or a day before expiration of the one-year deadline. Such tardy notice is legally insufficient to bar Schwab’s collateral attack. We, therefore, hold that the trial court did not err when it deemed Schwab’s petition timely, as we may affirm a trial court ruling on any ground that the record supports. State v. Ngo Tho Huynh, 107 Wn. App. 68, 74, 26 P.3d 290 (2001). Motion To Withdraw Plea ¶11 We now address the merits of Schwab’s motion to withdraw his plea. We hold that the trial court properly dismissed Schwab’s CrR 7.8 motion. ¶12 Schwab made only one argument to support his motion to withdraw his plea: that he was not advised of the maximum term of confinement at Western State Hospital if he entered the plea agreement. See State v. Brasel, 28 Wn. App. 303, 313, 623 P.2d 696 (1981) (<HOLDING>). The record belies this claim. Schwab’s
holding that a defendant must have knowledge of the likely consequences of entering the guilty plea in order for a plea to be voluntary and knowing holding that defendant has the right to refuse a plea of insanity holding that the defendant was entitled to have his plea accepted absent a sound reason for rejecting the plea holding that due process requires that a defendant entering a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity understand that if the plea is accepted he could be committed to a state hospital for the criminally insane for a term up to the maximum possible penalty for the offense charged holding that plea of guilty or nolo contendere is not rendered involuntary because it is a product of plea bargaining an accepted plea bargain must be recorded and court may accept a bargained plea to a lesser offense reasonably related to a charged offense