State v. Gray

Supreme Court of Minnesota

State v. Gray

217 N.W.2d 737, 300 Minn. 504, 1974 Minn. LEXIS 1373

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedApril 26, 1974

DocketNo. 42219

StatusPublished

This text of 217 N.W.2d 737 (State v. Gray) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Minnesota primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Gray, 217 N.W.2d 737, 300 Minn. 504, 1974 Minn. LEXIS 1373 (Mich. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

On appeal following conviction of aggravated assault and an order denying his petition for postconviction relief defendant contends that he should be permitted to withdraw his guilty plea upon which the conviction was based because (1) there was insufficient inquiry by the trial court to ensure that defendant did not have a valid claim of self-defense, and (2) his privately retained counsel did not adequately represent him. We affirm.

The record indicates that defendant, who entered his guilty plea on July 28, 1967, did so with full awareness of the availability of the defense of self-defense were he to insist on trial. He entered his plea only after discussing the matter thoroughly with his privately retained counsel, who presumably had balanced the likelihood and probable consequences of an adverse verdict against the probability of receiving sentencing consideration in return for a guilty plea. As it turned out, defendant did receive consideration from the trial court because the trial court, although sentencing defendant to a term of not to exceed 5 years’ imprisonment, stayed imposition of sentence. It was not until over 2 years later, after the trial court revoked probation on the ground that defendant had committed the offense of contributing to the delinquency of a minor,¹ that defendant first claimed he should be permitted to withdraw his plea.

In view of all these circumstances, we are not disposed to permit defendant to withdraw his guilty plea. See, State v. Taylor, 288 Minn. 37, 178 N. W. 2d 892 (1970).

Affirmed.

Mr. Justice Scott took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

On appeal following conviction of aggravated assault and an order denying his petition for postconviction relief defendant contends that he should be permitted to withdraw his guilty plea upon which the conviction was based because (1) there was insufficient inquiry by the trial court to ensure that defendant did not have a valid claim of self-defense, and (2) his privately retained counsel did not adequately represent him. We affirm.

The record indicates that defendant, who entered his guilty plea on July 28, 1967, did so with full awareness of the availability of the defense of self-defense were he to insist on trial. He entered his plea only after discussing the matter thoroughly with his privately retained counsel, who presumably had balanced the likelihood and probable consequences of an adverse verdict against the probability of receiving sentencing consideration in return for a guilty plea. As it turned out, defendant did receive consideration from the trial court because the trial court, although sentencing defendant to a term of not to exceed 5 years’ imprisonment, stayed imposition of sentence. It was not until over 2 years later, after the trial court revoked probation on the ground that defendant had committed the offense of contributing to the delinquency of a minor,¹ that defendant first claimed he should be permitted to withdraw his plea.

In view of all these circumstances, we are not disposed to permit defendant to withdraw his guilty plea. See, State v. Taylor, 288 Minn. 37, 178 N. W. 2d 892 (1970).

Affirmed.

Mr. Justice Scott took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

217 N.W.2d 737, 300 Minn. 504, 1974 Minn. LEXIS 1373, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-gray-minn-1974.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack