Larry Collins, Waseca County Attorney, Paul M. Dressler, Assistant County Attorney, 307 North State Street, Waseca, MN 56093 (for respondent)

Douglas T. Kans, Harlan M. Goulett, Douglas T. Kans & Associates, 1690 Interchange Building, 600 South Highway 169, Minneapolis, MN 55426 (for appellant)

Considered and decided by Schumacher, Presiding Judge, Shumaker, Judge, and Foley, Judge.[*]

Richard Tollefson appeals from the district court's denial of postconviction relief, claiming he should be allowed to withdraw his guilty plea. We affirm.

On May 23, 1998, Tollefson was arrested at the home of his father and subsequently issued a citation by the arresting officer charging Tollefson with domestic assault and instructing him to appear in court on May 26, 1998. At his court appearance, Tollefson received a group warning pursuant to Minn. R. Crim. P. 15.03, subd. 1. Tollefson pleaded guilty, and the court ordered a presentence investigation.

Tollefson was not represented by an attorney at the time of his guilty plea but subsequently retained an attorney. On June 3, 1998, he moved to withdraw his guilty plea. At the July 21, 1998, hearing on the motion, Tollefson argued he was unaware of the fact that he would not be able to possess a firearm if he pleaded guilty to domestic assault. The district court denied the motion.

The federal firearm statute prohibits anyone who has been convicted of domestic assault from possessing any type of firearm. 18 U.S.C.A. § 922 (a)(8)(g)(9) (West Supp. 1998). Minnesota law prohibits anyone convicted of domestic assault from possessing a pistol for a period of three years. Minn. Stat. § 609.224, subd. 3 (1998).

At sentencing the court ordered Tollefson not to possess any firearms, including his hunting weapons, as a condition of his six-month probation. These weapons included four shotguns and a rifle. The court also ordered that Tollefson be prohibited from possessing a pistol for three years pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 609.224, subd. 3.

Allowing a defendant to withdraw a guilty plea before sentencing is left to the sound discretion of the trial court, and the trial court's decision will be reversed "only in the rare case in which the appellate court can fairly conclude that the trial court abused its discretion." Kim v. State, 434 N.W.2d 263, 266 (Minn. 1989).

Tollefson claims the district court abused its discretion by denying his petition because the federal firearms prohibition is a direct consequence of his plea. In a recent decision by this court, State v. Rodriguez, 590 N.W.2d 823 (Minn. App. 1999), however, we concluded that the federal firearms prohibition is a collateral consequence of a guilty plea. Ignorance of a collateral consequence does not entitle Tollefson to withdraw his guilty plea. Kim, 434 N.W.2d at 266.

Tollefson's probationary period has expired and the provision requiring the dispossession of his firearms is no longer in force. The district court's order requiring Tollefson not to possess any firearm, which included his rifle and shotguns, is not mandated by state law but is a federal prohibition. The district court apparently felt compelled to enforce this federal mandate. The statutory requirement prohibiting Tollefson from possessing a pistol for three years is still in effect under Minn. Stat. § 609.224, subd. 3 (1998).

Affirmed.

[*] Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, serving by apointment pursuant to Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10.