Whether the district court accepts the plea is irrelevant. State v. A.C.H., 710 N.W.2d 587, 589-90 (Minn. App. 2006). We ask only whether the defendant subjected himself to the court's sentencing authority. See id. at 590.

Similarly, in State v. A.C.H., the defendant pleaded guilty to a theft charge and admitted he committed the crime. 710 N.W.2d 587, 588 (Minn. App. 2006). The district court did not accept the plea, and the charge was ultimately dismissed after the defendant successfully completed a diversion program.

Id. at 812-13. T.M.B.'s holding has been repeatedly relied on. See, e.g., State v. L.W.J., 717 N.W.2d 451, 456 (Minn.App. 2006); State v. H.A., 716 N.W.2d 360, 366 (Minn.App. 2006); State v. A.C.H., 710 N.W.2d 587, 591 (Minn.App. 2006); State v. Schultz, 676 N.W.2d 337, 343 (Minn.App. 2004). Appellant also contends that C.A. authorizes expungement of her non-judicial records.

Here, the district court properly determined that it lacked statutory authority to expunge respondent's records because the proceedings were not resolved in respondent's favor. See State v. A.C.H., 710 N.W.2d 587, 589 (Minn.App. 2006) ("dismissal after acceptance of a plea and a finding of guilt, most commonly when imposition of sentence is stayed, is not a resolution in the defendant's favor"). Therefore, the district court's statutory authority to grant expungement is not at issue on appeal.