Samuel Morton Post, III, petitioner, Appellant,

This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by
Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c).

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A20-0998

Samuel Morton Post, III, petitioner,
Appellant,

vs.

State of Minnesota,
Respondent.

Filed April 26, 2021
Affirmed
Slieter, Judge

Hubbard County District Court
File No. 29-CR-17-1192

Cathryn Middlebrook, Chief Appellate Public Defender, Chelsie M. Willett, Assistant
Public Defender, St. Paul, Minnesota (for appellant)

Keith Ellison, Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota; and

Jonathan D. Frieden, Hubbard County Attorney, Park Rapids, Minnesota (for respondent)

Considered and decided by Hooten, Pres iding Judge; Johnson, Judge; and Slieter,
Judge.
NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION
SLIETER, Judge
Appellant challenges the district court’ s denial of his postconviction petition
seeking to withdraw his guilty plea to viol ation of an order for protection (OFP) as
inaccurate. Because appellant admitted that he told his children to wish their mother, the

2
OFP petitioner, happy Mother’s Day and such third-party contact is a violation of the OFP,
the guilty plea was accurate and we affirm.
FACTS
In 2016, appellant Samuel Morton Post’s wife obtained an OFP prohibiting Post
from contacting her either directly or through a third party. In 2018, the state charged Post
with a gross misdemeanor violation of an OF P, in violation of Minn. Stat. § 518B.01,
subd. 14(c) (2016). Post pleaded guilty to an amended coun t of a misdemeanor violation
of an OFP, in violation of Minn. Stat. § 518B.01, subd. 14(b) (2016).
During the plea hearing, Post admitted that he violated the OFP by “[telling his]
children to tell their mother happy Mother’s Day.” He acknowledged that he was aware of
the OFP at the time of his conduct, that he had been served with the OFP, and that the OFP
prohibited him from having “[a]ny form of cont act including third party” with his wife.
The district court accepted Post’s guilty pl ea, entered judgment of conviction, and
sentenced him.
In 2020, Post filed a petition for postconvic tion relief, seeking to withdraw his guilty
plea on the ground that there was not an adequate factual basis for his guilt. He argued that
the facts he admitted during the plea hearing es tablished only that he “remind[ed]” his
children to wish their mother a happy Mother’s Day, and th erefore he did not admit to
violating the OFP. The district court denied Post’s petition. Post appeals.
DECISION
A defendant does not have an absolu te right to withdr aw a guilty plea. State v.
Raleigh, 778 N.W.2d 90, 93 (Minn. 2010). However, a defendant is allowed to withdraw

3
a guilty plea if the plea is invalid. Id. at 94. To be constitutionally valid, a guilty plea must
be accurate. Id. Whether a defendant’s plea is accu rate is a question appellate courts
review de novo. Id. “To be accurate, a plea must be established on a proper factual basis.”
Id. A defendant is entitled to withdraw an in accurate guilty plea on the ground that an
inaccurate plea is a “manifest injustice.” Id. at 93 (quotation omitted).
To be guilty of a misdemea nor OFP violation, a defendant must have (1) known of
the existence of the OFP, and (2) violated a condition of that OFP. Minn. Stat. § 518B.01,
subd. 14(b). Post’s guilty plea colloquy established each of these elements.
Post argues his plea colloquy did not establish that he violated the OFP but, instead,
established that he was “being a good father and reminding his children about how to honor
their mother on her special day.” The record does not support Post’s claim. Post
acknowledged during the plea hearing that the OFP prohibited “any form of contact”
between him and the protected person, includin g third-party contact. When asked by his
attorney to describe the conduc t that lead to the OFP violatio n, Post replied “I told my
children to tell their mother happy Mother’s Day.”
The OFP prohibited Post from contacting th e petitioner via third parties and Post
admitted directing his children to contact his wife, who is the mother of the children and
the OFP petitioner. This provides a factual basis that Post violated the OFP and establishes
that Post acted in violation of the OFP statute. Because a fa ctual basis exists to establish
Post’s guilt of each element of th e charged offense, the plea is accurate. This satisfies the
concern that a defendant not plead guilty to a more serious offense than they would be

4
convicted for if they went to trial. See State v. Trott, 338 N.W.2d 248, 251 (Minn. 1983).
Therefore, the district court properly denied Post’s petition.
Affirmed.