Uselman v. State
2013 Minn. App. LEXIS 55
| Minn. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Uselman, a civilly committed sex offender, pleaded guilty to fourth-degree assault stemming from an incident in December 2009 at Moose Lake.
- Plea petition stated the period of conditional release was not applicable to his case, despite Minnesota law requiring a five-year conditional release term.
- A sentencing worksheet later indicated a five-year conditional release term; the worksheet was reviewed by counsel and not objected to at sentencing.
- The district court initially announced no conditional release term, but corrected itself to include five years after agent McCarthy noted the error.
- Neither Uselman nor his attorney objected to the worksheet, the court’s statements, or the sentence imposing the term.
- Uselman filed postconviction relief to withdraw his guilty plea; the court denied, relying on post-plea conduct to infer knowledge of the term.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the plea knowing and voluntary given the erroneous non-applicable conditional release term? | Uselman argues the plea rested on a false promise about no five-year term. | State contends Rhodes inference shows knowledge from post-plea events. | Plea not knowing or voluntary; court must allow withdrawal. |
| May Rhodes inference apply when plea petition expressly states inapplicability of the term? | Rhodes inference is inapplicable; petition expressly negates the term. | Rhodes supports inferring knowledge from post-plea events when term was mandatory. | Rhodes inference does not apply; direct contract language controls; withdrawal required. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Rhodes, 675 N.W.2d 323 (Minn. 2004) (inference of knowledge from postplea events where a term is mandatory)
- Perkins v. State, 559 N.W.2d 678 (Minn. 1997) (intelligence requirement for guilty plea)
- State v. Raleigh, 778 N.W.2d 90 (Minn. 2010) (knowingly and understanding plea; rights waived)
- Kochevar v. State, 281 N.W.2d 680 (Minn. 1979) (district court must inform if sentence differs from plea)
- In re Ashman, 608 N.W.2d 853 (Minn. 2000) (contract-like analysis of plea agreements)
- City of Winona v. Thompson, 24 Minn. 199 (Minn. 1877) (parol evidence limits in contract interpretation)