No. 96-0078-CR

STATE OF WISCONSIN IN COURT OF APPEALS

DISTRICT IV

STATE OF WISCONSIN,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v. ERRATA SHEET

LESTER H. COOK,

Defendant-Appellant

Marilyn L. Graves Clerk of Court of Appeals 231 East, State Capitol Madison, WI 53702

Peg Carlson Chief Staff Attorney 119 Martin Luther King Blvd. Madison, WI 53703

Court of Appeals District I 633 W. Wisconsin Ave., #1400 Milwaukee, WI 53203-1918

Court of Appeals District II 2727 N. Grandview Blvd. Waukesha, WI 53188-1672

Court of Appeals District III 740 Third Street Wausau, WI 54403-5784

Court of Appeals District IV 119 Martin Luther King Blvd. Madison, WI 53703

Jennifer Krapf Administrative Assistant 119 Martin Luther King Blvd. Madison, WI 53703	Hon. Lewis Murach Waushara County Courthouse 209 Saint Marie Street Wautoma, WI 54982
Jane Putskey, Trial Court Clerk Waushara County Courthouse 209 Saint Marie Street Wautoma, WI 54982	Daniel J. O'Brien Asst. Attorney General P.O. Box 7857 Madison, WI 53707

Guy D. Dutcher Dist. Atty. Waushara County Box 490 Wautoma, WI 54982-0490

Margaret A. Maroney Asst. State Public Defender P.O. Box 7862 Madison, WI 53707

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the attached page three is to be substituted for page three in the above-captioned opinion which was released on January 30, 1997.

Dated this 4th day of March, 2005.

defendant fails to allege sufficient facts in his motion to raise a question of fact, or presents only conclusory allegations, or if the record conclusively demonstrates that the defendant is not entitled to relief ...." State v. Bentley, 201 Wis.2d 303, 309-11, 548 N.W.2d 50, 53 (1996) (emphasis supplied). A motion presents only conclusory allegations if it does contain factual assertions of sufficient specificity to allow the trial court to meaningfully assess the defendant's claim for plea withdrawal. Id. at 314, 548 N.W.2d at 54-55. Whether the motion alleges sufficient facts which, if true, would entitle the defendant to relief is a question of law, which we review de novo. Id. at 310, 548 N.W.2d at 53.

Cook does not claim that the trial court did not comply with the mandatory procedures for accepting a guilty plea. See § 971.08, Stats.; State v. Bangert, 131 Wis.2d 246, 261-62, 267-70, 274-75, 389 N.W.2d 12, 21, 23-24, 26-27 (1986). He claims that his plea was constitutionally infirm because it was entered unintelligently and involuntarily in that he did not understand that by pleading guilty to the amended charge, he could be facing a maximum penalty of ten years in prison. In his motion, Cook's claims are that he "is mildly retarded and functionally illiterate" and that, despite the trial court's statement to him that this "felony crime [is] punishable by imprisonment not to exceed ten years" and warning that it was not required to follow the attorney's recommendation of probation, he did not understand that he could be facing ten years in prison.