This opinion will be unpublished and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

A14-1427

State of Minnesota, 

Respondent, 

vs. 

Eric Peter Elijio, 

Appellant

Filed April 27, 2015

Affirmed

Worke, Judge

Lake of the Woods County District Court

File No. 39-CR-14-13

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

James C. Austed, Lake of the Woods County Attorney, Michelle E. Moren, Assistant 

County Attorney, Baudette, Minnesota (for respondent)

Cathryn Middlebrook, Chief Appellate Public Defender, F. Richard Gallo, Assistant 

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

Considered and decided by Worke, Presiding Judge; Peterson, Judge; and 

Connolly, Judge. 

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

WORKE, Judge

Appellant challenges his conviction of soliciting a child to engage in sexual 

conduct, arguing that he is entitled to reversal of his Alford plea because he derived no 
2

benefit from pleading guilty and the district court failed to verify that the plea was valid 

before accepting it. We affirm. 

FACTS

On or about January 6, 2014, Officer Brad Thoma received reports that 40-yearold appellant Eric Peter Elijio was sending a 15-year-old female coworker text messages 

indicating that he wanted to be her boyfriend. The victim’s parents agreed to 

communicate as the victim with Elijio to determine his intent. The following text 

messages were exchanged:

1

January 6, 2014:

Elijio: I really and truly want to ask you something?

. . . . 

Victim: What do [you] need to ask[?]

Elijio: Do you have a boyfriend. Because honestly you[’re] 

such a beautiful good looking girl and [I] am very much 

interested. 

Victim: How old [are you?]

Elijio: Am 24 year[]s old beautiful

Elijio: Am too old for [you]? 

Victim: I am dating . . . the one we worked with today and 

don’t [you] have a wife and kids

. . . . 

Elijio: Yes I would [divorce] just for [you]. My love for 

[you] I’ll never let go I got so much love for [you].

. . . . 

Victim: No just stop

January 7, 2014:

Victim: Hey sorry [you] just [caught] me off guard but [if] 

[you] want to talk and don’t want anyone to see the messages 

then we should email [because] my mom and dad check my 

phone. . . . [H]ere is my email . . . @yahoo.com

 

1

Some errors have been corrected, but most of the text messages are verbatim. 
3

Elijio: Ok am glad for that [you] makes feel so good. Am so 

excited to hold [you] and show [you] how much I care and 

love [you].

. . . . 

Victim: Hey can [you] explain to me what all [you] want to 

do when [you] say hold me and show me how much [you] 

care and love me 

Elijio: Honey honestly it’s a long story to cut it short I want 

to hold [you] and squeeze [you] and make you feel[] like a 

real woman. 

Victim: Like so by squeeze do [you] mean get me in bed 

[because] I am new to all this.

Elijio: Yes sweet[ie] and I would suck [you] up until 

sweetheart. 

. . . . 

Elijio: Do [you] know the price for a night [at a motel] 

sweet[ie]. And would [you] stay [all] night so that I rock 

your world sweet[ie]?

. . . . 

Victim: I don’t want this to be a one time night [are you] 

wanting to just have sex or make love to me[?] To me there is 

a difference [because] I’ve never been with a man before

Elijio: Babes this could never be a one night stand. Darlin I 

do love [you] deeply from the bottom of my heart. So are 

[you] a [virgin] then?

Victim: Yes which is why I am a little scared but very 

excited too please tell me [you] really w[a]nt to make love to 

me and not just scr[e]w me and le[a]ve me

Elijio: Honey honestly I want to make nice sweet love to 

[you] baby. 

Victim: [Your] age doesn’t bother me but I was wondering 

kinda does my age bother [you] hope not [because] I will be 

16 at the end of the month

Elijio: Honey it bother me a bit but [you] will be sweet 16 [at 

the] end of the month. 

. . . . 

Victim: [My] friend says that Baudette motel rents by the 

hour for fishermen to get cleaned up so [you] can check there 

and let me know [then] my friend will give a ride 

Elijio: Ok I will check sweetheart it seems like [you] excited 

and [horny] too honey?

Victim: Sweet ya I’m nervous but excited to have [you] 

inside me [because] this is all new to me and won’t it hurt?
4

Elijio: Darlin I do have it nice hard and sweet just for [you] 

honey. 

. . . . 

Victim: [D]id you get a room let me know. 

Elijio: I will check in a while sweet[ie] because I really want 

to suck your nice sweet p---y. 

Victim: Ok let me know when and where and time [because] 

I’m getting excited

Elijio: Honey I will get [you] more excited when I suck [you]

up honey. 

