to a letter asking the postconviction court to reconsider its ruling. The post-conviction court considered Brown's request, but reaffirmed its previous ruling. 4 . Brown argues that he is bringing his claim under Minn. R.Crim. P. 15.05, rather than under Minn. Stat. ch. 590 (2014), and therefore the procedural requirements of Minn. Stat. § 590.01 should not apply. We have held that “[w]hen a criminal defendant seeks to withdraw a guilty plea under Rule 15.05, after the defendant has been sentenced, the motion to withdraw the plea must be raised in a petition for postconviction relief.” James v. State, 699 N.W.2d 723, 727 (Minn.2005). Therefore, Brown’s motion to withdraw his pleas must meet the requirements of Minn.Stat. ch. 590. See State v. Coles, 862 N.W.2d 477, 481-83 (Minn.2015) (<HOLDING>). 5 . Because we conclude that Brown’s petition
holding a petitioner accomplished a full and fair presentation of his claims because they were included in a copy of the amended petition for postconviction relief which was attached in the appendix of his petition for review to the arizona supreme court holding that circuit court should have treated the habeas petition as a motion for postconviction relief holding if the plea agreement was not conditioned on the sentencing guidelines an appellant is not entitled to relief because his sentence is not illegal holding that a petition to correct sentence was properly considered as a petition for postconviction relief pursuant to rule 371 because it challenged a judgment entered on a plea of guilty on grounds cognizable under the rule holding that because the defendants challenge to his sentence implicated his plea agreement the defendants request must be construed as a petition for postconviction relief