This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2006).
STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
Adam Peter Flores, Jr., petitioner,
State of Minnesota,
Filed August 14, 2007
Ramsey County District Court
File No. K0-01-302, K2-01-88
Adam Flores, C/O 970 Pickett Street North, Bayport,
(pro se appellant)
Lori Swanson, Attorney General, 1800 Bremer Tower,
445 Minnesota Street,
St. Paul, MN 55101; and
Susan Gaertner, Ramsey County Attorney, Mark Nathan
Lystig, Assistant County Attorney, 50 West Kellogg Boulevard, Suite 315, St.
Paul, MN 55102 (for respondent)
and decided by Halbrooks, Presiding Judge; Toussaint, Chief Judge; and Lansing,
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
this appeal from the denial of his postconviction petition, Adam Flores renews
his challenges to the district court’s jurisdiction and seeks to withdraw his
guilty pleas. Because the district court
had personal jurisdiction over Flores and subject-matter jurisdiction over the
offenses Flores committed within Minnesota, Flores has provided no basis for plea withdrawal, and we affirm.
F A C T S
March 2001 Adam Flores pleaded guilty to four counts of criminal sexual conduct. The district court in Ramsey
County sentenced Flores
in June 2001. In 2003 and 2004, Flores filed a series of pro se motions and petitions,
which were summarily dismissed for failure to provide a factual or legal basis
that would warrant relief. Flores appealed some of the dismissals but subsequently
withdrew his appeals.
May 2006 Flores again petitioned for postconviction
relief, arguing that he should be allowed to withdraw his guilty plea because
the district court lacked jurisdiction over his convictions. In its September 15, 2006 order, the district
court denied the petition without a hearing, concluding that it lacked merit
because Flores had entered guilty pleas to violations of Minnesota’s
criminal statutes, which constituted crimes he committed in Ramsey County. Flores now
appeals the district court’s decision.
D E C I S I O N
We review a
district court’s summary denial of a postconviction petition for abuse of
discretion. Lee v. State, 717 N.W.2d 896, 897 (Minn.
2006). If the petition, files, and records
conclusively show that the petitioner is entitled to no relief, a
postconviction court may dismiss the petition without an evidentiary
hearing. Minn. Stat. § 590.04, subd. 1 (2000);
Scales v. State, 620 N.W.2d 706, 707-08 (Minn.
Flores has failed to show that the district
court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction.
Flores was charged with and pleaded
guilty to committing criminal sexual conduct in Ramsey County. A district court has subject-matter
jurisdiction over crimes committed in the state. State
v. Smith, 421 N.W.2d 315, 319 (Minn. 1988);
see also Minn. Stat. § 609.025
(2000) (setting criminal jurisdiction of state). Flores,
however, argues that the U.S. Supreme Court has exclusive, original
jurisdiction under Article III, section 2, of the federal constitution because
the state is a party. But the original
jurisdiction in state-as-party cases “is limited to controversies of a civil
nature.” Wisconsin v. Pelican Ins. Co. of New
Orleans, 127 U.S.
265, 297, 8 S. Ct. 1370, 1378 (1888). In addition, even if the U.S. Supreme Court
had original jurisdiction, it would not be exclusive. Ohio v. Wyandotte Chems. Corp.,
401 U.S. 493, 495-99, 91 S. Ct. 1005, 1008-10 (1971) (discussing exclusivity of
Flores also contends
that the district court lacked personal jurisdiction over him. The district court has personal jurisdiction
over a person charged with committing a crime in Minnesota.
Stat. § 609.025(1) (stating that person may be convicted and sentenced
law for committing offense within state).
The rules of criminal procedure provide that a defendant’s trial takes
place in the county where the offense was committed. Minn. R.
Crim. P. 24.01. Flores
was properly convicted and sentenced in Ramsey County District Court, the
county where the charged crimes were committed.
Furthermore, Flores waived any
personal-jurisdiction argument by appearing in district court in 2001, pleading
guilty, and not raising any challenge until 2006. See State v. Scanlon, 268 N.W.2d 63, 64 (Minn. 1978) (stating that defendant waives challenge to
district court’s personal jurisdiction over him by not filing timely motion).
district court had both personal and subject-matter jurisdiction, Flores has provided no basis for permitting a plea
withdrawal. Therefore, the district
court correctly denied the petition for postconviction relief.