Opinion
A21-1226
04-20-2022
Adam Peter Flores, petitioner, Appellant, v. State of Minnesota, Respondent
Ramsey County District Court File Nos. 62-K0-01-000302, 62-K2-01-000088
Considered and decided by Bjorkman, Presiding Judge; Segal, Chief Judge; and Bratvold, Judge.
ORDER OPINION
Louise Dovre Bjorkman, Judge
BASED ON THE FILE, RECORD, AND PROCEEDINGS, AND BECAUSE:
1. Appellant Adam Peter Flores challenges the denial of his fourteenth and fifteenth petitions for postconviction relief. He argues that his 2001 convictions for four counts of criminal sexual conduct must be reversed because the courts lack jurisdiction over him. We review the denial of a postconviction petition for abuse of discretion. Pearson v. State, 891 N.W.2d 590, 596 (Minn. 2017). A district court abuses its discretion when it makes clearly erroneous factual determinations or misapplies the law. Id.
2. "[A] postconviction court will generally not consider claims that were raised or were known and could have been raised in an earlier petition for postconviction relief." Spears v. State, 725 N.W.2d 696, 700 (Minn. 2006). But exceptions to this general rule are made if: (1) a novel legal issue is presented, or (2) the interests of justice require review. Id. Flores does not invoke either exception.
3. The district court found that Flores's petitions presented no new arguments and that the district court has "previously ruled on all of the issues [Flores] raised." Flores does not dispute these findings and the record supports them. In 2006, Flores appealed the district court's denial of a postconviction petition premised on jurisdictional challenges that appear identical to those he asserts here. Flores v. State, No. A06-1797, 2007 WL 2302694 (Minn.App. Aug. 14, 2007), rev. denied (Minn. Oct. 24, 2007). This court rejected Flores's argument, concluding that the district court had subject-matter and personal jurisdiction over Flores. Id. at * 1-2. Because Flores's arguments were known to him, and were raised and rejected in numerous prior petitions for postconviction relief, we discern no abuse of discretion by the district court in denying his current petitions.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. The district court's order is affirmed.
2. Pursuant to Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c), this order opinion is nonprecedential, except as law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.