Here's the money graf of the two-page document:
The issues to be raised include: whether the trial erred in not allowing the Petitioner-Appellant to withdraw his motion to plead guilty. It is the Petitioner-Appellant's position that the plea was not supported by the evidence. Additionally, Petitioner-Appellant will argue that the plea was defective because it was not accepted by the sentencing judge. Finally, as applied to the facts of this case, the disorderly conduct statute becomes unconstitutional. Accordingly, it is manifest injustice not to allow the plea to be withdrawn.
In English, according to the AP, Craig is arguing that the judge erred by not allowing Craig to withdraw his plea, that the judge who sentenced Craig to a fine and probation never signed anything saying he accepted the guilty plea, and that Minnesota's disorderly conduct law is unconstitutional as it applies to his conviction in a men's restroom sex sting.