This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2006).
STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
State of Minnesota,
Todd John Kendall,
Filed January 23, 2007
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.
D E C I S I O N
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 (
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 (
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.