Opinion ID: 1896707
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Accuracy

Text: The accuracy requirement protects a defendant from pleading guilty to a more serious offense than that for which he could be convicted if he insisted on his right to trial. Trott, 338 N.W.2d at 251. To be accurate, a plea must be established on a proper factual basis. State v. Ecker, 524 N.W.2d 712, 716 (Minn.1994). The district court typically satisfies the factual basis requirement by asking the defendant to express in his own words what happened. Trott, 338 N.W.2d at 251. The court should be particularly wary of situations in which the factual basis is established by asking a defendant only leading questions. Ecker, 524 N.W.2d at 716. Still, a defendant may not withdraw his plea simply because the court failed to elicit proper responses if the record contains sufficient evidence to support the conviction. See State v. Nelson, 311 Minn. 109, 110, 250 N.W.2d 816, 817 (1976). Raleigh challenges the accuracy of his plea on two points. First, he argues the facts do not establish the element of premeditation. Premeditation means to consider, plan or prepare for, or determine to commit, the act referred to prior to its commission. Minn.Stat. § 609.18 (2008). To prove premeditation, the facts must establish `that some appreciable period of time passed after the defendant formed the intent to kill, during which the statutorily required consideration, planning, preparation, or determination took place.' See State v. McArthur, 730 N.W.2d 44, 49 (Minn.2007) (quoting State v. Moua, 678 N.W.2d 29, 39 (Minn. 2004)). At the plea hearing, Raleigh gave an affirmative response to this question from his attorney: And just so we're clear here, [the beating] happened not only before you went out to look at the car, but that actually was what you had in mind when you came back from the car, to finish [Porter] off? This exchange reveals that Raleigh decided to kill Porter upon discovering Porter's identity in Porter's car; he formed the statutorily required determination to kill Porter in the appreciable time it took him to return to the house to beat Porter a second time to finish [Porter] off. Accordingly, the factual basis was sufficient to establish premeditation. Raleigh further argues that his plea was not accurate because he answered only leading questions throughout the plea hearing. The record confirms that Raleigh never stated in his own words what happened and throughout the plea hearing the district court asked Raleigh no questions. Instead, the court established the factual basis for the plea by permitting defense counsel to ask Raleigh a series of leading questions. We have long discouraged this practice. In State v. Hoaglund, we stated: It is to be hoped that the trial judge, in [accepting a plea], will ask the questions with respect to the factual basis for the crime so as to avoid the rather common inclination of counsel to elicit these facts by leading questions. 307 Minn. 322, 326, 240 N.W.2d 4, 6 (1976). We elaborated on the preferred questioning method in State v. Trott , stating: The usual way in which the factual basis requirement is satisfied is for the court to ask the defendant to express in his own words what happened. The defendant's statement usually will suggest questions to the court which then, with the assistance of counsel, can interrogate the defendant in further detail. 338 N.W.2d at 251 (citation omitted). Eleven years later, we addressed the topic again in Shorter v. State, 511 N.W.2d 743, 744-45, 747 (Minn.1994). In Shorter, we noted that only the defense counsel questioned Shorter, that Shorter generally gave only yes or no answers, that the judge did not question Shorter, and that Shorter was never asked to describe the incident that gave rise to the charge. Id. at 744-45. In holding that Shorter was entitled to withdraw his plea to correct a manifest injustice, we expressed the following concern regarding the plea hearing proceedings: We also have misgivings regarding the trial court's acceptance of Shorter's plea. We find it troubling that the court did not conduct any questioning of the defendant, particularly after the defense attorney merely asked leading questions requiring only that the defendant acknowledge the state's evidence as to key elements of the crime. We have previously stated that the trial court bears the primary responsibility to advise and interrogate the defendant in sufficient detail to establish an adequate factual basis for the plea. In reversing the judgment of conviction upon a guilty plea in Hoaglund, we stated that we hoped that trial judges would ask questions with respect to the factual basis for the crime so as to avoid the inclination of counsel to elicit those facts through leading questions. The court in this case asked no questions at all and based its acceptance of the plea on just such leading questions. Id. at 747 (citations omitted). Later that year, we cited Shorter in Ecker, reiterating that we again discourage the use of leading questions to establish a factual basis. 524 N.W.2d at 717. Hoaglund, Trott, Shorter, and Ecker span two decades, reflect a variety of charges, and include both Alford and non- Alford pleas. Together, the cases make clear that we generally discourage the practice of establishing a guilty plea's factual basis by permitting counsel to ask leading questions of a defendant, with the court remaining silent. Here, we discourage that practice yet again and encourage district courts to take an active role in asking direct questions of defendants during plea hearings. Ultimately, the accuracy requirement ensures that a defendant does not plead guilty to a crime more serious than that of which he could be convicted if he elected to go to trial. Trott, 338 N.W.2d at 251. Raleigh's plea satisfies this objective because the answers Raleigh gave to counsel's questions establish that he formed the statutorily required determination to kill Porter in the time it took to return to the house to beat Porter a second time. The answers he gave established premeditation, the only element of the crime Raleigh asserts was not factually established. Furthermore, as noted, the factual basis for Raleigh's plea is sufficient, despite its disfavored format. Thus, Raleigh's challenges to both the form and the substance of the accuracy of his plea fail, and we hold that Raleigh's plea was accurate.