Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (1996).
STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
Bruce Paul Graner, petitioner,
State of Minnesota,
Filed June 9, 1998
Hennepin County District Court
File No. 94-081417
Philip G. Villaume, Anita J. Jehl, Philip G. Villaume & Associates, Ste. 675, 7900 International Dr., Bloomington, MN 55425 (for appellant)
Hubert H. Humphrey III, Attorney General, 1400 NCL Tower, 445 Minnesota St., St. Paul, MN 55101; and
Michael O. Freeman, Hennepin County Attorney, Gayle C. Hendley, Assistant County Attorney, C-2000 Government Ctr., Minneapolis, MN 55487 (for respondent)
Considered and decided by Lansing, Presiding Judge, Klaphake, Judge, and Norton, Judge*.
*Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, serving by appointment pursuant to Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10.
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
Appellant Bruce Graner pleaded guilty to second-degree assault in 1995. See Minn. Stat. § 609.222, subd. 1 (1994) (assault with dangerous weapon). He appeals from the district court's denial of his postconviction petition, which sought vacation of a condition of probation that required him to resign voluntarily from his teaching position. Because appellant fails to present any authority for the remedy he seeks and because the plea agreement was otherwise reasonable, properly negotiated, and discussed in appellant's presence, we affirm.
D E C I S I O N
When a defendant challenges counsel's representation in entering a guilty plea, he must show a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's errors, he would not have pleaded guilty but would have proceeded to trial. Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 59, 106 S. Ct. 366, 370 (1985). The challenge is to the validity of the guilty plea itself, and the legal remedy is withdrawal of the plea. See generally State v. Ecker, 524 N.W.2d 712, 714, 718 (Minn. 1994) (affirmative denial of petition for postconviction relief that claimed plea involuntary due to ineffective assistance of counsel).
In this case, appellant seeks vacation of one condition of the plea agreement, his voluntary resignation from his teaching position. However, he has presented no authority for this unique remedy. Nor has he shown that the plea agreement, negotiated by his criminal defense attorney in the presence of the attorney representing him in a separate civil discharge proceeding, violated due process because it required his resignation. Cf. United States v. Sterber, 846 F.2d 842, 843-44 (2nd Cir. 1988) (federal court's imposition of condition that defendant surrender pharmacy license was abuse of discretion because it improperly circumvented state procedure for license revocation).
Finally, he fails to show that his criminal defense attorney was either responsible for explaining the condition or that the attorney failed to do so; rather, appellant was aware of the condition at the time of the guilty plea hearing because the parties agreed on the record that appellant would "voluntarily terminate his present employment in the school district." We therefore conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant's postconviction petition. See Hodgson v. State, 540 N.W.2d 515, 517 (Minn. 1995); Hanley v. State, 534 N.W.2d 277, 278 (Minn. 1995).