Opinion
A21-1395
05-02-2022
State of Minnesota, Respondent, v. Anthony Marshaun Jackson, Appellant.
Waseca County District Court File No. 81-CR-21-374
Considered and decided by Segal, Chief Judge; Reilly, Judge; and Gaïtas, Judge.
ORDER OPINION
Susan L. Segal, Chief Judge
BASED ON THE FILE, RECORD, AND PROCEEDINGS, AND BECAUSE:
1. Respondent State of Minnesota charged appellant Anthony Jackson with one felony count of violating a harassment restraining order (HRO) within ten years of two previous qualified domestic violence-related convictions. The HRO prohibited him from being within two blocks of the protected person's residence.
2. Jackson pleaded guilty to the charge. In a factual basis for the plea, Jackson agreed with his counsel's statements that he walked "across the street from [the protected person's] residence" on May 14, 2021, and that he had "previously been served with a harassment restraining order that prohibited [him] from being within two blocks of her residence," located in Waseca. Jackson also agreed that he had previously been convicted of violating the restraining order in 2019 and 2020. The district court accepted the factual basis for the plea, entered judgment of conviction, and sentenced Jackson to a stayed term of 21 months' imprisonment.
3. On appeal from the final judgment, Jackson argues that he must be permitted to withdraw his guilty plea because his plea is inaccurate. The state agrees. But because this court has an independent obligation to decide cases in accordance with the law, it is necessary to consider the merits of Jackson's argument despite the state's concession. State v. Hannuksela, 452 N.W.2d 668, 673 n.7 (Minn. 1990).
4. "A defendant does not have an absolute right to withdraw a valid guilty plea." State v. Theis, 742 N.W.2d 643, 646 (Minn. 2007). But "a court must allow a defendant to withdraw a guilty plea, even after sentencing, if 'withdrawal is necessary to correct a manifest injustice.'" Id. (quoting Minn. R. Crim. P. 15.05, subd. 1). A manifest injustice exists when a guilty plea is invalid. Id. "To be constitutionally valid, a guilty plea must be accurate, voluntary, and intelligent." State v. Raleigh, 778 N.W.2d 90, 94 (Minn. 2010). Jackson bears the burden of showing that his plea was invalid, and this court reviews the validity of a guilty plea de novo. Id.
5. "The accuracy requirement protects a defendant from pleading guilty to a more serious offense than that for which he could be convicted if he insisted on his right to trial." Id. "A proper factual basis must be established for a guilty plea to be accurate." State v. Ecker, 524 N.W.2d 712, 716 (Minn. 1994).
6. The felony offense of violating an HRO requires the state to prove that Jackson violated a restraining order "within ten years of the first of two or more previous qualified domestic violence-related offense convictions." Minn. Stat. § 609.748, subd. 6(a), (d)(1) (2020). Although the statute does not explicitly include a mens rea element, this court has held that "in a prosecution for violating a harassment restraining order, the state must prove that the defendant knew all the facts that would cause him or her to be in violation of the harassment restraining order." State v. Andersen, 946 N.W.2d 627, 628 (Minn.App. 2020).
7. In Andersen, the HRO did not include the victim's address because it was confidential, and there was no evidence admitted at trial to show that Andersen had notice of the location of the victim's residence. Id. at 636. We reversed Andersen's conviction for violating the HRO because the state did not prove that Andersen "knew that his presence in a particular location would subject him to criminal liability." Id. at 637.
8. Jackson relies on Andersen to argue that his plea is inaccurate because the plea colloquy did not establish two elements of the offense: (a) Jackson did not admit that he knew the HRO was still in effect on May 14, 2021, only that he had previously been served with the HRO; and (b) he did not admit that he knew his conduct in walking past the protected person's residence that day violated the HRO. Jackson points to his counsel's statement made at sentencing that Jackson thought the HRO had been dropped the last time he went to court as negating the necessary mens rea. This statement is also consistent with what Jackson told the officers after he was arrested.
9. We agree that Jackson's guilty plea is inaccurate because he did not admit that he knew his presence within two blocks of the protected person's residence on May 14 violated the HRO. Because the guilty plea is inaccurate, we reverse and remand to permit Jackson to withdraw his guilty plea.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. The district court's judgment is reversed and remanded.
2. Pursuant to Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c), this order opinion is nonprecedential, except as law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.