Cited by

D E C I S I O N We “review the denial of a petition for postconviction relief for an abuse of discretion.” Matakis v. State

Matakis v. State , , 36 (Minn. 2015) (quoting Vance v. State , , 512 (Minn. 2008) ).

“The accuracy requirement exists to protect a defendant from pleading 3 guilty to a more serious offense than he could be convicted of if he were to go to trial.” (quotation omitted).

“The accuracy requirement exists to prot ect a defendant from pleading guilty to a more serious offense than he could be convicted of if he were to go to trial.” (quotation omitted).

(a defendant’s acknowledgement that he “could” be found guilty of an offe nse was sufficient for an Alford plea when a reading of the transcript indicated he had “also” agreed that a jury “would” have sufficient evidence to find him guilty).

D E C I S I O N “We review the denial of a petition for postconviction relief for an abuse of discretion.” Matakis v. State

“We review the denial of a petition for postconviction relief for an abuse of discretion.” Matakis v. State

We “will not reverse an order unless the postconviction court exercised its discretion in an arbitrary or capricious manner, based its ruling on an erroneous view of the law, or made clearly erroneous factual findings.” (quotation omitted).

Appellate courts “review the denial of a petition for postconviction relief for an abuse of discretion.”

“We will not reverse an order unless the postconviction court exercised its discretion in an arbitrary or capricious manner, based its ruling on an erroneous view of the law, or made clearly erroneous factual findings.” (quotation omitted).

The supreme court has “held that there are three prerequisites to a valid guilty plea: it must be accurate, voluntary, and intelligent (i.e. knowingly and understandingly made).” (quotation omitted).

Matakis v. State , (citations and quotations omitted).

“[This court] will not reverse an order unless the pos tconviction court exercised its discretion in an arbitrary or capricious manner, based its ruling on an erroneous view of the law, or made clearly erroneous factual findings.” Matakis v. State , (quotation omitted).

We will not reverse an order unless the postconviction court exercised its discretion in an arbitrary or capricious manner, based its ruling on an erroneous vi ew of the law, or made clearly erroneous factual findings.” (citations and quotations omitted).

A postconviction court abuses its discretion if it bases “its ruling on an erroneous view of the law, or made clearly erroneous factual findings.” (quotation omitted).

“We review the denial of a petition for postconviction relief for an abuse of discretion.”

“We review legal issues de novo, but on factual issues our review is limited to whether there is sufficient evidence in the record to sustain the postconviction court’s findings.” (citations omitted).

Legal issues are reviewed de novo, but our review of factual issues “is limited to whether there is sufficient evidence in the record to sustain the postconviction court’s findings.” ().

A postconviction court abuses its 6 discretion if it bases “its ruling on an erroneous view of the law, or made clearly erroneous factual findings.” (quotation omitted).

Reversal is required only where “the postconviction court exercised its discretion in an arbitrary or capricious manner, based its ruling on an erroneous view of the law, or made clearly erroneous factual findings.” (quotation omitted).

A decision will not be reversed “unless the postconviction court exercised its discretion in an arbitrary or 4 capricious manner, based its ruling on an erroneous view of the law, or made clearly erroneous factual findings.” (quotation omitted).

We affirmed, concluding that Matakis’s “petition does not allege any facts necessary to justify the relief he seeks and its promise of a later pleading is insufficient.” d 689, 693 (Minn. App. 2014), aff’d

“[A]n evidentiary hearing is not required unless facts are alleged which, if proved, would entitle a petitioner to the requested relief.” (quotation omitted).

“We review legal issues de novo, but on factual issues our review is limited to whether there is sufficient evidence in the record to sustain the postconviction court’s findings.” (citation and quotation 5 omitted).