Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Maya v. State

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

July 15, 2013

Ramiro Dejesus Maya, petitioner, Appellant,
v.
State of Minnesota, Respondent.

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

Ramsey County District Court File Nos. 62-K0-05-001121, 62-T0-05-012233

Barry A. Cattadoris, Cundy & Martin, L.L.C., Bloomington, Minnesota (for appellant)

Lori Swanson, Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota; and John Choi, Ramsey County Attorney, Thomas R. Ragatz, Peter R. Marker, Assistant County Attorneys, St. Paul, Minnesota (for respondent)

Considered and decided by Stauber, Presiding Judge; Hooten, Judge; and Willis, Judge.

WILLIS, Judge [*]

In these consolidated postconviction appeals, appellant challenges the postconviction court's order summarily denying postconviction relief, arguing that the court erred by concluding that his petitions were untimely. We affirm.

FACTS

In April 2002, appellant Ramiro Maya became a lawful permanent resident of the United States. In May 2005, Maya pleaded guilty to domestic assault and violation of a domestic-abuse no-contact order. Maya signed a plea petition stating: "I understand that if I am not a citizen of the United States, my plea of guilty to this crime may result in deportation, exclusion from admission to the United States or denial of naturalization as a United States citizen." In June 2005, the district court sentenced Maya on both convictions. Maya did not appeal his convictions.

In July 2012, Maya's permanent-resident card expired, and he filed petitions for postconviction relief on both convictions, seeking to withdraw his guilty pleas. Maya alleged that he was not advised of the immigration consequences of his plea, as required by Minn. R. Crim. P. 15.02. Maya requested an evidentiary hearing but did not provide the postconviction court with a transcript of his plea hearing. Without holding a hearing, the postconviction court concluded that Maya's petitions were untimely. This appeal follows.

DECISION

Maya argues that the postconviction court abused its discretion by summarily denying his petitions. "When reviewing a postconviction court's decision, we examine only whether the postconviction court's findings are supported by sufficient evidence." Lussier v. State, 821 N.W.2d 581, 588 (Minn. 2012) (quotation omitted). We "will reverse a decision of a postconviction court only if that court abused its discretion." Leake v. State, 737 N.W.2d 531, 535 (Minn. 2007). But we review issues of law de novo. Id.

A person convicted of a crime may file a petition for postconviction relief. Minn. Stat. § 590.01, subd. 1 (2010). But when no direct appeal is filed, as here, a petition for postconviction relief may not be filed more than two years after the later of the entry of judgment of conviction or the sentence, unless an exception applies. Minn. Stat. § 590.01, subd. 4(a)-(b) (2010). It is undisputed that to be timely, Maya's petitions must satisfy an exception to the two-year time bar in section 590.01, subdivision 4(a).

First, Maya argues that his petitions fall within the new-interpretation-of-law exception to the two-year time bar. This exception applies when a "petitioner asserts a new interpretation of federal or state constitutional or statutory law by either the United States Supreme Court or a Minnesota appellate court" that the petitioner ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.