State v. Hopkins
State v. John Hopkins, Jr.
Opinion
Per Curiam.
Defendant appeals from the judgment of conviction for aggravated assault, upon his plea of guilty, asserting that no factual basis for his plea was disclosed and that he did not understand the nature and elements of the offense, resulting in a manifest injustice. Chapman v. State, 282 Minn. 13 , 162 N. W. 2d 698 (1968).
Defendant was charged with aggravated rape, aggravated by pulling a knife to overcome the resistance of his victim. His privately retained counsel negotiated the plea of guilty to the lesser offense of aggravated *523 assault, which defendant admits he discussed with his counsel. His answers to questions by the prosecutor disclose a factual basis for the plea even though no question was specifically directed to the element of intent. State v. Jacobs, 292 Minn. 41 , 192 N. W. 2d 816 (1971). It may be presumed that his counsel informed him of the nature and elements of the offense, State v. Feather, 288 Minn. 556 , 181 N. W. 2d 478 (1970), and his understanding may additionally be assumed from the fact that he had been convicted of the same offense of aggravated assault in another county just one month earlier, Oksanen v. State, 290 Minn. 530 , 187 N. W. 2d 771 (1971).
Affirmed.
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 3 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
(concluding that “[defendant’s] answers to questions by the prosecutor disclose a factual basis for the plea [of guilt of aggravated assault] even though no question was 5 specifically directed to the element of intent”)
Cited by 8 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.