Hennepin County District Court File No. 27-CR-12-481
Lori Swanson, Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota; and Michael O. Freeman, Hennepin County Attorney, Linda M. Freyer, Assistant County Attorney, Minneapolis, Minnesota (for respondent)
Cathryn Middlebrook, Interim Chief Appellate Public Defender, Sara J. Euteneuer, Assistant Public Defender, St. Paul, Minnesota (for appellant)
Considered and decided by Cleary, Chief Judge; Kirk, Judge; and Smith, Judge.
Appellant Roosevelt Mikell claims that the factual basis for his guilty plea to felony violation of an order for protection (OFP) is inadequate, and that the district court incorrectly imposed a consecutive sentence of 32 months. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.
On September 21, 2010, the district court granted J.L. an OFP forbidding appellant from having any personal contact with her. At the time, appellant and J.L. were involved in a romantic relationship. An ex-girlfriend of appellant also obtained an OFP against him in 2010, and he was convicted of felony violation of the OFP when he attempted to enter her residence on October 26, 2010. Appellant accepted a plea agreement where he would receive a stayed guideline sentence. A condition of this sentence was no contact with J.L.
While appellant was on supervised probation for the October 2010 felony OFP violation, he was charged with felony violation of the September 21, 2010 OFP involving J.L. after the police found them together in a vehicle during a traffic stop on September 24, 2011. When police spoke with appellant, he provided a false name.
On January 3, 2012, the state filed notice under Minn. R. Crim. P. 7.03 that did not indicate it was seeking an aggravated sentence for appellant's September 2011 conduct. On August 6, appellant entered a straight plea to the September 2011 offense. The questioning of appellant went as follows:
[COURT]: Mr. Mikell, how do you plead then to Violation of Order For Protection as a felony from September 24, 2011, in Minneapolis, Hennepin County, guilty or not guilty?
[APPELLANT]: Okay. Guilty.
[COURT]: All right. And do you want to go over his ...