# State v. Trott

> Supreme Court of Minnesota · September 16, 1983 · 338 N.W.2d 248

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9740538

## Case

- **Full name:** STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, v. Larry TROTT, Appellant
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Minnesota
- **Decided:** September 16, 1983
- **Citations:** 338 N.W.2d 248; 1983 Minn. LEXIS 1294
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Amdahl
- **Judges:** Kelley, Amdahl, Scott
- **Cited by:** 136 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9740538

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that plea colloquy, complaint, and photographs of the victim’s injuries established a sufficient factual basis because the “defendant, by his plea of guilty, in effect judicially admitted the allegations contained in the complaint.”
- concluding that a defendant’s plea had a sufficient factual basis because, in part, the record contained a copy of the complaint, and the defendant in effect judicially admitted to the allegations in the complaint by pleading guilty
- stating that the defendant’s assertion that defense counsel promised him probation was negated by the record and that “[c]learly, therefore, the trial court was justified in finding that no such promise had been made
- stating that “[o]ther possible benefits of the accuracy requirement include assisting the court in determining whether the plea is intelligently entered and facilitating the rehabilitation of 6 the defendant”
- holding that the defendant’s claim that he pleaded guilty because of an unfulfilled promise by his attorney was negated when he signed the guilty plea petition and stated that no promises induced his plea

## Opinion text

AMDAHL, Chief Justice
(dissenting).
I respectfully dissent.
The record establishes that it was not until the day of sentencing that the court, the prosecutor, and defense counsel became aware that a mandatory minimum executed 21-month sentence was the required sentence. None of them was aware at the time of the plea of the existence of such a fact and all of them believed that the presumptive sentence was 21 months stayed.
The record also establishes that at the time he entered his plea, the defendant knew that he could be sentenced to a maximum term of 5 years and that he had been told by his counsel that probation was likely and that he had not been informed that the mandatory minimum law was applicable and that it mandated execution of the sentence.
Under such circumstances, I cannot agree that his plea was intelligently entered and would hold that he should be permitted to withdraw his guilty plea and stand trial, whether or not it is true, as the majority opinion indicates, that “a trial would most assuredly result in the same disposition.”

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9740538. Public record. Not legal advice.