Minnesota Law Review

Note, The Need for Review: Allowing Defendants to Appeal the Factual Basis of a Conviction After Pleading Guilty

An essential element of any guilty plea is the factual basis requirement. This requirement states that a court may only accept a guilty plea if an underlying set of facts exists that supports the plea. In many circumstances, federal criminal defendants have challenged their guilty pleas in the courts of appeals, arguing that their conviction lacks adequate factual basis. The Note explores the complex circuit split over whether federal criminal defendants have the right to launch this type of appeal.

After summarizing the historical progression of the factual basis requirement, the Note examines the variety of legal arguments put forth by courts that have both permitted and denied appeals pursued on an inadequate factual basis theory. The Note then puts forth various legal and policy arguments regarding why defendants should retain the right to appeal their convictions based on an inadequate factual basis. The Note concludes by arguing that the Supreme Court should propose an amendment to the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure that specifically states that defendants may challenge the adequacy of the factual basis of their guilty pleas on appeal.

:: View PDF

De Novo

  • Case Comment: Bhogaita v. Altamonte

    EVERY DOG CAN HAVE HIS DAY IN COURT: THE USE OF ANIMALS AS DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBITS Kyle R. Kroll, Volume 100, Online Managing Editor In Bhogaita v. Altamonte, the Eleventh Circuit recently decided whether to allow a dog in the courtroom as a demonstrative exhibit.[1] Although the case presented many serious [...]

  • Revisiting Water Bankruptcy

    REVISITING WATER BANKRUPTCY IN CALIFORNIA’S FOURTH YEAR OF DROUGHT Olivia Moe, Volume 100, Managing Editor This spring, as “extreme” to “exceptional” drought stretched across most of California—indicating that a four-year streak of drought was not about to resolve itself[1]—Governor Jerry Brown issued an unprecedented order to reduce potable urban water [...]

  • Defying Auer Deference

    DEFYING AUER DEFERENCE: SKIDMORE AS A SOLUTION TO CONSERVATIVE CONCERNS IN PEREZ v. MORTGAGE BANKERS ASSOCIATION Nicholas R. Bednar, Volume 100, Lead Articles Editor* On March 9, 2015, the Supreme Court of the United States handed down its decision in Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Association.[1] The Court overturned the D.C. [...]