This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn . Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (201 4 ). STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A15
- 1355 State of Minnesota, Respondent,

vs. Mark Christian Wolhowe, Appellant. Filed July 18, 2016 Affirmed Ross , Judge Ramsey County District Court File No. 62SU

- CR

- 14

- 4363 Lori Swanson, Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota; and Mark F. Gaughan, Erickson, Bell, Beckman & Quinn, P.A., Roseville, Minnesota (for respondent) Cathryn Middlebrook, Chief Appellate Public Defender, Chang Y. Lau, Assistant Public Defender, St. Paul, Minnesota (for appellant)
Considered and decided by Ross , Presiding Judge; Johnson , Judge; and Stauber , Judge

. U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N ROSS , Judge Mark Wolhowe stood in front of the apartment door of an 86

- year - old woman, unzipped his p ants to expose his penis, and knocked on the door to wait for the woman to2

see him . Wolhowe agreed to plead guilty to misdemeanor indecent exposure but then quibbled about the date of the event

. H e acknowledged that he had also exposed himself to residents in “the puzzle room” and he gave the date of that exposure to support his plea. He now seeks to withdraw his plea, arguing that the factual basis on the record was insufficient to establish that he intended his exposure to be lewd and that this deficiency

was compounded by errors in the plea

- colloquy procedure. Because Wolhowe gave the details of his offense and affirm ed his attorney’s detail of the location of it, and because the full recitation of the events e stablishes that his exposure was willful and lewd, we affirm. FACTS On December 1, 2014, Roseville police cited Mark Wolhowe for misdemeanor indecent exposure under Minnesota Statutes section 617.23, subdivision 1(1) (2014). Wolhowe agreed to plead guilt y in exchange for the state dropping two other indecent

exposure charges arising out of similar conduct. Wolhowe’s plea petition, read into the record at his plea hearing, detailed the incident reported to police by an 8 6

- year - old resident of a Hamline Av enue senior apartm ent building. She told police that she heard a knock at her door, looked ou t the door’s peephole, and saw Wolh owe standing with his pants unzipped and his penis exposed. Police spoke to Wolh owe, who said he was only “teasing” the woman. Wolhowe disagreed with th is characterization of the facts, saying that although he did knock on the woman’s door on that date, he did not expose himself to her on that date

. He said that he had instead exposed him self to her previously

. After some back and forth ,3

Wolhowe’s lawyer pro posed a solution to the impasse regarding the date and circumstances of Wolhowe’s exposure. Sh e said that Wolhowe would agree that “he exposed his penis to residents of the facility in the puzzle room.” Wolhowe affi rmed that location and settled on the date of October 30, 2014 , for his puzzle

- room exhibition. T he district court judge asked Wolhowe if he agreed with his attorney’s version of events , and Wolhowe answered, “Yes, I do agree with it.” The district court f ound the factual basis to be sufficient and accepted Wolhowe’s guilty plea

. But Wolhowe moved to withdraw his guilty plea before sentencing . He argu ed that his plea was involuntary because his attorney put him under duress

. The state argued that it would be prejudiced by the plea being withdrawn due to the complainant’s age and potential unavailability for trial. Analyzing whether it would be fair and just to all ow Wolhowe to withdraw his plea, t he district court found that , although there was some “confus ion or evasion” regarding the date of Wolhowe’s behavior, there was no undue pressure from counsel. The court concluded that it was not fair or just to allow Wolhowe to withdraw his guilty plea and denied Wolhowe’s motion. Wolhowe appeals. D E C I S I O N Wolhowe seeks to undo his guilty plea. He maintains that his plea was inaccurate and therefore manifestly unjust. The rules provide different standards for withdrawing a guilty plea, depending on the circumstances. Before sentencing a defendant may withdr aw his plea if withdrawal is fair and just . Minn. R. Crim. P. 15.05, subd. 2. After sentencing , the defendan t may withdraw his plea only to remedy a manifest injustice. Id. , subd. 1. We review plea withdrawal s claimed under the manifest injustice standard de novo as a4

question of law

. State v. Raleigh , 778 N .W.2d 90, 94 (Minn. 2010). B ecause Wolhowe moved to withdraw his plea before his sentenc ing , an abuse

- of

- discretion review of the district cour t’s fair

- and

-

just determination would also be available. See id. at 97. But because Wolhowe does not make any argument under the fair

- and

- just standard , we do not discuss it further. An inaccurate plea is a manifest ly un just plea. Id. at 94. For a plea t o be accura te , it must rest on a factual basis sufficient to establish that the defendant’s conduct meets the charge d crime

. Munger v. State , 749 N.W.2d 335, 338 (Minn. 2008). A person committing one of several listed acts in the indecent exposure statute “in any public place, or in any place where others are present, is guilty of a misdemeanor.” Minn. Stat. § 617.23, subd. 1 (2014). The state accused Wolhowe of violating one of them, charging that he “willfully and lewdly expose [d] [his] bod y, or the private parts thereo f

