COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND RELEASED July 6, 1995 |
NOTICE |
A party may file with the
Supreme Court a petition to review an adverse decision by the Court of
Appeals. See § 808.10 and
Rule 809.62, Stats. |
This opinion is subject to
further editing. If published, the
official version will appear in the bound volume of the Official Reports. |
Nos. 94-0347-CR
94-0348-CR
STATE
OF WISCONSIN IN COURT OF
APPEALS
DISTRICT IV
STATE OF WISCONSIN,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
PRIEST WILLIAMS,
Defendant-Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment
of the circuit court for Rock County:
PATRICK J. RUDE, Judge. Affirmed.
Before Eich, C.J.,
Dykman and Vergeront, JJ.
PER CURIAM. Priest Williams appeals from a judgment of
conviction on two felony counts and one misdemeanor count as a habitual
offender. Williams pled no contest to
the charges. In exchange, the State
dropped nine other charges, and agreed to recommend probation. Two months later, but before sentencing,
Williams moved to withdraw his plea on the two felony counts. The issue is whether the trial court
erroneously exercised its discretion by denying that motion. We conclude that the trial court properly
denied the motion, and therefore affirm.
The trial court should
grant a presentence motion to withdraw a plea when the defendant has shown a
fair and just reason. State v.
Shanks, 152 Wis.2d 284, 288-89, 448 N.W.2d 264, 266 (Ct. App.
1989). Here, Williams alleged in his
motion that he did not receive sufficient information from counsel to knowingly
make his plea, and that he had meritorious defenses to the felonies. However, Williams failed to present any
evidence to support his allegations at the hearing on the motion to withdraw
his plea. Trial counsel testified that
he provided Williams with sufficient information to enter a knowing plea. Williams did not testify. The reasons given for withdrawing the plea
must be supported by the evidence of record.
Id. at 290, 448 N.W.2d at 267. Williams' failure to present that evidence allowed the trial
court to properly conclude that the motion lacked a factual basis.
By the Court.—Judgment
affirmed.
This opinion will not be
published. See Rule 809.23(1)(b)5, Stats.