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.

Patel v. State

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

August 5, 2013

Manan Chimanbhai Patel, petitioner, Appellant,
v.
State of Minnesota, Respondent.

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

Olmsted County District Court File No. 55-K6-02-000583.

Kara M. Lynum, Lynum Law Office, PLLC, St. Paul, Minnesota (for appellant).

Lori Swanson, Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota; and Mark A. Ostrem, Olmsted County Attorney, James P. Spencer, Assistant County Attorney, Rochester, Minnesota (for respondent).

Considered and decided by Hudson, Presiding Judge; Schellhas, Judge; and Bjorkman, Judge.

HUDSON, Judge.

Petitioner challenges the district court's summary denial of his petition for postconviction relief, arguing that the two-year limitation for seeking postconviction relief does not apply because the United States Supreme Court established a new interpretation of constitutional law that is retroactively applicable to his case in Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356, 130 S.Ct. 1473 (2010), and the interests of justice require review of his claim. Because petitioner has failed to establish that any exception to the time limitation on seeking postconviction review applies, we affirm.

FACTS

In 2003, petitioner Manan Patel entered an Alford plea to charges of second-degree burglary based on allegations that he entered a woman's Rochester hotel room with a master key, walked up to the edge of her bed despite being told he did not have permission to enter, and asked her if she wanted to have sex with him. At his plea hearing, Patel confirmed on the record that he had received some advice about the likely consequences of his plea; that he understood that nobody was making promises with regard to his immigration status; and that the prosecutor, the judge, and his attorney had no control over those consequences. He did not state directly that his attorney had informed him about the immigration consequences of his plea.[1]

Considering Patel's sentencing request based on his status as an electrical engineering student at the University of Minnesota, the district court sentenced him to 18 months, staying imposition of sentence for up to ten years, placing him on probation, and ordering him to serve weekend jail time. In 2011, the district court discharged Patel early from probation, ordered his conviction deemed a misdemeanor, and ordered restoration of his civil rights.

In June 2012, Patel filed a petition for postconviction relief, alleging that he was entitled to relief based on the application of Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356, 130 S.Ct. 1473, which established that the Sixth Amendment right to counsel includes the right to be informed about the deportation consequences of a guilty plea. He asserted that his plea was not intelligently made because his attorney had not furnished him specific advice about the immigration consequences of his plea, and he did not learn of those consequences until 2011, when a different attorney informed him that attempting to renew his expiring legal-permanent-resident card would result in removal proceedings. The district court summarily denied his petition, finding that the petition, files, and records conclusively showed that he had failed to state any grounds on which relief may be granted. See Minn. Stat. § 590.01, subd. 1 (2012). This appeal follows.

DECISION

A person who is convicted of a crime and who claims that the conviction violated his or her rights may file a petition for postconviction relief with the district court. Minn. Stat. § 590.01, subd. 1(1). Denial of a petition without a hearing is appropriate if "the petition and the files and records of the proceeding conclusively show that the petitioner is entitled to no relief." Minn. Stat. § 590.04, subd. 1 (2012). This court reviews the district court's summary denial of a postconviction petition for an abuse of discretion and determines whether sufficient evidence supports the district court's findings. Powers v. State, 695 N.W.2d 371, 374 (Minn. 2005). But we review de novo a postconviction court's legal determinations. Schneider v. State, 725 N.W.2d 516, 520 (Minn. 2007).

Minnesota law provides that, absent listed exceptions, a postconviction petition may not be "filed more than two years after the later of . . . the entry of judgment of conviction or sentence." Minn. Stat. ยง 590.01, subd. 4(a)(1) (2012). Patel pleaded guilty to second-degree burglary and was convicted in 2002. Therefore, unless he is able to show that an exception to ...


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.