Thomas Daniel Rhodes v. State of Minnesota, A13-560

I join in Part III of the court’s opinion, which affirms the postconviction court’s summary denial of Rhodes’s third petition for postconviction relief. But I disagree with the court’s decision in Part TV, which affirms the summary denial of Rhodes’s fourth petition. The postconviction court abused its discretion by summarily denying the fourth petition because this petition raises rriaterial fact questions, in an entirely circumstantial case, that must be resolved at an evidentiary • hearing. Contrary to the court’s conclusion, Rhodes’s fourth petition is legally sufficient to establish the…