Opinion
No. CX-95-1970.
Filed July 2, 1996.
Appeal from the District Court, Le Sueur County, File No. 94-000150.,
Hubert H. Humphrey, III, Attorney General, (for Respondent).
Donald H. Spartz, Le Sueur County Attorney, Michael T. Keogh, Assistant County Attorney, (for Respondent)
Dewey M. Nelson, (for Appellant)
Considered and decided by Norton, Presiding Judge, Peterson, Judge, and Stone, Judge.
This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (1994).
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Appellant Paul Geoffrey Paulsen, Jr., contends the court abused its discretion when it denied his petition to withdraw his guilty plea for misdemeanor disorderly conduct. Appellant has failed to provide a transcript for review. We affirm.
DECISION
As a preliminary matter, the state contends the appeal should be dismissed, because appellant failed to appeal a final judgment. The appealable document here is the sentencing court's "decision/judgment" in which it denied appellant's petition and sentenced him on his conviction. A judgment is final and appealable when the court has imposed the sentence. Minn.R.Crim.P. 28.02, subd. 2(1), cited in State v. Murphy , 537 N.W.2d 492, 494 (Minn.App. 1995). We hold this appeal is properly before the court.
In this misdemeanor case, appellant had the burden of providing a transcript for appellate review. Minn.R.Crim.P. 15.09 (record will only be transcribed on request of defendant, prosecutor, or court); see also Minn.R.Civ.App.P. 110.02, subd. 1 (appellant bears burden of providing transcript of proceedings).
Appellant contends he did not fully understand the terms of the plea negotiation at the time he entered his guilty plea. He argues that he believed he could withdraw his plea at sentencing, because the judge who accepted the guilty plea had "preserved" it until sentencing. He also contends that, at the time of the plea, he did not realize that he had an available defense of self-defense. The decision to allow the defendant to withdraw his guilty plea rested in the sound discretion of the trial court. Minn.R.Crim.P. 15.05, subd. 2; Kim v. State , 434 N.W.2d 263, 266 (Minn. 1989). On review, this court will reverse a decision regarding the withdrawal of a guilty plea "only in the rare case" in which the trial court has abused its discretion. Kim , 434 N.W.2d at 266.
We note for the record that "preserving" a guilty plea has no standard meaning in the rules.
Appellant did not raise the issue of being sentenced by a judge before whom he did not plead guilty. We assume waiver in the absence of a transcript.
The issues appellant raises require us to review the discourse during the guilty plea proceeding in order to determine if appellant's claim of being misled and/or uninformed has any factual basis. But since appellant has failed to provide a transcript for review of his plea and his claimed errors of the court, we are unable to review what the trial court said, what counsel said, or what appellant heard and said.
We may assume, under the doctrine of presumed regularity, that the court examined appellant about his rights and his comprehension of the finality of the guilty plea. See State ex rel. Gray v. Tahash , 279 Minn. 248, 250, 156 N.W.2d 228, 229 (1968) (judgment of conviction "carries a presumption of regularity"). In accepting the plea, the trial court apparently was satisfied that appellant had voluntarily and intelligently testified to the basis of the offense and pleaded guilty. See State v. Kaiser , 469 N.W.2d 316, 319 (Minn. 1991) (guilty plea must be accurate, voluntary, and intelligent). Without a transcript, we must affirm the trial court, because any other decision would be based on speculation. See State v. Heithecker , 395 N.W.2d 382, 383 (Minn.App. 1986) (affirming trial court because appellant failed to provide transcript for review on appeal).