Fenton Virgil VanWert, Jr., petitioner, Appellant, vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent.

 STATE OF MINNESOTA
 IN COURT OF APPEALS
 C5-99-301

Fenton Virgil VanWert, Jr., petitioner,
Appellant,

vs.

State of Minnesota,
Respondent.

Filed August 24, 1999
 Affirmed
 Short, Judge

Sherburne County District Court
File No. KX97549

Fenton V. VanWert, Jr., MCF Stillwater, 970 Pickett Street North, Bayport, MN 55003 appellant, pro se)

Mike Hatch, Attorney General, Robert A. Stanich, Assistant Attorney General, 525 Park Street, Suite 500, St. Paul, MN 55103; and

Walter M. Kaminsky, Sherburne County Attorney, Courthouse, 13880 Highway 10, Elk River, MN 55330 (for respondent)

Considered and decided by Short, Presiding Judge, Crippen, Judge, and Harten, Judge.

 U N P U B L I S H E D   O P I N I O N

 SHORT, Judge

After pleading guilty to third-degree burglary in violation of Minn. Stat. § 609.582, subd. 3 (1996), Fenton Virgil VanWert, Jr. was sentenced to 48 months and ordered to pay $462.78 in "joint and several" restitution with his codefendants. On appeal from a denial of postconviction relief, VanWert argues the prison wrongfully continued to withhold VanWert's prison wages after restitution had been fully paid by a codefendant. VanWert contends this is a violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause and he should be permitted to withdraw his guilty plea. Because the record is insufficient for appellate review, we affirm.

D E C I S I O N

On appeal, the appellant has the burden of providing an adequate record comprised of papers filed in the trial court, the exhibits, and the transcript of the proceedings. Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 110.01, 110.02, subd. 1; Minn. R. Crim. P. 28.02, subds. 8, 9; State v. Anderson, 351 N.W.2d 1, 2 (Minn. 1984). When the record on appeal is inadequate, relief cannot be granted, and the trial court's order must be affirmed. See Anderson, 351 N.W.2d at 2 (affirming conviction where defendant provided no record showing prejudice that would entitle him to new trial).

Because the restitution amount has been paid in full by a codefendant, VanWert argues withholding his prison wages constitutes a violation of the Double Jeopardy Clauses and he should be permitted to withdraw his plea. See U.S. Const. amend. V (establishing federal double jeopardy clause); Minn. Const. art. I, § 7 (establishing state double jeopardy clause); State v. Humes, 581 N.W.2d 317, 320 (Minn. 1998) (recognizing double jeopardy clauses in federal and state constitutions prohibit multiple punishments for same offense); Kim v. State, 434 N.W.2d 263, 266 (Minn. 1989) (noting defendant does not have absolute right to withdraw guilty plea under Minn. R. Crim. P. 15.05, subd. 1, which allows for withdrawal to correct manifest injustice). But VanWert did not provide this court with a transcript from the postconviction proceedings nor does the record contain any documentation suggesting the restitution has been paid in full. Without a more complete record, we cannot ascertain the facts or determine what arguments were presented to the postconviction court. See Roby v. State, 547 N.W.2d 354, 357 (Minn. 1996) (stating appellate court will not consider matters not argued and considered in trial court). Under these circumstances, we must affirm the denial of postconviction relief.

Affirmed.