. . . . 

Elijio: [Are you] ready sweetheart because I am hard and 

ready. I will be going and wait [for you] by the hotel in a 

while. 

. . . . 

Elijio: [I]n a room sweet[ie] and what time you will be 

coming?

Victim: [Okay what] is the room number and at 630

Elijio: Room 31 sweet[ie] am waiting in it honey

The victim’s parents contacted Officer Thoma after Elijio communicated that he 

was waiting in a hotel room. When officers arrived, Elijio agreed to talk to them, 

assumed why they were there, and allowed them to look through his cell phone. Officer 

Thoma read the messages between Elijio and the victim. Elijio admitted that he knew 

that the victim was 15 years old and that he was planning to have sex with her. Elijio was 

charged with solicitation of a child to engage in sexual conduct, in violation of Minn. 

Stat. § 609.352, subd. 2 (2012). 

On May 21, 2014, Elijio entered an Alford plea. The district court accepted 

Elijio’s guilty plea and sentenced him to 15 months in prison, stayed for five years. This 

appeal followed.
5

D E C I S I O N

Alford plea

Elijio first argues that the district court should not have accepted his Alford plea 

because he derived no benefit by pleading guilty. But the cases that Elijio cites state only 

that an Alford plea must be valid—voluntary, intelligent, and accurate. See North 

Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 31, 91 S. Ct. 160, 164 (1970) (stating that the standard 

for a valid plea is whether the plea represents a voluntary and intelligent choice among 

the alternative courses of action open to the defendant); State v. Ecker, 524 N.W.2d 712, 

716 (Minn. 1994) (recognizing that a valid guilty plea must be accurate, voluntary, and 

intelligent); State v. Goulette, 258 N.W.2d 758, 760 (Minn. 1977) (holding that a district 

court may accept a guilty plea, though the defendant claims innocence, if it reasonably 

concludes that the evidence supports a guilty verdict and the plea is voluntarily, 

knowingly, and understandingly entered). 

A plea is invalid when it is not accurate, intelligent, or voluntary. State v. Theis, 

742 N.W.2d 643, 650 (Minn. 2007). This court reviews the validity of a guilty plea de 

novo. State v. Raleigh, 778 N.W.2d 90, 94 (Minn. 2010). Elijio asserts that without 

deriving a benefit, his guilty plea was not intelligently made. 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.” State v. 

Trott, 338 N.W.2d 248, 251 (Minn. 1983). 

Here, Elijio agreed to plead guilty as charged, waived a presentence investigation,

and agreed to a stayed 15-month sentence, with the understanding that if for some reason 
6

he was not deported,2he would be subject to all probationary terms. Elijio’s reasons for 

pleading guilty are unknown. Regardless of Elijio’s reasons for pleading guilty, the focus 

is on the validity of his plea, not the benefit he gained by pleading guilty, and there is 

nothing in the record to indicate that his plea was not intelligently made. Elijio agreed 

that he understood the charge against him, that he was waiving certain constitutional 

rights by pleading guilty, and the consequences of his plea—his sentence and the 

conditions of his probation if he were not deported. See id. (stating that a plea is 

intelligent when a defendant understands the charges, the rights he is waiving, and the 

consequences of his plea). 

Acceptance of plea

Elijio next argues that the district court erred by accepting his Alford plea without 

verifying the validity of the plea. 

An Alford plea permits a defendant to plead guilty while maintaining innocence, 

“if the defendant reasonably believes, and the record establishes, the state has sufficient 

evidence to obtain a conviction.” Ecker, 524 N.W.2d at 716 (citing Alford, 400 U.S. at 

37, 91 S. Ct. at 167). A district court may accept an Alford plea “if the court, on the basis 

of its interrogation of the accused and its analysis of the factual basis offered in support 

of the plea, reasonably concludes that there is evidence which would support a jury 

verdict of guilty and that the plea is voluntarily, knowingly, and understandingly 

 

2

It was anticipated that Elijio would be deported to Belize after he was released to the 

custody of immigration. 
7

entered.” Goulette, 258 N.W.2d at 760. Having determined that Elijio’s plea was 

intelligent, we will review the voluntary and accuracy requirements. 

Voluntary

“The voluntariness requirement insures that a guilty plea is not entered because of 

any improper pressures or inducements.” State v. Brown, 606 N.W.2d 670, 674 (Minn.

2000) (quotation omitted). “To determine whether a plea is voluntary, the court examines 

what the parties reasonably understood to be the terms of the plea agreement.” Raleigh, 

778 N.W.2d at 96. Elijio does not claim that his plea was not voluntary. He claims only 

that the district court failed to verify that his plea was voluntary because “many of the 

required questions for a felony guilty plea were not asked . . . during the plea colloquy.” 

