This opinion will be unpublished and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

A14-0838

State of Minnesota,

Respondent,

vs.

David Lee King,

Appellant.

Filed January 20, 2015

Affirmed

Reilly, Judge

Sherburne County District Court

File No. 71-CR-12-1703

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

Kathleen A. Heaney, Sherburne County Attorney, Samuel Wertheimer, II, Assistant 

County Attorney, Elk River, Minnesota (for respondent)

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

Public Defender, St. Paul, Minnesota (for appellant)

Considered and decided by Reilly, Presiding Judge; Stauber, Judge; and Chutich, 

Judge. 
2

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

REILLY, Judge

In this direct appeal from a judgment of conviction, appellant seeks to withdraw 

his guilty plea to third-degree assault. Because we determine that appellant’s guilty plea 

was accurate, voluntary, and intelligent, we affirm. 

FACTS

On August 27, 2012, appellant David Lee King, an inmate at the Minnesota 

Correctional Facility at St. Cloud, committed an assault against fellow-inmate C.J.H. 

Appellant testified that C.J.H. “walked by and grabbed my buttocks as we were walking 

back to our unit, to our cells, and I took that offensive . . . so I beat him up.” Appellant 

admitted to throwing “numerous punches” and kicking C.J.H. during the assault. C.J.H. 

was treated for lacerations to his left eye and cheek. The state thereafter charged 

appellant with one count of felony third-degree assault, substantial bodily harm, in 

violation of Minn. Stat. § 609.223, subd. 1 (2012). 

Appellant entered into a resolution with the prosecution to plead guilty to thirddegree assault in exchange for a 15-month consecutive sentence, pursuant to the 

sentencing guidelines. The prosecutor informed the district court that because appellant 

committed assault while serving a prison term, his sentence would be a presumptiveconsecutive sentence to his current sentence, which means he would not be entitled to 

credit for time served. The district court asked appellant if that was “what [he] want[ed] 

to do today,” and appellant agreed that it was. After being sworn in, appellant engaged in 

the following discussion with his counsel:
3

[Defense attorney]: Mr. King, we had the opportunity to go 

over this three-page document entitled Petition to Enter a Plea 

of Guilty in a Felony Case Pursuant to Rule 15. Did we go 

over this document line by line before court?

[Appellant]: Yes. 

[Defense attorney]: You understand that you’re pleading

guilty to a third degree assault?

[Appellant]: Yes. 

. . . .

[Defense attorney]: And you understand that it is a 15-month 

consecutive sentence, meaning 15 months will be added on to 

your sentence - -

[Appellant]: Yes.

[Defense attorney]: - - that you’re serving right now? Yes? 

[Appellant]: Yes.

Appellant stated that he understood his right to go to trial and waived that right to 

enter a guilty plea. The district court received the petition, finding that appellant made an 

“adequate, knowing, and voluntary waiver” of his trial rights. Appellant pleaded guilty to 

third-degree assault. Appellant admitted that C.J.H.’s injuries constituted substantial 

bodily harm and stated that he was not acting in self-defense when he punched and 

kicked his victim. The district court found appellant guilty of third-degree assault in 

accordance with the plea agreement and committed him to the custody of the 

commissioner of corrections “for a period of 15 months consecutive to the sentence 

which [he was] already serving.” This appeal followed.

D E C I S I O N

“A defendant who wishes to overturn a guilty plea may file a petition for 

postconviction relief under Minnesota Statutes section 590.01 (2012), move to withdraw 

the plea under Rule 15.05 of the Minnesota Rules of Criminal Procedure, or seek 

withdrawal on a direct appeal from the judgment of conviction.” State v. Miller, 849 
4

N.W.2d 94, 97 (Minn. App. 2014) (citing Minn. R. Crim. P. 28.02, subd. 2; State v. 

Anyanwu, 681 N.W.2d 411, 413 (Minn. App. 2004) (“[A] defendant has a right to 

challenge his guilty plea on direct appeal even though he has not moved to withdraw the 

guilty plea in the district court.”)). The validity of a plea presents a question of law that 

we review de novo. State v. Raleigh, 778 N.W.2d 90, 94 (Minn. 2010). Appellant bears 

the burden of showing that his plea was invalid. Id. 

