This opinion will be unpublished and

may not be cited except as provided by

Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2004).






State of Minnesota,





Meng Yang,



Filed February 7, 2006

Klaphake, Judge


Ramsey County District Court

File No. K7-04-2160


Mike Hatch, Attorney General, 1800 Bremer Tower, 445 Minnesota Street, St. Paul, MN  55101-2134; and


Susan Gaertner, Ramsey County Attorney, Mark N. Lystig, Assistant County Attorney, 50 West Kellogg Blvd., Suite 315, St. Paul, MN 55102 (for respondent)


John M. Stuart, State Public Defender, Susan Andrews, Assistant State Public Defender, 2221 University Avenue Southeast, Suite 425, Minneapolis, MN  55414 (for appellant)


            Considered and decided by Klaphake, Presiding Judge, Peterson, Judge, and Hudson, Judge.

U N P U B L I S H E D   O P I N I O N


            Appellant Meng Yang, who pleaded guilty to first-degree controlled substance crime, Minn. Stat. § 152,021, subd. 1(1) (2004), challenges the district court’s denial of his presentence motion to withdraw his guilty plea.  Because appellant has not shown that withdrawal of his plea is in the interests of fairness and justice, and that the state would not be prejudiced, we affirm.


            A defendant does not have an absolute right to withdraw a plea.  State v. Abdisalan, 661 N.W.2d 691, 693 (Minn. App. 2003), review denied (Minn. Aug. 19, 2003).  We review the district court’s order denying withdrawal of a plea for an abuse of discretion.  Id.  The defendant has the burden of establishing a basis for withdrawal of the plea.  Kim v. State, 434 N.W.2d 263, 266 (Minn. 1989).

            A defendant may withdraw a plea at any time if, after a timely motion, he or she can prove that withdrawal is necessary to correct a manifest injustice.  Minn. R. Crim. P. 15.05, subd. 1.

In its discretion the court may also allow the defendant to withdraw a plea at any time before sentence if it is fair and just to do so, giving due consideration to the reasons advanced by the defendant in support of the motion and any prejudice the granting of the motion would cause the prosecution by reason of actions taken in reliance upon the defendant’s plea.


Id., subd. 2.  Here, appellant seeks withdrawal under this lesser standard of “fair and just” reason for withdrawal.  See State v. Williams, 373 N.W.2d 851, 853 (Minn. App. 1985) (stating that presentence withdrawal requires lesser showing than manifest injustice).

            Appellant claimed that he did not have sufficient time to talk with his attorney and that he felt pressured into entering a plea.  The district court here concluded that appellant failed to establish a basis for withdrawal, noting:  (1) after having at least eight court appearances, appellant had enough time to consult with his attorney; (2) the record fails to suggest that appellant had been coerced into entering a plea; (3) before and after pleading guilty, the court asked appellant if he had had enough time to consult with his attorney and he agreed that he had; (4) at the plea hearing, appellant agreed that there was a factual basis for the plea; and (5) it would be unfair to the state to put the matter back on for trial.  Based on these factors, the court determined that appellant failed to prove that withdrawal of the plea was necessary under the fair-and-just standard.

            Because there is ample support in the record for the denial of appellant’s motion to withdraw his plea, the district court did not abuse its discretion.  We therefore affirm.