2d 187, 194, 528 N.W.2d 72 (Ct. App. 1995). In short, while the jury could have been given more information regarding the nature of an actionable threat under WlS. STAT. § 940.203, the instruction the trial court gave was neither erroneous nor misleading. Accordingly, we cannot conclude that the real controversy was not fully tried, and we decline to reverse under Wis. STAT. § 752.35. ¶ 23. Finally, we address Perkins's claim that his trial counsel was ineffective in failing to stipulate that he had prior felony convictions for purposes of the felon in possession of firearm charge, thereby permitting the State to introduce certified copies of judgments convicting him of armed robbery and attempted robbery. See State v. McAllister, 153 Wis. 2d 523, 525-29, 451 N.W.2d 764 (Ct. App. 1989) (<HOLDING>). To prevail on a claim of ineffective
holding without discussion of montgomery that a defendant can only be impeached by evidence of a conviction of a prior felony or infamous crime holding that for sentencing purposes the government does not need to allege a defendants prior conviction or prove the fact of a prior conviction where that fact is not an element of the present crime holding that a prior nonarizona conviction to be used as a prior felony conviction under the statute must both be for an offense that would constitute a felony in arizona and be classified as a felony in the other jurisdiction holding that in determining whether a prior conviction is a violent felony a court generally must look only to the fact of conviction and the statutory definition of the prior offense holding that where defendant stipulates to prior felony conviction evidence of the nature of the prior crime is irrelevant and should be excluded