## Facts

- Russell Barnes was tried to a jury on charges of first-degree burglary, aggravated robbery, and four counts of second-degree assault.
- During deliberations, a juror became ill. The court offered a mistrial, but Barnes agreed to continue deliberations with an 11-person jury.
- On the third day of deliberations, the jury sent notes indicating it was deadlocked, including two reported deadlocks.
- The trial court indicated it would likely declare a mistrial if the jury did not reach a verdict by 10:00 p.m. that evening.
- Plea negotiations continued while the jury remained out. The State offered to dismiss the other charges if Barnes pleaded guilty to aggravated robbery, later adding a 64-month sentencing cap.
- Around 9:30 p.m., Barnes rejected the State’s plea offer.
- Defense counsel then learned that the jury had reached a verdict and that the State’s plea offer was still available, but neither Barnes nor counsel was told what the verdict was.
- Barnes then agreed to plead guilty to aggravated robbery. During the plea colloquy, he stated he was present during the incident but denied committing the charged conduct.
- After the court accepted the plea, Barnes learned the jury’s verdicts would have acquitted him on all charges.
- Barnes moved to vacate the guilty plea and sought judgment of acquittal; the district court denied both motions and imposed sentence on the aggravated robbery conviction.
- Barnes later filed a postconviction petition to withdraw his guilty plea; the postconviction court denied relief, and Barnes appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the postconviction court abused its discretion by denying Barnes’s request to withdraw his guilty plea, when the plea was negotiated and entered after the jury had already reached verdicts of acquittal unknown to Barnes and his counsel.
2. Whether a “post-verdict” guilty plea entered under these circumstances could be considered voluntary, knowing, and intelligent, such that denial of plea withdrawal resulted in manifest injustice.

## Decision

- The Minnesota Court of Appeals reversed the order denying postconviction relief and remanded.
- The court held that Barnes was entitled to withdraw his guilty plea.
- The court reasoned that public policy does not support negotiating a guilty plea after a jury has reached a verdict when the usual reasons for plea bargaining are no longer present and the plea may not be voluntary.
- Given that the jury had already acquitted Barnes—and that this was not disclosed before the plea—the plea could not be treated as voluntary, and allowing it to stand would result in manifest injustice.

## Legal Principles

- A valid guilty plea must be voluntary, knowing, and intelligent.
- After sentencing, a guilty plea may be withdrawn to correct a manifest injustice under Minnesota Rule of Criminal Procedure 15.05, subdivision 1.
- Appellate review of a postconviction court’s denial of plea withdrawal is for abuse of discretion.
- Plea bargaining is justified by pre-verdict objectives such as conserving trial resources and providing certainty; once a jury has reached a verdict, those objectives are not served in the same way.
- Although a defendant’s fear that a jury might convict does not, by itself, make a guilty plea involuntary, a plea entered without knowledge that the jury has already acquitted the defendant is not a reliable voluntary choice because it rests on a materially false view of the defendant’s actual risk.
- Public policy disfavors acceptance of a negotiated guilty plea after a jury has reached a verdict—especially where the verdict is favorable to the defendant and undisclosed at the time of the plea—because it risks undermining confidence in jury verdicts and the fairness of the plea process.

## Conclusion

The court reversed and remanded because Barnes pleaded guilty after the jury had already reached acquittal verdicts that were not disclosed before the plea, a situation the court concluded is inconsistent with the policy reasons for plea bargaining and prevents the plea from being treated as voluntary, knowing, and intelligent; withdrawal was required to correct manifest injustice.


Barnes v. State, 489 N.W.2d 273 (1992)