This opinion will be unpublished and

may not be cited except as provided by

Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2006).






State of Minnesota,





Todd John Kendall,



Filed January 23, 2007


Kalitowski, Judge


Chisago County District Court

File No. 13-K2-04-000423


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


Katherine M. Johnson, Chisago County Attorney, Joseph R. Cox, Assistant County Attorney, Chisago County Government Center, 313 North Main Street, Room 373, Center City, MN 55012-9663 (for respondent)


Todd John Kendall, 1278 Jonquil Lane, White Bear Lake, MN 55110 (pro se appellant)


            Considered and decided by Kalitowski, Presiding Judge; Lansing, Judge; and Dietzen, Judge.

U N P U B L I S H E D   O P I N I O N


            Appellant Todd John Kendall challenges the district court’s denial of a motion to withdraw his guilty plea.  We affirm.


            We review the district court’s decision whether to allow withdrawal of a guilty plea for abuse of discretion.  Barragan v. State, 583 N.W.2d 571, 572 (Minn. 1998); see also Kaiser v. State, 641 N.W.2d 900, 903 (Minn. 2002) (stating that a criminal defendant does not have an absolute right to withdraw a guilty plea).  We can only consider matters on the record before us.  State v. Brown, 597 N.W.2d 299, 305 (Minn. App. 1999), review denied (Minn. Sept. 14, 1999).  “The record on appeal shall consist of the papers filed in the trial court, the offered exhibits, and the transcript of the proceedings, if any.”  Id.(citing Minn. R. Crim. P. 28.02, subd. 8).  Appellant bears the responsibility of providing a record showing that the issues he raises on appeal were raised to the district court.  See id. 

            Where, as here, the motion for plea withdrawal was made after sentencing, the appellant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that plea withdrawal will correct a manifest injustice.  State v. DeZeler, 422 N.W.2d 32, 36 (Minn. App. 1988), aff’d 427 N.W.2d 231 (Minn. 1988).  A district court must permit withdrawal of a guilty plea to correct a manifest injustice.  Minn. R. Crim. P. 15.05, subd. 1.  Manifest injustice occurs if the plea does not comply with constitutional due process requirements that it be accurate, knowing, voluntary, and intelligent.  State v. Byron, 683 N.W.2d 317, 322 (Minn. App. 2004), review denied (Minn. Sept. 29, 2004). 

            Appellant does not specifically claim that his plea was not accurately, knowingly, intelligently, or voluntarily entered; rather, he alleges that a manifest injustice would occur if he was made to serve 45 days in jail because it would cause a financial hardship on his family.  Because speculative financial hardship does not implicate appellant’s due process rights and does not constitute manifest injustice, we conclude that appellant has failed to show the district court erred in denying his plea withdrawal motion.

            Because the only issue properly before us is the district court’s denial of appellant’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea, we do not address appellant’s arguments regarding mitigating factors relevant to restitution.