Case Name: STATE v. RODERICK WILLIAM IRVING
Court: Minnesota Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Minnesota
Decision Date: 1974-04-05
Citations: 299 Minn. 211
Docket Number: No. 44000
Parties: STATE v. RODERICK WILLIAM IRVING.
Judges: Mr. Justice Scott took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Reporter: Minnesota Reports
Volume: 299
Pages: 211–212

Head Matter:
STATE v. RODERICK WILLIAM IRVING.
217 N. W. 2d 197.
April 5, 1974
No. 44000.
C. Paul Jones, State Public Defender, for appellant.
Warren Spannaus, Attorney General, Gary W. Flakne, County Attorney, and Theodore R. Rix, Vernon E. Bergstrom, and Michael McGlennen, Assistant County Attorneys, for respondent.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
Defendant contends on this appeal from judgment of conviction of aggravated forgery, Minn. St. 609.625, that the district court erred in accepting the guilty plea upon which his conviction was based. Specifically, defendant contends that the trial court did not make sufficient inquiry to establish that there was an adequate factual basis for the plea. After careful consideration of this issue, we affirm.
The record shows that defendant, when questioned under oath, admitted uttering one check which he knew was forged and possessing other such checks with intent to utter. Further, the record leaves no doubt as to whether defendant had the requisite intent to defraud, thus distinguishing this case from Fox v. State, 288 Minn. 475, 181 N. W. 2d 869 (1970), relied upon by defendant. There is therefore a sufficient factual basis for the conviction under Minn. St. 609.625, subd. 3. Defendant will not be permitted to plead anew simply because the prosecutor and defense counsel, rather than the trial court, elicited some of the information establishing the factual basis. See, State v. Greenfield, 291 Minn. 534, 191 N. W. 2d 398 (1971); State v. Coe, 290 Minn. 537, 188 N. W. 2d 421 (1971).
Affirmed.
Mr. Justice Scott took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.