Preview:

STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A07-91 Jennifer Diane Anderson, petitioner, Appellant, vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent. Filed April 8, 2008 Reversed and remanded Ross, Judge Sherburne County District Court File No. K9-04-2314 Stephen P. Doyle, Kevin S. Sandstrom, Robin, Thompson & Doyle, P.A., 1907 East Wayzata Boulevard, Suite 170, Wayzata, MN 55391 (for appellant) Lori Swanson, Attorney General, 1800 Bremer Tower, 445 Minnesota Street, St. Paul, MN 55101-2134; and Kathleen A. Heaney, Sherburne County Attorney, Leah Emmans, Assistant County Attorney, Government Center, 13880 Highway 10, Elk River, MN 55330 (for respondent)

Considered and decided by Lansing, Presiding Judge; Ross, Judge; and Johnson, Judge. SYLLABUS 1. Although a criminal defendant's allegation that she followed her attorney's advice and falsely admitted her guilt under oath to secure court acceptance of her guilty plea may raise ethical concerns, it does not, as a matter of law, support a finding of prejudice under Strickland v. Washington.

2.

If a criminal defendant informs her defense counsel that she wishes to

withdraw her guilty plea before sentencing, defense counsel's advice to delay moving to withdraw the plea until after sentencing constitutes ineffective assistance of counsel if counsel fails to warn that the delay will render the motion less likely to succeed under a more challenging standard of proof. OPINION ROSS, Judge Jennifer Anderson appeals her conviction of third-degree criminal sexual conduct. After the state charged Anderson for having sex with a child whom she counseled in a juvenile rehabilitation program, she pleaded guilty to one count of criminal sexual conduct in exchange for dismissal of other counts. Anderson argues that her guilty plea cannot form the basis of her conviction because the district court had impermissibly interjected itself into the plea negotiations. She also argues that she was denied her constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel because of her attorney's advice and actions related to her guilty plea. And she argues that the district court erroneously denied her motion to withdraw her plea after sentencing because it was not voluntarily and intelligently made. We hold that the district court did not impermissibly interject itself into plea negotiations. But because Anderson's trial counsel's advice regarding the timing of her motion to withdraw the plea fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and prejudiced Anderson, we reverse and remand.

2

FACTS Jennifer Anderson and M.C. met at the Bar None juvenile rehabilitation facility in 2003, where M.C. was a resident and Anderson was the program counselor. Anderson and her husband became M.C.'s foster parents several days after M.C. left the program. In early 2004, the Elk River Police Department received a report of sexual contact between Anderson and 15-year-old M.C. After a police investigation, the state charged Anderson with three counts of first-degree criminal sexual conduct, with three counts of fourth-degree criminal sexual conduct, and with contributing to the need for protection, services, or delinquency of M.C. In May 2006, the state amended the complaint to charge two counts of first-degree criminal sexual conduct and two counts of third-degree criminal sexual conduct. The evidence accumulated during the police investigation supported the state's theory of Anderson's sexual relationship with M.C. The evidence indicated that shortly after M.C. moved into the Andersons' Elk River home in 2003, Anderson began having sexual intercourse and engaging in oral sex with him. M.C. estimated that Anderson had sexual intercourse with him 15 to 20 times and oral sex even more. Anderson's husband confronted Anderson and M.C. with his suspicion about the alleged sexual relationship, and M.C. then moved from the Andersons' home. Although Anderson told police that she had no contact with M.C. after he moved out, police discovered that she made more than 60 telephone calls to M.C. and, according to M.C., often drove to St. Paul to meet and have sex with him.

3

Anderson pleaded not guilty and the charges were set for jury trial. Two days after the voir dire began, Anderson pleaded guilty to one count of third-degree criminal sexual conduct, and the state dismissed the remaining charges. The district court

sentenced Anderson to 41 months in prison. Anderson then moved to withdraw her guilty plea, but the court denied the motion. Anderson now appeals from her conviction, raising various challenges to her guilty plea. ISSUES I. II. Did the district court improperly inject itself into plea negotiations? Was Anderson denied effective assistance of counsel? ANALYSIS I Anderson argues that her guilty plea is invalid because the district court impermissibly injected itself into the plea negotiations that precipitated the plea. The role of the district court during plea negotiations is to determine whether a proffered plea bargain is appropriate and to ensure that the defendant has not been improperly induced to plead guilty. State v. Johnson, 279 Minn. 209, 215

Download A07-91, Jennifer Diane Anderson, petitioner, Appellant, vs. State of Minnesota,

Minnesota Law