
    State, Respondent, vs. Graff, Appellant.
    
      March 15 —
    April 12, 1946.
    
    
      
      Charles L. Mullen of Milwaukee, for the appellant.
    For the respondent there was a brief by the Attorney General, William A. Plats, assistant attorney general, and G. E. Otten, district attorney of Washington county, and oral argument by Mr. Plats.
    
   Rosenberry, C. J.

It appears without dispute that defendant had the benefit of counsel before he entered his plea of guilty. Upon the hearing on the motion for a new trial, counsel for defendant testified that he had no doubt of the defendant’s guilt, and denied the allegations made by the defendant in the affidavit supporting his motion for a new trial as to not having advised the defendant of the seriousness of the offense, denied making any promise to him that he would be placed on probation.

The principal contention made on behalf of the defendant is that there was a medical examination of the child and that that examination did not disclose facts sufficient to establish an offense. We do not think it is necessary to set out the details of this matter. The granting or denial of the motion for a new trial was largely within the discretion of the trial court, and it is clear from the record that there was no abuse of discretion on its part in denying the motion for a new trial. There is not even a pretense that there was any error so far as the judgment was concerned. The claim that there was a denial of due process is also completely refuted and has no basis of fact upon which to rest. The facts stated by the defendant in his confession freely made negative the contention made here by counsel on his behalf. The condition found by the examining physician strongly supports the facts stated by the defendant in his confession.

By the Court. — The judgment and order appealed from are affirmed.

Rector, J., took no part.  