Matakis v. State, Minn.Ct.App., 2/18/2014. “I’ll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today.” Mr. Matakis filed a post conviction petition claiming that his guilty plea had not been knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily made. Problem was, at least to the court of appeals, he didn’t really recite any “facts” to back that up. Here’s all that he said:
That the facts and grounds upon which this petition is based are as follows: Petitioner’s plea was not knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently made where there is reason to question the accuracy of the factual basis underlying the plea and the circumstances under which he pled guilty suggest that it was not voluntarily entered.
Mr. Matakis promised to supply “a later factual affidavit” but after apparently waiting in vain for almost a month for that affidavit the post conviction court tossed the petition. The court of appeals affirms, observing that “providing a short statement of alleged facts that could be tested at an evidentiary hearing would have sufficed.” Those alleged facts don’t even have to be credible: even “implausible factual allegations” would have kept him in court.
No comments:
Post a Comment