This opinion will be unpublished and

may not be cited except as provided by

Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2014).

STATE OF MINNESOTA

IN COURT OF APPEALS

A14-0615

State of Minnesota,

Respondent,

vs.

Leroy Hamer, Jr.,

Appellant.

Filed April 6, 2015

Affirmed

Kirk, Judge

Steele County District Court

File No. 74-CR-12-2331

Lori Swanson, Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota; and 

Daniel A. McIntosh, Steele County Attorney, Christy M. Hormann, Assistant County 

Attorney, Owatonna, Minnesota (for respondent)

Cathryn Middlebrook, Chief Appellate Public Defender, Jennifer Lauermann, Assistant 

Public Defender, Connor Chapman (certified student attorney), St. Paul, Minnesota (for 

appellant)

Considered and decided by Ross, Presiding Judge; Kirk, Judge; and Reilly, Judge. 
2

U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N

KIRK, Judge

Appellant challenges the validity of his guilty plea, arguing that the district court 

erred in finding that there was a sufficient factual basis to support his conviction for 

third-degree burglary. We affirm.

D E C I S I O N

The validity of a guilty plea is a question of law, which this court reviews de novo. 

State v. Raleigh, 778 N.W.2d 90, 94 (Minn. 2010). Minn. R. Crim. P. 15.05, subd. 1,

states in relevant part that “[a]t any time the court must allow a defendant to withdraw a 

guilty plea upon a timely motion and proof to the satisfaction of the court that withdrawal 

is necessary to correct a manifest injustice.” A guilty plea is invalid and manifestly 

unjust if it is not accurate, voluntary, and intelligent. Raleigh, 778 N.W.2d at 93. For a 

guilty plea to be accurate, a proper factual basis must be established. State v. Ecker, 524 

N.W.2d 712, 716 (Minn. 1994). A proper factual basis requires “sufficient facts on the 

record to support a conclusion that defendant’s conduct falls within the charge to which 

he desires to plead guilty.” Kelsey v. State, 298 Minn. 531, 532, 214 N.W.2d 236, 237 

(1974). Ultimately, it is the district court’s responsibility to ensure that the parties have 

established a proper factual basis on the record. Ecker, 524 N.W.2d at 716.

On October 31, 2012, respondent State of Minnesota charged appellant Leroy 

Hamer, Jr., with second-degree burglary and fourth-degree damage to property. The 

charges arose from an incident in which appellant broke into the apartment of K.K., his 

ex-girlfriend, and punched a television in the living room, damaging the screen. K.K. 
3

submitted a request for restitution and affidavit requesting a total of $2,076 for damaged 

or missing personal property, including two televisions, one valued at $350, the other at

$1,200.

At the plea hearing, appellant’s counsel stated on the record that the parties had 

reached an agreement where appellant would plead guilty to an amended count of thirddegree burglary and, in exchange, the state would dismiss the damage-to-property charge 

and appellant would pay restitution to K.K. The state also agreed to recommend a

bottom-of-the-box guideline sentence. Appellant confirmed to the district court on the 

record that he had enough time to talk with his attorney about the plea agreement, and 

that he went line-by-line through the plea petition with his attorney. Appellant’s counsel 

questioned appellant on the record about his conduct on the day in question to establish 

the factual basis for the plea.

The district court found that there was a sufficient factual basis to support the 

entry of appellant’s guilty plea, and entered a judgment of conviction for third-degree 

burglary, dismissed the damage-to-property charge, and ordered a restitution analysis. 

On January 13, 2014, the district court sentenced appellant to 24 months in prison and 

ordered that he pay $2,076 in restitution. 

Appellant filed an affidavit contesting K.K.’s request for restitution. Specifically, 

he challenged K.K.’s claimed value of “the television,” stating that there was no 

supporting documentation of its value, and K.K. had admitted that she was unsure of its 

value. Appellant failed to identify which television he was referring to in his affidavit. 

The district court held a restitution hearing, and the state noted that it had received a letter 
4

from K.K. stating that she was no longer requesting restitution. Because K.K. refused to 

testify, the district court voided its earlier order requiring appellant to pay restitution. 

On appeal, appellant argues that the district court erred in finding that there was a 

sufficient factual basis to support a conviction for third-degree burglary. For appellant to 

be guilty of third-degree burglary, the state must establish that appellant (1) entered a 

building; (2) without consent; and (3) had the intent to steal or commit a felony or gross 

misdemeanor while in the building. Minn. Stat. § 609.582, subd. 3 (2012). 

First, appellant argues that the plea colloquy did not establish that he lacked

consent to enter K.K.’s apartment. Appellant points to the exchange with his counsel 

when she asked him, “[Y]ou didn’t have [K.K.’s] permission to go into the home and 

break her items; is that true?” Appellant argues that his response to counsel’s compound 

question—“No. Yes, that’s true”—does not conclusively establish that he admitted to 

lacking consent to enter K.K.’s apartment. But appellant also stated in the plea colloquy 

that he “broke into” K.K.’s place. “Breaking” is defined as “the act of entering a building 

without permission.” Black’s Law Dictionary 215 (9th ed. 2009). Applying that 

definition to appellant’s admission, appellant clearly admitted to entering K.K.’s 

apartment without consent when he stated that he “broke into” her apartment. 

Appellant next argues that there is insufficient evidence to establish that he stole 

or intended to steal from K.K.’s apartment. But the statute requires that the state 

establish intent to steal or intent to commit a felony or gross misdemeanor. In his plea 

colloquy, appellant agreed with his counsel’s statement that he “intend[ed] to break some 

of [K.K.’s] items” to get back at her for some relationship problems that they were 
5

experiencing. Appellant’s admission is sufficient to establish intent to commit damage to 

property under Minn. Stat. § 609.595, subd. 1(3) or subd. 2(a) (2012). 

Finally, appellant argues that his plea does not establish the sufficient amount of 

property damage necessary to sustain his third-degree burglary conviction as the record is 

unclear as to the value of the property damage that he caused or the reduction in the value 

of the property. An element of third-degree burglary is the commission of a gross 

misdemeanor or felony, such as criminal damage to property. See Minn. Stat. § 609.582, 

subd. 3. Third-degree criminal damage to property constitutes a gross misdemeanor and 

requires proof that a person intentionally damaged property, thereby reducing the value 

of property by at least $500 but not more than $1,000. See Minn. Stat. § 609.595, subd. 

2(a) (stating the elements and possible sentence for third-degree criminal damage to 

property); see also Minn. Stat. § 609.02, subd. 4 (2012) (defining gross misdemeanor). A 

conviction of first-degree property damage requires evidence that a defendant caused at 

least $1,000 in damage to property. Minn. Stat. § 609.595, subd. 1(3) (2012). 

The state was required to prove intent to commit property damage of at least $500 

to support appellant’s guilty plea for third-degree burglary. This court may “also look to 

the whole record, beyond what the defendant said, when evaluating the quality of a guilty 

plea’s factual basis.” Barnslater v. State, 805 N.W.2d 910, 914 (Minn. App. 2011). 

Here, appellant admitted at the plea hearing that he intended to damage K.K.’s property 

and that he was aware that he would have to pay restitution. The record includes the 

complaint of the responding police officer who observed the damaged television, a 
6

receipt for repair of the damaged front door, and the restitution affidavit, which in total 

establishes that appellant committed property damage in excess of $500.

Affirmed.