Elijio did not submit a petition to enter a guilty plea. But Elijio indicated on the 

record that he understood (1) the plea agreement; (2) that he did not have to plead guilty 

and that he could have a trial before a jury made up of 12 people; (3) that the state had the 

burden of proving his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and that all 12 jurors would have 

to return a unanimous verdict finding him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt; (4) that he 

had a right during trial to representation of an attorney, who would challenge the state’s 

evidence and cross-examine its witnesses; (5) that his attorney would present a case at 

trial, that witnesses could testify on his behalf, and that he could testify on his own behalf 

but if he chose not to, no one could suggest that he was guilty because he chose to remain 

silent; (6) that by pleading guilty he would not have a trial and was waiving any 

challenges to his constitutional rights and any defenses that might be available to him; 

(7) that he was pleading guilty to a deportable offense and that he would be deported 
8

soon after the matter was handled by the district court; and (8) that he was being charged 

with solicitation of a child to engage in sexual conduct. 

Elijio also claims that nobody asked him if he “was fully informed as to the facts 

of the case or that defense counsel represented [his] interest and fully advised him.” But 

he agreed that he had an encounter with law enforcement and understood the charge 

against him. He also acknowledged that after going “through the criminal complaint, 

police reports, and photographs of text messages” that there was a very high likelihood 

that he would be convicted of this charge if he had a trial. Elijio also agreed that his 

attorney had been representing him since the beginning of the case, that she met with him 

many times, that he had plenty of time to speak with her, and that he was “[v]ery much 

happy” with her representation. 

Elijio claims that nobody asked him “if he knew he carried the presumption of 

innocence.” But he indicated his understanding when his attorney explained that the state 

had the burden of proving his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and that all 12 jurors 

would have to return a unanimous verdict finding him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. 

Finally, Elijio asserts that nobody asked him if he was under the influence of intoxicants, 

has a mental disability, or was undergoing medical or psychiatric treatment. But Elijio 

does not claim that he was under the influence of intoxicants, had a mental disability, or 

was undergoing medical or psychiatric treatment when he pleaded guilty. Although these 

questions should have been asked, Elijio fails to show that his plea was not voluntary 

because he was not asked these questions. 
9

Accurate

Elijio argues that the district court failed to determine that a strong factual basis 

existed to conclude that a jury would find him guilty. “Accuracy requires that the plea be 

supported by a proper factual basis, that there must be sufficient facts on the record to 

support a conclusion that [the] defendant’s conduct falls within the charge to which he 

desires to plead guilty.” State v. Iverson, 664 N.W.2d 346, 349 (Minn. 2003) (quotation 

omitted). An Alford plea meets the accuracy requirement when it contains both a strong 

factual basis and the defendant’s agreement that the evidence is sufficient to support a 

conviction. Theis, 742 N.W.2d at 649.

Elijio agreed that if he did not plead guilty, a jury, based on all of the evidence, 

would find him guilty of the charged offense. The district court accepted the complaint 

“as the facts as to what [Elijio was] pleading guilty.” Elijio agreed that the complaint 

would serve as a “summary of all of the evidence that the [district court would] 

review . . . to determine whether Elijio would be found guilty.” See Williams v. State, 

760 N.W.2d 8, 13-14 (Minn. App. 2009) (concluding that statements in a complaint, 

combined with defendant’s partial recollection, established strong factual basis to support 

plea), review denied (Minn. Apr. 21, 2009). 

Elijio pleaded guilty to solicitation of a child to engage in sexual conduct. “A 

person 18 years of age or older who solicits a child or someone the person reasonably 

believes is a child to engage in sexual conduct with intent to engage in sexual conduct is

guilty of a felony.” Minn. Stat. § 609.352, subd. 2. The complaint shows that Elijio was 

40 years old when he sent text messages to the 15-year-old victim whom he knew to be 
10

under 16 years old. Elijio’s text messages show that he solicited the victim to engage in 

sexual conduct. Elijio told the victim that he wanted to “make nice sweet love” to her 

and “suck [her] nice sweet p---y.” Although Elijio denied sending text messages on 

January 6, he admitted that he sent messages on January 7. The record establishes a 

strong factual basis for Elijio’s plea. 

Sufficiency of evidence

Finally, Elijio argues that without a proper Alford plea, the record does not support 

his conviction. We have already determined that Elijio’s Alford plea is valid; therefore, 

the record supports his conviction. 

Affirmed.