A criminal defendant does not have an absolute right to withdraw a guilty plea 

once entered. Perkins v. State, 559 N.W.2d 678, 685 (Minn. 1997). Rather, a defendant 

may withdraw a guilty plea after being sentenced only by establishing that it is necessary 

to correct a “manifest injustice.” Minn. R. Crim. P. 15.05, subd. 1. A manifest injustice 

exists if a guilty plea is invalid. Raleigh, 778 N.W.2d at 94 (citing State v. Theis, 742 

N.W.2d 643, 646 (Minn. 2007)). “To be constitutionally valid, a guilty plea must be 

accurate, voluntary, and intelligent.” Id. Appellant argues that his guilty plea is invalid 

and unconstitutional because it was not accurate, voluntary, or intelligent.1 Appellant 

also seeks jail credit dating back to August 27, 2012, the date of the offense. 

Accurate

“The main purpose of the accuracy requirement is to protect a defendant from 

pleading guilty to a more serious offense than he could be convicted of were he to insist 

on his right to trial.” State v. Trott, 338 N.W.2d 248, 251 (Minn. 1983). An accurate 

plea must be grounded on a proper factual basis. Raleigh, 778 N.W.2d at 94. Although 

 

1

The focus of appellant’s argument is that his plea was not intelligently made. We 

considered all three requirements and determined that the record supports a conclusion 

that appellant’s plea is valid.
5

appellant argued that his plea was not accurate, he did not identify any evidence to 

support his position. The record reflects that the district court developed an adequate 

factual basis for the plea by asking appellant, in his own words, to describe what 

happened. See id. (stating that district court “typically satisfies the factual basis 

requirement by asking the defendant to express in his own words what happened”). The 

accuracy requirement is satisfied. 

Voluntary

To determine whether a plea is voluntary, we look to what the parties reasonably 

understood to be the terms of the plea agreement. Id. at 96. The purpose of the 

voluntariness requirement is to ensure that a defendant is not pleading guilty because of 

“improper pressures.” Trott, 338 N.W.2d at 251. Although appellant argued that his plea 

was involuntary, he did not claim that he was subject to improper pressures or 

inducements. A review of the record confirms that the voluntariness requirement is 

satisfied. 

Intelligent

The intelligence requirement ensures that a defendant “understands the charges, 

understands the rights he is waiving by pleading guilty, and understands the 

consequences of his plea.” Id. During the plea hearing, appellant agreed that he 

understood the charge against him, understood that he was waiving certain rights, and 

wanted to enter a plea of guilty. On appeal, appellant argues that his plea was not 

“knowingly made” because he did not understand that he was ineligible for jail credit. 
6

The state charged appellant with felony third-degree assault. The statute provides 

that “[w]hoever assaults another and inflicts substantial bodily harm may be sentenced to 

imprisonment for not more than five years or to payment of a fine of not more than 

$10,000, or both.” Minn. Stat. § 609.223, subd. 1. Appellant entered a plea of guilty to 

this offense and provided an adequate factual basis to support the charge. During the plea 

hearing, appellant agreed that he went over the plea petition “line by line” with his 

attorney and understood that he was pleading guilty to third-degree assault. Appellant’s 

counsel asked appellant if he understood that he would serve a 15-month consecutive 

sentence, and specifically that “15 months will be added on to your sentence[.]” 

Appellant indicated that he understood. We conclude that the intelligence requirement is 

satisfied. 

Pursuant to the Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines, for convictions committed 

while an offender is serving an executed prison sentence, it is presumptive to impose the 

sentence for the current offense consecutive to the sentence the offender was serving at 

the time the new offense was committed. Minn. Sent. Guidelines 2.F.1.a(1)(i) (2012). 

Moreover, Minnesota statute is clear that:

If an inmate of a state correctional facility is convicted 

of violating [section 609.223] while confined in the facility, 

the sentence imposed for the assault shall be executed and run 

consecutively to any unexpired portion of the offender’s 

earlier sentence. The inmate is not entitled to credit against 

the sentence imposed for the assault for time served in 

confinement for the earlier sentence. 

Minn. Stat. § 609.2232 (2012). 
7

Because we conclude that the district court properly imposed a consecutive 

sentence under a plain reading of the statute, we conclude that appellant is not entitled to 

relief on his direct appeal from a judgment of conviction. 

Affirmed.