Defendant was charged with the violation of the prohibition law, to which he pleaded guilty. About two months after this plea was in, he filed a motion to withdraw it, and substituted one of not guilty. In support of this motion he set up that he had not been advised of his constitutional rights to have counsel; that the arresting officers told him the case would be heard in a federal court, and his punishment would be light; and that he was unaware of the liquor being in his car (which claim was subsequently disproved by the evidence). The motion was refused, and it was held, no error. Romines v. State (Okla. 1931) 2 Pac. (2d) 969.