Arthur Rafie Mullins v. State of Minnesota

Syllabus

Appellant challenges the district court's denial of his postconviction motion to withdraw his guilty plea. Appellant argues that the district court erred by determining his claims were procedurally barred and failing to grant an evidentiary hearing. We conclude that the district court abused its discretion by determining that appellant's claims were procedurally barred. But we also conclude that appellant failed to allege facts that, if true, would entitle him to withdraw his guilty plea. Thus, the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying appellant's postconviction motion to withdraw his guilty plea without an evidentiary hearing. We affirm.