State v. Irving

Supreme Court of Minnesota

State v. Irving

217 N.W.2d 197, 299 Minn. 211, 1974 Minn. LEXIS 1446

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedApril 5, 1974

Docket44000

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 217 N.W.2d 197 (State v. Irving) 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. Irving, 217 N.W.2d 197, 299 Minn. 211, 1974 Minn. LEXIS 1446 (Mich. 1974).

Pincite

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 *212 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.

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

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 *212 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

217 N.W.2d 197, 299 Minn. 211, 1974 Minn. LEXIS 1446, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-irving-minn-1974.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack