 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Urrabazo12/13/2005
On appeal from a conviction of first-degree criminal sexual conduct, appellant argues that there was an insufficient factual basis for his guilty plea because, although he admitted to engaging in intercourse with his girlfriend's 14-year-old niece, a fact established by the victim's pregnancy, appellant did not admit to the use of force or coercion. Appellant also argues that the record does not indicate he knew that he was entering an Alford plea, and the district court failed to properly elicit an Alford plea. We affirm.
FACTS
In April 2004, Moorhead Police were contacted by the mother of a 14-year-old girl, L.R., who informed them that L.R. had given birth to a baby and that the father of the baby was an adult male who had sexually assaulted L.R., appellant Jaime Urrabazo. L.R.'s mother told the police that she and her children had a close relationship with appellant as he was her sister's boyfriend, and the father of her sister's two children who L.R. occasionally babysat. L.R.'s mother told the police that she took L.R. to the doctor after noticing that L.R. was gaining weight. The doctor informed them that L.R. was 24 weeks pregnant. After L.R. gave birth, genetic testing indicated that, by a probability of 99.9%, appellant is the father of L.R.'s child.
During a police interview, L.R. described three incidents of sexual conduct between her and appellant. The first incident occurred sometime in the spring of 2002 when L.R. was baby-sitting. Appellant, who was home, locked the door and sat beside L.R. on the sofa. Appellant began "sweet talking" L.R. and touching her on top of her clothing in her vaginal area. Appellant left the room briefly but returned and forced himself on top of L.R. Appellant began kissing L.R.'s face and pulled down her pants and underwear. Appellant also began pulling down his pants and boxers. L.R. told appellant that she was a virgin and that she did not want this to happen. Appellant then sexually penetrated L.R.
The second incident occurred approximately one week later. L.R.'s aunt asked her to baby-sit while she was at a dance. Her aunt told her that appellant would be home shortly to get dressed and would meet her at the dance. When appellant arrived, L.R. told him that she had to go home to get some things while he got ready for the dance. L.R. told the police she did this because she did not want to be alone with appellant. When L.R. returned, appellant locked the door and approached her while she was sitting on the sofa. L.R. told appellant that she did not want to do this and unsuccessfully attempted to push appellant away. Appellant pulled down both of their pants and sexually penetrated L.R.
The final incident occurred in May or June 2002. L.R. and her younger sister were at appellant's home. While L.R.'s sister and appellant's children were napping, appellant asked L.R. to touch his genitalia, and she refused. Appellant then pulled down both of their pants and sexually penetrated L.R. While this was happening, L.R. noticed that her sister was in the hallway watching the sexual assault. When L.R.'s sister asked what they were doing, appellant picked up L.R. and acted like he was wrestling with her. Appellant offered L.R.'s sister money not to tell anyone what she had seen.
On May 26, 2004, appellant was charged with one count of criminal sexual conduct in the first degree in violation of Minn. Stat. ยง 609.342, subd. 1(e)(i) (2002). On August 4, 2004, appellant entered a guilty plea in exchange for an agreement from the state that it would not request an upward departure from the recommended guideline sentence of 144 months. A separate complaint charging appellant with criminal sexual conduc
Page 1 2 Minnesota Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|