This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2004).
STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
Jose Luis Morales-Reyes, petitioner,
State of Minnesota,
Filed April 18, 2006
Hennepin County District Court
File No. 94064451
Robert Dildine, 2208 23rd Avenue South, Minneapolis, MN 55404 (for appellant)
Mike Hatch, Attorney General, 1800 Bremer Tower, 445 Minnesota Street, St. Paul, MN 55101-2134; and
Katrina E. Joseph, Russell J. Platzek, Martin J. Costello, Hughes & Costello, 1230 Landmark Towers, 345 St. Peter Street, St. Paul, MN 55102-1637 (for respondent)
Considered and decided by Willis, Presiding Judge; Kalitowski, Judge; and Stoneburner, Judge.
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
Appellant Jose Morales-Reyes challenges the order denying his postconviction petition, arguing that the postconviction court abused its discretion by denying his request to withdraw his guilty plea. We affirm.
D E C I S I O N
criminal defendant may seek postconviction relief in
decisions of a postconviction court will not be disturbed unless the court
abused its discretion.” Dukes v. State, 621 N.W.2d 246, 251 (
will reverse “the district court’s determination of whether to permit
withdrawal of a guilty plea only if the district court abused its
discretion.” Bolinger v. State, 647 N.W.2d 16, 20-21 (
In November of 1994 appellant pleaded guilty to misdemeanor giving false information to police in violation of Minn. Stat. § 609.506, subd. 1 (1992). Under that statute, an individual is guilty of a misdemeanor if he gives a false identification card to a peace officer with intent to obstruct justice when that officer makes inquiries incident to a lawful investigatory stop or lawful arrest. Minn. Stat. § 609.506, subd. 1.
now argues that his plea was not accurate, voluntary, and intelligent because
the facts do not establish that he intended to obstruct justice; therefore, he
pleaded guilty to a crime that did not occur.
But the evidence in support of appellant’s petition is limited here
because appellant filed his postconviction petition more than ten years after
he pleaded guilty. See James v. State, 699 N.W.2d 723, 728 (
Appellant further argues that his plea withdrawal is necessary to prevent manifest injustice because he now faces deportation. But Minnesota courts have held that because deportation is a collateral consequence of a guilty plea, due process does not require that the court or his counsel inform appellant about the possibility of deportation. Alanis, 583 N.W.2d at 578; Byron, 683 N.W.2d at 323.
Because appellant did not meet his burden of showing that the evidence was insufficient to support his guilty plea, we cannot say that the postconviction court abused its discretion in denying appellant’s petition to withdraw his plea.