Preview:

STATE OF MINNESOTA IN SUPREME COURT A08-2273 Hennepin County Meyer, J.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Rashad Arthur Raleigh, Appellant. ________________________ Lori Swanson, Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota; and Michael O. Freeman, Hennepin County Attorney, Lee W. Barry, Assistant County Attorney, Minneapolis, Minnesota, for respondent. Cathryn Y. Middlebrook, Assistant State Public Defender, St. Paul, Minnesota, for appellant. ________________________ SYLLABUS Appellant failed to show his guilty plea to first-degree premeditated murder was invalid; thus, appellant is not entitled to withdraw his plea to correct a "manifest injustice" under Minn. R. Crim. P. 15.05, subd. 1. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellants motion to withdraw his guilty plea to first-degree premeditated murder because appellant failed to Filed: February 4, 2010 Office of Appellate Courts

1

advance substantiated reasons why withdrawal was "fair and just" under Minn. R. Crim. P. 15.05, subd. 2. Affirmed. OPINION MEYER, Justice. Appellant Rashad Arthur Raleigh pled guilty to first-degree premeditated murder for the death of Howard Porter. The issue in this case is whether the district court should have granted appellants presentence motion to withdraw his plea under either the "manifest injustice" or "fair and just" standard of Minn. R. Crim. P. 15.05, subds. 1, 2. The district court denied appellants motion to withdraw his plea under both standards. We affirm. On January 24, 2008, a Hennepin County grand jury indicted Raleigh on one count of first-degree premeditated murder and one count of first-degree felony murder for the death of Howard Porter. At his plea hearing, Raleigh affirmed the following facts regarding Porters death. On May 18, 2007, Raleigh, Tonya Washington, and Fredquinzo King were drinking and using drugs at a house in St. Paul. The three decided to have Washington go out and bring a man back to the house, and while Washington performed an act of prostitution with the man, Raleigh and King would rob him. Washington left and returned with a man who, according to Raleigh, was driving a "fancy" car. During sexual activity

between Washington and the man, Raleigh and King entered the room to rob him. Raleigh had a gun. The man resisted and Raleigh hit him in the head. King also hit the 2

man in the head with a chair or stool. Raleigh and King beat the man until he no longer resisted. Raleigh and King then went outside to look in the mans car. They discovered that the man was Howard Porter, a Ramsey County probation officer. Not wanting Porter to identify them, the two returned to the house and assaulted Porter again to "finish him off." Believing Porter to be dead, Raleigh and King drove Porter to North Minneapolis, dumped him in an alley, and left the car elsewhere. Porter was, in fact, alive when the men dumped him in the alley. He was found and taken to the hospital where he died one week later. Raleigh does not dispute that the blows to Porters head administered at the house in St. Paul on May 18, 2007, caused Porters death. On November 21, 2007, Raleigh was charged by complaint with second-degree murder in Hennepin County District Court. Two months later, a grand jury indicted Raleigh on one count of first-degree premeditated murder and one count of first-degree felony murder. On August 11, 2008, Raleigh pled guilty to first-degree premeditated murder on the agreement that the State would dismiss his felony murder charge and not prosecute him for a triple homicide in Ramsey County for which he was also under investigation. Raleighs counsel was present at the plea hearing. During the hearing, Raleighs attorney asked him a series of questions to support the plea. Through this questioning, Raleigh confirmed that he had signed a petition to plead guilty on August 6, 2008, after reviewing the plea with his attorney and an investigator. Raleigh further confirmed that he

understood entering the plea meant he waived his rights to address irregularities at his 3

grand jury proceeding, have a jury trial, and exercise his Fifth Amendment rights. Raleigh also confirmed that it was "never [his] intention" to have his case tried on "some lesser degree of homicide" and that he understood his sentence would be life imprisonment without the possibility of release, the "most severe punishment the State of Minnesota can give anyone." He confirmed that he understood the plea did not prevent federal charges from being filed against him. Last, Raleigh confirmed that he understood that it is "highly unusual for someone to plead guilty to a life sentence." The court then asked Raleigh if he had a "full opportunity to discuss [his] case" with his attorney and if he was satisfied with his attorneys work; Raleigh confirmed that he was. Next,

Raleighs attorney questioned him as to the facts of the murder. Finally, the court accepted Raleighs plea. In the days immediately following the plea hearing, Raleigh questioned his plea in a series of phone calls to members of his family. Raleigh also claims he heard voices and experienced trouble sleeping after his plea; he requested to see a psychiatrist, with whom he met on August 20, 2008. Raleigh moved orally to withdraw his guilty plea, and at an August 29, 2008, hearing the district court heard and considered the motion. Raleighs attorney argued at the motion hearing that the court should permit withdrawal because stress, improper pressure to plead guilty, mental health issues, and not understanding the pleas consequences governed Raleighs decision to plead guilty. The State vigorously opposed the motion, arguing that Raleigh failed to present any evidence to authorize withdrawal and that Raleighs arguments were insufficient for the court to find that Raleigh misunderstood the consequences of his plea or experienced 4

mental health problems. The State further observed that at the plea hearing the court went to great lengths to ensure Raleigh understood the pleas consequences. The district court denied Raleighs motion to withdraw his plea, noting that Raleigh failed to submit any evidence to support the withdrawal motion. In denying Raleighs motion, the court held that the plea was valid, that withdrawal would prejudice the State, and that Raleigh failed to advance reasons why withdrawal would be "fair and just." followed. A defendant has no absolute right to withdraw a guilty plea after entering it. Perkins v. State, 559 N.W.2d 678, 685 (Minn. 1997). Withdrawal is permitted in two circumstances. First, a court must allow withdrawal of a guilty plea if withdrawal is necessary to correct a "manifest injustice." Minn. R. Crim. P. 15.05, subd. 1. Second, a court may allow withdrawal any time before sentencing if it is "fair and just" to do so. Minn. R. Crim. P. 15.05, subd. 2. Raleigh argues the district court erred by not granting his withdrawal motion under either standard. I. We first examine whether Raleigh was entitled to withdraw his plea because withdrawal was necessary to avoid a manifest injustice. According to Minn. R. Crim. P. 15.05, subd. 1, "The court shall allow a defendant to withdraw a plea of guilty upon a timely motion and proof to the satisfaction of the court that withdrawal is necessary to correct a manifest injustice." A manifest injustice exists if a guilty plea is not valid. State v. Theis, 742 N.W.2d 643, 646 (Minn. 2007). To be constitutionally valid, a guilty plea must be accurate, voluntary, and intelligent. North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 5 This appeal

31 (1970); State v. Trott, 338 N.W.2d 248, 251 (Minn. 1983). A defendant bears the burden of showing his plea was invalid. Alanis v. State, 583 N.W.2d 573, 577 (Minn. 1998). Assessing the validity of a plea presents a question of law that we review de novo. See State v. Rhodes, 675 N.W.2d 323, 326 (Minn. 2004). Accuracy 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.

Download A08-2273, State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Rashad Arthur Raleigh, Appellant..

Minnesota Law