Opinion
A23-0914
06-18-2024
Tescil Romalis Mason-Kimmons v. State of Minnesota
ORDER ON PETITION FOR FURTHER REVIEW;
Issues Granted:
(1) Is there a reasonable probability that petitioner would not have pleaded guilty to second-degree intentional murder but for this deficient advice, where:
(1) the attorney's advice that his client should plead guilty because the attorney was unprepared for trial was inherently likely to influence his client's plea decision-making;
(2) no plea negotiations occurred until soon after the attorney told petitioner he was unprepared for trial and should plead guilty;
(3) petitioner made statements at the time of plea and sentencing indicating that he was pleading guilty because his attorney was unprepared for trial;
(4) the attorney and petitioner testified that the plea was motivated by the attorney's advice that petitioner should plead guilty because the attorney was unprepared for trial; and
(5) the perpetrator's physical description, according to State witnesses and surveillance videos, did not match petitioner's height, skin tone, age, or body-type, and the State had no direct evidence of the defendant's guilt?
(2) When a district court's order denying a post-conviction petition rests on clear factual errors, may the reviewing court affirm based on independent factual findings that do not appear in the district court order or anywhere else in the post-conviction record?
(3) Where an attorney instructs a defendant to plead guilty because the attorney is unprepared to represent the defendant at trial, is it a violation of the defendant's Sixth Amendment-secured autonomy that is structural error and not subject to harmless-error review?
Granted