evidence	Mikulak: colloquy statements control and negate element despite documents	Held: Although documents were in the record, defendant’s unwithdrawn statements negating knowledge defeated the accuracy requirement for the plea
Standard of review for plea validity	State: district court made factual finding so deferential review	Mikulak: validity is a legal question reviewed de novo	Held: Validity of guilty plea is a legal question reviewed de novo; no district-court factual finding that foreclosed review

Key Cases Cited

State v. Watkins, 840 N.W.2d 21 (Minn. 2013) (knowledge-of-law can be an element when statute’s text requires it)
State v. Theis, 742 N.W.2d 643 (Minn. 2007) (factual basis requirement for guilty pleas)
State v. Iverson, 664 N.W.2d 346 (Minn. 2003) (defendant statements negating an element render factual basis inadequate)
Bryan v. United States, 524 U.S. 184 (1998) (statutory text controls what "knowingly" requires; knowledge of facts usually sufficient)
United States v. Bailey, 444 U.S. 394 (1980) ("knowledge" corresponds with general intent; proof of factual knowledge can satisfy element)
United States v. Int’l Minerals & Chem. Corp., 402 U.S. 558 (1971) (statute penalizing "knowingly" violating a regulation does not necessarily require knowledge of the law)
State v. Ecker, 524 N.W.2d 712 (Minn. 1994) (accuracy requirement protects defendants from pleading to a greater offense than could be proved at trial)