With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". went through it together.” Liebsch, his attorney, the prosecutor, and the court all agreed that Liebsch was entering an Alford plea. 2 . State v. Goulette ‘‘emphasize[d]” that it is "absolutely crucial” that an Alford-type plea not be "cavalierly accepted,” and that "the factual basis requirement would appear to be essential.” -258 N.W.2d at 761. ■ 3 . Rule 410 also excludes evidence of pleas of nolo contendré. The reference is to nolo pleas from other jurisdictions, as Minnesota does not allow nolo pleas. See Minn. R.Crim. P. 1401; Minn, R. Evid. 410 comm. cmt.— 1977. Unlike a nolo plea, Alford pleas are accepted only after inquiry into actual guilt, so they should be accepted as standard guilty pleas for purposes of Rule 410. See Dixon v. State, 240 Ga.App. 644, 524 S.E.2d 734 (1999) (<HOLDING>); United States v. In, No. 2:09CR00070 DS, 2010

A: holding alford plea admissible in burglary prosecution
B: holding that iowa burglary is not categorical burglary as the elements of iowa burglary law are broader than those of generic burglary
C: holding alford plea admissible in prosecution for felon in possession of firearm
D: holding that possession of burglary tools is an offense separate from burglary
A.