Opinion
No. A06-1797.
Filed August 14, 2007.
Appeal from the Ramsey County District Court, File No. K0-01-302, K2-01-88.
Adam Flores, Bayport, MN, (pro se appellant).
Lori Swanson, Attorney General, St. Paul, MN; and Susan Gaertner, Ramsey County Attorney, Mark Nathan Lystig, Assistant County Attorney, St. Paul, MN, (for respondent).
Considered and decided by Halbrooks, Presiding Judge; Toussaint, Chief Judge; and Lansing, Judge.
This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2006).
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
In this appeal from the denial of his postconviction petition, Adam Flores renews his challenges to the district court's jurisdiction and seeks to withdraw his guilty pleas. Because the district court had personal jurisdiction over Flores and subject-matter jurisdiction over the offenses Flores committed within Minnesota, Flores has provided no basis for plea withdrawal, and we affirm.
FACTS
In March 2001 Adam Flores pleaded guilty to four counts of criminal sexual conduct. The district court in Ramsey County sentenced Flores in June 2001. In 2003 and 2004, Flores filed a series of pro se motions and petitions, which were summarily dismissed for failure to provide a factual or legal basis that would warrant relief. Flores appealed some of the dismissals but subsequently withdrew his appeals.
In May 2006 Flores again petitioned for postconviction relief, arguing that he should be allowed to withdraw his guilty plea because the district court lacked jurisdiction over his convictions. In its September 15, 2006 order, the district court denied the petition without a hearing, concluding that it lacked merit because Flores had entered guilty pleas to violations of Minnesota's criminal statutes, which constituted crimes he committed in Ramsey County. Flores now appeals the district court's decision.
DECISION
We review a district court's summary denial of a postconviction petition for abuse of discretion. Lee v. State, 717 N.W.2d 896, 897 (Minn. 2006). If the petition, files, and records conclusively show that the petitioner is entitled to no relief, a postconviction court may dismiss the petition without an evidentiary hearing. Minn. Stat. § 590.04, subd. 1 (2000); Scales v. State, 620 N.W.2d 706, 707-08 (Minn. 2001).
Flores has failed to show that the district court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. Flores was charged with and pleaded guilty to committing criminal sexual conduct in Ramsey County. A district court has subject-matter jurisdiction over crimes committed in the state. State v. Smith, 421 N.W.2d 315, 319 (Minn. 1988); see also Minn. Stat. § 609.025 (2000) (setting criminal jurisdiction of state). Flores, however, argues that the U.S. Supreme Court has exclusive, original jurisdiction under Article III, section 2, of the federal constitution because the state is a party. But the original jurisdiction in state-as-party cases "is limited to controversies of a civil nature." Wisconsin v. Pelican Ins. Co. of New Orleans, 127 U.S. 265, 297, 8 S. Ct. 1370, 1378 (1888). In addition, even if the U.S. Supreme Court had original jurisdiction, it would not be exclusive. Ohio v. Wyandotte Chems. Corp., 401 U.S. 493, 495-99, 91 S. Ct. 1005, 1008-10 (1971) (discussing exclusivity of original jurisdiction).
Flores also contends that the district court lacked personal jurisdiction over him. The district court has personal jurisdiction over a person charged with committing a crime in Minnesota. See Minn. Stat. § 609.025(1) (stating that person may be convicted and sentenced under Minnesota law for committing offense within state). The rules of criminal procedure provide that a defendant's trial takes place in the county where the offense was committed. Minn. R. Crim. P. 24.01. Flores was properly convicted and sentenced in Ramsey County District Court, the county where the charged crimes were committed. Furthermore, Flores waived any personal-jurisdiction argument by appearing in district court in 2001, pleading guilty, and not raising any challenge until 2006. See State v. Scanlon, 268 N.W.2d 63, 64 (Minn. 1978) (stating that defendant waives challenge to district court's personal jurisdiction over him by not filing timely motion).
Because the district court had both personal and subject-matter jurisdiction, Flores has provided no basis for permitting a plea withdrawal. Therefore, the district court correctly denied the petition for postconviction relief.