June 2026 | Legal Case Updates | Firearms, Guilty Pleas

FIREARMS: FELONY “CRIME OF VIOLENCE” CONVICTION RENDERS PERSON INELIGIBLE TO POSSESS A FIREARM, REGARDLESS OF SENTENCE IMPOSED

Respondent was convicted of threats of violence in 2018 and received a sentence of 365 days with 361 days stayed, a downward durational departure. In February 2025, he applied with the Dakota County Sheriff for a permit to carry a pistol. His application was denied. Upon Respondent’s petition, the district court issued a writ of mandamus directing the sheriff to provide Respondent with a carry permit, finding Respondent was not prohibited from possessing a firearm.

To receive a carry permit, an applicant must not be prohibited from possessing a firearm under Minn. Stat. § 624.713. Minn. Stat. § 624.714, subd. 2(b)(4)(b). Section 624.713, subd. 1(2), provides, in part, that persons convicted of a “crime of violence” are ineligible to possess a firearm. A “crime of violence” is a “felony conviction” of certain offenses, including threats of violence. A person convicted of threats of violence may be sentenced to imprisonment for no more than five years and/or to a fine up to $10,000. Id. at § 609.713, subd. 1.

Under section 609.13, subd. 1, a felony conviction is deemed a gross misdemeanor “if the sentence imposed is within the limits provided by law for a… gross misdemeanor.” A gross misdemeanor is any crime which is not a felony or misdemeanor and may not be punished by a fine over $3,000. Id. at § 609.02, subd. 4. A misdemeanor is a crime punishable by up to 90 days in jail and/or a fine of no more than $1,000. Id. at subd. 3. A felony is a crime punishable by more than one year of imprisonment. Id. at subd. 2.

Respondent pleaded guilty to threats of violence, which by statute is a felony-level crime of violence. Thus, he stood convicted of a “crime of violence” when the district court accepted his guilty plea before sentence was imposed. The Court of Appeals emphasizes that the definitions of the offenses listed as “crimes of violence” relate to the elements of the offense for which the defendant was originally convicted rather than the disposition subsequently imposed by the court. Here, the district court’s writ of mandamus was issued in error and is reversed. Hippe v. Leko, A25-1652, 2026 WL 1521329 (Minn. Ct. App. June 1, 2026).

GUILTY PLEAS: NORGAARD PLEA MUST INCLUDE A STRONG FACTUAL BASISTHAT, AT A MINIMUM, INCLUDES A DESCRIPTION OF THE STATE’S EVIDENCE

Respondent entered a Norgaard plea to one count of fifth-degree criminal sexual conduct, but his conviction was reversed by the Court of Appeals.

A guilty plea must be accurate, voluntary, and intelligent. To be accurate, a plea must be supported by a proper factual basis. A Norgaard plea, however, allows for a guilty plea without a defendant admitting the facts or circumstances constituting a crime by claiming an inability to remember the circumstances due to intoxication, amnesia, or other reason. The Supreme Court holds that, like an Alford plea that allows a defendant to plead guilty while maintaining innocence, a Norgaard plea requires a heightened factual basis to be constitutionally valid. The risk of a defendant pleading guilty to a crime more serious than that of which they could have been convicted at trial is the same for both Alford and Norgaard pleas, so the court concludes the accuracy requirement should be the same for each. For both Alford and Norgaard pleas, the court holds that, in addition to a defendant’s agreement that the evidence is sufficient to support conviction, each type of plea “must be supported by a strong factual basis” to “allow a district court to reach a conclusion—independent of the defendant’s own assessment of the strength of the case against them—as to whether there is a strong probability the defendant would be found guilty at trial.” To establish this strong factual basis, the court further holds that the State must, at a minimum, describe the type of evidence it would present at trial.

At Respondent’s plea hearing, the State provided a brief summary description of the incident underlying the charge, without any description of the type of evidence it would offer to prove the charge at trial. This factual basis was insufficient and, therefore, Respondent’s Norgaard plea waw invalid. State v. Steichen, A24-0097, 2026 WL 1741014 (Minn. June 17, 2026).