Opinion ID: 1761559
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: I justI didn't do anything.

Text: He said that the other members of the crew who were standing about all decided that I should pull Leuthard off because I was in on it, but then I went towhen we were walking back over there they started wrestling around.    I went to grab Leuthard's legs and I had a hold of it. The others told him to leave them alone and let them fight it out. Upon questioning by the court, defendant testified that he knew he could be sentenced up to 5 years for the offense, that he was entitled to a jury trial wherein he would be accorded the presumption of innocence, and that he had had ample time to consult with counsel provided for him. He testified that no threats or promises had been made to induce him to enter his plea. The following examination of defendant in court by his counsel clearly establishes that he understood that withdrawal or abandonment might be a defense to the charge of conspiracy: Q. [By Counsel] Mr. Baynes, now you and I discussed the defenses in a charge of conspiracy of crime of this nature? A. Yes. Q. And I told you that according to Minnesota Statutes that a person who conspired with another to commit a crime and thereafter abandons his purpose and makes a reasonable effort to prevent the [perpetration] of the crime is not liable that the crime is thereafter committed. I told you about the statute, isn't that correct? A. Yes. Q. And even in view of that defense on your part you still want to plead guilty, is that correct? A. Yes. The authorities hold that, once formed, a conspiracy continues to exist until consummated, abandoned, or otherwise terminated by some affirmative act, and every overt act is, in contemplation of law, a renewal or continuance of the unlawful agreement. Where an overt act is required for conviction, a conspirator may avoid guilt by withdrawing from the conspiracy prior to the commission of an overt act. 16 Am.Jur.2d Conspiracy, § 29. See, State v. Currie, 267 Minn. 294, 126 N.W.2d 389. It seems to us that defendant's plea of guilty here was entered intelligently and understandingly. The fact that he did not join in the actual attack on the supervisor is in no way inconsistent with his plea of guilty. According to his own testimony, he and Leuthard devised a plan to deliberately place Licke in a position where he would be beaten and robbed. His act of handing the knife to Licke was the signal for Leuthard to attack him, and after Licke's attention was distracted in this manner, the attack did in fact commence according to plan. Defendant joined in making the attack possible and shared in the furtherance of the criminal conspiracy with which he was charged. It seems to us that the record fully establishes that defendant entered a plea of guilty voluntarily and intelligently with representation by competent counsel and with full knowledge of his rights. We accordingly hold that the trial court did not err in accepting the plea. Affirmed.