"Direct consequences are definite, immediate, and automatic and are punitive and a part of a defendant's sentence." State v. Brown, 896 N.W.2d 557, 561 (Minn.App. 2017) (citations omitted). "[A] potential probation-violation penalty in an unrelated case is not a direct consequence of a defendant's guilty plea and conviction."
The unpublished opinion cited by the state is also distinguishable because it involved a failure to advise, rather than misadvice, and no evidence in the record established that the appellant relied on representations by defense counsel regarding the registration period when entering his guilty plea. This court held in State v. Brown , 896 N.W.2d 557, 558–59, 2017 WL 1833317, at *1 (Minn. App. May 8, 2017), that an attorney's affirmative misadvice to a client concerning collateral consequences does not, on its own, render a guilty plea unintelligent and manifestly unjust. But in Brown , the appellant did not make an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim.
We review the factual findings underlying the district court's legal determinations for clear error. Pearson v. State, 891 N.W.2d 590, 600 (Minn. 2017); State v. Brown, 896 N.W.2d 557, 560 (Minn.App. 2017), rev. denied (Minn. July 18, 2017). We give great deference to a district court's factual determinations and will not set them aside unless we are "left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made."
We review questions of law raised in a postconviction petition de novo. State v. Brown, 896 N.W.2d 557, 560 (Minn.App. 2017), rev. denied (Minn. July 18, 2017).
"But a defendant need not know every consequence of his plea for the plea to be intelligent." State v. Brown, 896 N.W.2d 557, 561 (Minn.App. 2017), rev. denied (Minn. July 18, 2017).
But the defendant must know of the direct consequences of a plea, which are "definite, immediate, and automatic and are punitive and a part of a defendant's sentence." State v. Brown, 896 N.W.2d 557, 561 (Minn. App. 2017) (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. July 18, 2017). Direct consequences of a guilty plea primarily include the maximum sentence and fine.
Trial counsel "is not required to advise the defendant of every consequence for the defendant's plea to be intelligent," Taylor v. State, 887 N.W.2d 821, 823 (Minn. 2016), but the defendant must know of the direct consequences of a plea, which are "definite, immediate, and automatic and are punitive and a part of a defendant's sentence." State v. Brown, 896 N.W.2d 557, 561 (Minn. App. 2017) (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. July 18, 2017). Direct consequences of a guilty plea primarily include "the maximum sentence and fine."
A defendant need not know of every consequence of his plea for the plea to be intelligent, Taylor v. State, 887 N.W.2d 821, 823 (Minn. 2016), but he must know of the direct consequences of a plea, which are "definite, immediate, and automatic and are punitive and part of a defendant's sentence." State v. Brown, 896 N.W.2d 557, 561 (Minn. App. 2017) (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. July 18, 2017). A guilty plea's direct consequences primarily include the maximum sentence and fine. Raleigh, 778 N.W.2d at 96.
The intelligence requirement refers to direct consequences of a plea, those consequences that are "definite, immediate, and automatic and are punitive and a part of a defendant's sentence." State v. Brown, 896 N.W.2d 557, 561 (Minn. App. 2017) (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. July 18, 2017). Schrock argues that his guilty plea to second-degree controlled-substance possession was not intelligent because, at the plea hearing: (1) although Schrock's attorney acknowledged that the district court had made "no promises" regarding Schrock's sentence, his attorney told the district court that Schrock would be arguing at sentencing for a dispositional departure; (2) the district court told Schrock that he could seek a downward dispositional departure; (3) Schrock's plea petition did not include a minimum sentence; and (4) contrary to Minn. R. Crim. P. 15.