COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND RELEASED October 10, 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. |
No. 95-0284-CR
STATE
OF WISCONSIN IN COURT OF
APPEALS
DISTRICT I
STATE OF WISCONSIN,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
MICHAEL L. MURPHY,
Defendant-Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment
and an order of the circuit court for Milwaukee County: VICTOR MANIAN, Judge. Affirmed.
Before Wedemeyer, P.J.,
Fine and Schudson, JJ.
PER
CURIAM. Michael L. Murphy appeals from the judgment of
conviction for felony murder and armed robbery party to a crime, see §§
940.03, 943.32(1)(a) and (2) and 939.05, Stats.,
entered on his guilty plea, and from the order denying his motion for
postconviction relief. Murphy claims
that he did not voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently plead guilty. See § 971.08, Stats.; State v. Bangert,
131 Wis.2d 246, 260–262, 389 N.W.2d 12, 20–21 (1986). We affirm.
A trial court may not
accept a defendant's guilty plea unless it is satisfied that the defendant
understands the implications of that plea.
Thus, § 971.08, Stats.,
provides, as material here:
Pleas of guilty and no contest;
withdrawal thereof. (1)
Before the court accepts a plea of guilty or no contest, it shall do all of the
following:
(a) Address
the defendant personally and determine that the plea is made voluntarily with
understanding of the nature of the charge and the potential punishment if
convicted.
(b) Make such inquiry as satisfies it that
the defendant in fact committed the crime charged.
See
also Bangert, 131 Wis.2d at 261–262, 389
N.W.2d at 20–21. A plea is involuntary
if the defendant “`does not understand the nature of the constitutional
protections'” or if “`he has such an incomplete understanding of the charge
that his plea cannot stand as an intelligent admission of guilt.'” State v. Krause, 161 Wis.2d
919, 927–928, 469 N.W.2d 241, 245 (Ct. App. 1991) (citation omitted).
A defendant claiming
inadequacies in a plea colloquy has the initial burden in making a “prima facie
showing that his plea was accepted without the trial court's conformance” with
§ 971.08, Stats., and the
“mandatory procedures” established by Bangert. Bangert, 131 Wis.2d at 274,
389 N.W.2d at 26. Further, the
defendant must allege that “he in fact did not know or understand the
information which should have been provided at the plea hearing” had it been
properly conducted. Id. Murphy does not allege that his plea was in
fact uninformed or involuntary.
Accordingly, he has not satisfied this initial burden. We do not, therefore, discuss Murphy's claim
that the trial court did not properly conduct the plea hearing. See Gross v. Hoffman,
227 Wis. 296, 300, 277 N.W. 663, 665 (1938) (only dispositive issue need be
addressed).
By the Court.—Judgment
and order affirmed.
This opinion will not be
published. See Rule 809.23(1)(b)5, Stats.