Court Opinion

ID: 9731153
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 15:35:52.677191+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:14.280455
License: Public Domain

Per Curiam,
(on motion for rehearing). We withdraw our determination that the issue of whether the trial court’s order on postconviction was sufficient to comply with the requirements of sec. 974.06, Stats., is moot.
The entire record is before us and we have reviewed the defendant’s claims ab initio.
Prior to accepting his plea, the judge ascertained that the defendant understood the charges, was aware of the possible penalties, had not been promised anything in exchange for his plea of guilty, and was pleading guilty of his own free will after discussing the matter with his attorney.
The guilty plea procedures in this case complied with the law as it existed at the time the guilty plea was entered and received. (See footnote 1.) No useful purpose would be served by remanding this matter for an additional hearing. The order appealed from is affirmed.