State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Shawn Michael Gibbons, Appellant.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2008). STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A08-2034 State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Shawn Michael Gibbons, Appellant. Filed November 10, 2009 Affirmed Klaphake, Judge Carver County District Court File No. 10-CR-07-655 Lori Swanson, Attorney General, 1800 Bremer Tower, 445 Minnesota Street, St. Paul, MN 55101-2134; and Peter A.C. Ivy, Carver County Justice Center, 604 E. Fourth Street, Chaska, MN 55318 (for respondent) Marie L. Wolf, Interim Chief Appellate Public Defender, Richard A. Schmitz, Assistant Public Defender, 540 Fairview Avenue North, Suite 300, St. Paul, MN 55104 (for appellant) Considered and decided by Klaphake, Presiding Judge; Kalitowski, Judge; and Huspeni, Judge. Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, serving by appointment pursuant to Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10. UNPUBLISHED OPINION KLAPHAKE, Judge Appellant Shawn Michael Gibbons challenges the district court s denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea to gross-misdemeanor fifth-degree assault. Appellant argues that his plea was inaccurate because he did not admit that he intended to cause his live-in girlfriend, C.S., fear of bodily harm. Because the record contains a sufficient factual basis to support appellant s plea, we affirm. DECISION The decision to allow a defendant to withdraw his or her guilty plea is left to the discretion of the district court, and this court will reverse that decision only if the district court abused its discretion. State v. Farnsworth, 738 N.W.2d 364, 372 (Minn. 2007). The district court may permit a defendant to withdraw a guilty plea, either before or after sentencing, if withdrawal is necessary to correct a manifest injustice. Minn. R. Crim. P. 15.05, subd. 1. A manifest injustice exists if a guilty plea is not accurate, voluntary, and intelligent. Perkins v. State, 559 N.W.2d 678, 688 (Minn. 1997). Accuracy requires sufficient facts on the record to support a conclusion that defendant s conduct falls within the charge to which he desires to plead guilty. Munger v. State, 749 N.W.2d 335, 337-38 (Minn. 2008) (quotation omitted). A conviction of fifth-degree assault requires proof that the defendant either intended to cause fear in another of immediate bodily harm or intentionally inflicted or attempted to inflict bodily harm upon another. 2 Minn. Stat. § 609.224, subd. 1 (2006); see also Minn. Stat. § 609.02, subd. 7 (2006) (defining bodily harm as physical pain or injury, illness, or any impairment of physical condition ). Appellant seeks to challenge his guilty plea by asserting that he did not admit that he intended to cause C.S. fear of bodily harm. However, the record demonstrates that appellant intentionally struck and bruised C.S. Because intentional infliction of bodily harm upon another constitutes fifth-degree assault, there is an adequate factual basis for appellant s plea; intent to cause fear of bodily harm is merely an alternative basis for the offense. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant s request to withdraw his guilty plea. Affirmed. 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
