under Blakely. And the district court’s reliance on the victim’s vulnerabilities was supported by reference to her “many disabilities,” which in turn referred to the victim-impact statement detailing the victim’s ADHD and her autism. That statement graphically detailed the psychological and emotional impact on the victim. Thus, there is no doubt in this case that the record amply supports the district court’s finding on the aggravating factors, and the adequacy of Hagen’s admissions, therefore, must be addressed. We note also that Hagen’s only personal admission was made at sentencing, whereas the defendant in Conger made his admissions at the guilty-plea hearing, at the same time he waived his jury-trial right. See generally State v. Lyle, 409 N.W.2d 549, 552-53 (Minn.App.1987) (<HOLDING>). Because Hagen’s sentence violated his right
holding that factual basis had to be established at time of guilty plea not later in presentence investigation holding that court may satisfy factual basis requirement by examining presentence report holding that although defendant is not entitled to appeal from his guilty plea as a matter of right his arguments challenging the factual basis for his guilty plea are reviewable pursuant to a petition for writ of certiorari holding that right to challenge factual basis is waived by guilty plea holding that based on the facts presented by the state and the defendants stipulation to the existence of a factual basis for his plea the court properly determined a factual basis for the plea existed