. ” I d. , subd. 1(1). Wolhowe argues that his admission during the plea colloquy did not establish that when he ex posed himself he inten d ed to be lewd or indecent. Wolhowe also maintains that the error was compounded by the district court’s failure to follow proper plea entry procedures. The arguments are unconvincing. For expos ure to be indecent , it must be intentional and occur when and where a

r easonable person would know that he will be observed by others. State v. Peery , 224 Minn. 346, 351, 28 N.W.2d 851, 854 (1947). Intent may be “inferred from the manner of the exposure.” Id

. (quotation omitted). The supreme court has interpret ed the present wording

o f the indecent

- exposure statute to deem it a crime when the defendant’s conduct “was so likely to be observed ‘that it must be reasonably presumed that it was intended to be5

witnessed.’” State v. Stevenson , 656 N.W.2d 235, 24 1 (Minn. 2003 ) (quoting Peery , 224 Minn. at 352, 28 N.W.2d at 854). And the intent element can be established on the circumstances even if the plea colloquy fails to expressly include the defendant’s intent

. S ee S tate v. Russell , 306 Minn. 274, 275, 236 N.W.2d 612, 613 (1975). We are satisfied that the plea colloquy covers the necessary ground on intent and lewdness. Wolhowe admitted to circumstances showing both

. His attorney gave the following synopsis: “ [Wolhowe] was in the puzzle room. This room is designated the
p uzzle room because they have a puzzle that different residents try and fit the pieces together, and he exposed his penis to residents of the facility in the puzzle room.” Wolhowe immediately confirmed this state ment . And he again agreed with the de scriptio n when questioned by the district court. That Wolhowe exposed himself “ to ” the residents indicates that he was directing his exposure at them

. This assumes intent. And the circumstances of his exposure

— a populated gathering area in a senior residence facility

— implies lewd ness . Wolhowe also maintains that deficiencies in the process of the plea colloquy show that his plea was inaccurate. A factual basis is generally provided by the defendant
express ing what happened in his own words. State v. Trott , 3 38 N.W.2d 248, 251 (Minn. 1983)

. The defendant’s iteration will then suggest to the court how to elicit further details. Id. Wolhowe argues that this process was not followed, and he provided only summary recitations of his counsel’s version of events . He maintains that his plea is therefore invalid , citing Shorter v. State , 511 N.W.2d 743 (Minn. 1994). But the supreme court has clarified that it has “never required that the factual basis for the plea appear in the plea hearing6

transcript verbatim.” Lussier v. State , 821 N.W.2d 581, 589 (Minn. 2012). And in fact Wolhowe participated in the development of the factual record of his guilt. We believe that Wolhowe’s personal involvement in the recitation of facts during the colloquy was sufficient to establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. He first agree d with the fully described conduct of the doorway offense, put the conduct in his own words, and questioned only the date : THE COURT: All right. Mr. Wolhowe, did you hear that? THE DEFENDANT: Yes, I did. THE COURT: Is it true? THE DEFENDANT: Not the way it is written. THE COURT: Okay. So tell me what you did that is indecent exposure. THE DEFENDANT: I knocked on the door. I looked into the peephole. I walked down the hall. I di d not at any time expose to her on that day

. MS. COALE: He did expose himself

. THE DEFENDANT: I did in the past . She had never said no, never said quit, never said don’ t, never said any of that. She had just been silent. (Emphasis added.) After Wolhowe’ s attorney offered the puzzle

- room exposure as the new basis for the plea and conviction, Wolhowe expressly admitted to the location of the conduct he had already admitted to, and he expressed certainty about the date of this
exposure : THE COURT: All righ t. So I want to understand. What your attorney just described, now, exposing yourself in the puzzle room to others, right? THE DEFENDANT: That ’ s correct. THE COURT: That occurred on or about? THE DEFENDANT: October. THE COURT: Well, now we ’ ve gone from May to October to December? THE DEFENDANT: October 30th. THE COURT: All right. On or about October 30th? THE DEFENDANT: Yeah. THE COURT: Of 2014? THE DEFENDANT: Correct.7

By contrast, in Shorter , the supreme court emphasized that it was the “highly
unusual facts of th [at] case” that led it to require the plea withdrawal. 511 N.W.2d at 746.
T he Shorter court note d multiple misgivings about the process and faulted the district court for not conducting its own questioning of the defendant, especially af ter the defendant’s counsel merely asked leading questions requiring the defendant to acknowledge t he state’s presentation

. Id. at 747. Not so here. Wolhowe described the conduct, including admitting exposing himself, and he offered the exact date. The court questioned Wolhowe to fill in the missing detail of the date. The only fact his attorney offered that was different from Wolhowe’s own description was the location, so that a date could be agreed upon. And Wolhowe completed the story by providing the date. We see no reason the district court should have developed any misgivings about Wolhowe’s guilt, and we have none.
W e hold that the plea colloquy established a sufficient factual basis to render Wolhowe’s plea accurate, and the process used by t he district court did not create a manifest injustice. Affirmed.