By: dmc-admin//August 26, 2002//
James M. Baldauf appeals from a postconviction order rejecting his motion to withdraw his plea of no contest to a charge of disorderly conduct. Baldauf argues that his plea was not knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily entered because he appeared pro se and did not understand that a lawyer could assist him. Baldauf additionally contends that his plea was defective because he was not advised of the federal firearms prohibition under 18 U.S.C.A. sec. 922 (2002). We reject Baldauf’s arguments because the trial court specifically advised Baldauf that a lawyer could benefit him and because the federal firearms prohibition is a collateral, not a direct, consequence of the conviction.
Therefore, we affirm the order denying Baldauf’s motion to withdraw his plea.
This opinion will not be published.
Dist II, Winnebago County, Schmidt, J., Nettesheim, P.J.
Attorneys:
For Appellant: Patrick G. Seubert, Neenah
For Respondent: Joseph F. Paulus, Oshkosh; Doran Edward Viste, Oshkosh