OPINION

RABINOWITZ, Justice.

The main issue in this appeal is whether the superior court erred in refusing to allow a withdrawal of a guilty plea. Another issue in this appeal is whether the superior court failed substantially to comply with the requirements of Criminal Rule 11(c) and (d). We affirm.

Bobby Joe Winkler was indicted on two counts of assault with a dangerous weapon. Winkler, who was alleged to have been drinking on the day of the assaults, took a pistol from the dressing room table of Sonia Foss, his employer, and shot her twice in the head. Both shots grazed her and did not result in serious wounds. The second count resulted from Winkler allegedly having pointed a pistol at a police officer.

After initially pleading not guilty to both charges, Winkler pled guilty to the first count and the second count was dismissed. The plea was accepted and the court ordered a full presentence report and psychiatric evaluation. Upon the receipt of a negative psychiatric report, the superior court ordered more testing. At the sentencing hearing after consideration of the presentence report, psychiatric reports, and taking further testimony, the court sentenced Winkler to serve a 5-year term of imprisonment. Thereafter, a motion to withdraw his guilty plea was filed by Winkler. After a series of substitutions of counsel, a hearing was finally held and the withdrawal motion denied. From the above decision, Winkler appeals.

Winkler first contends that the superior court committed reversible error in denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. Alaska Crim. Rule 32(d)(1) permits withdrawal of guilty pleas only if the defendant "proves [it] is necessary to correct manifest injustice." Winkler contends that he demonstrated manifest injustice on two grounds: that there was an implied plea bargain involving a promise of psychiatric outpatient treatment and probation which Winkler failed to receive, and as a separate ground that his attorney, in advising him as to his plea, rendered ineffective assistance. Both claims grow out of the charge negotiations and the subsequent sentencing hearing. Thus, at the outset, it is necessary to relate in some detail the proceedings which led up to the entry of the guilty plea and sentencing.

At a bail hearing, Judge Burke, after ordering Winkler released on an unsecured bond, suggested that Winkler, his attorney, the victim and the district attorney "sit down somewhere and see if [they could] work out something short of trial, or what [they would] need to get ready for trial." After the court recessed, the four went to a jury room and discussed a number of matters relating to the case. The principal focus of the discussion was Winkler's alcohol abuse and what programs might solve that problem. Among the options discussed were Winkler's voluntary enrollment in an alcoholic rehabilitation unit for six weeks and outpatient therapy of either a psychiatric or alcohol treatment nature. No mention was made of incarceration during this conference. At the end of the 45 minute conference, the district attorney suggested that Winkler plead guilty to the first count and they would try to give Winkler some help. William Bryson, Winkler's attorney, later stated he left the discussion with the impression that everyone was supportive of a probationary concept. At the hearing to withdraw his plea, Winkler testified that he thought as a result of this meeting that he would get probation and treatment for his alcoholism. Winkler also testified that he would not have changed his plea if he had not thought he was going to get alcoholic rehabilitation and psychiatric help. At the end of these discussions, Bryson recommended to Winkler that he change his plea.

The following day Winkler moved to change his plea to guilty on count one. The district attorney informed the court that if this was accepted, count two would be dismissed. He also indicated that this was the extent of the negotiated plea bargain and that otherwise there would be open sentencing. The superior court then inquired of Winkler as to the voluntariness of his plea and his understanding of what rights he was waiving. The superior court obtained Winkler's acknowledgment that there were no commitments made by the state as to any recommendation as to sentencing, that the only promise made to him was the dismissal of the second count and that no one had threatened him. After the victim had testified as to the factual circumstances surrounding the assault, the district attorney advised the court concerning the fact that at their conference the previous day, the four of them, Winkler, his attorney, the victim and the district attorney, had agreed that Winkler should have a psychiatric evaluation, and he asked that the court order an evaluation. Winkler's attorney joined in this request.

At the sentencing hearing, the court had before it the presentence report, two psychiatric evaluations and a psychological evaluation. The district attorney stated he had nothing to add to the presentence report, that "the prognosis [was] not good for Mr. Winkler's alcoholism, and I'm not making any particular recommendation because I know Your Honor, that's . . . the court's problem and decision." The court subsequently sentenced Winkler to serve five years.

At the evidentiary hearing on the Rule 32(d) motion to withdraw the guilty plea, Bryson testified that at no point did he give Winkler a guarantee of probation, but admitted in retrospect that he thought it "a very reasonable inference for someone to draw" from the tone of the plea negotiations. Bryson also testified that his recommendation to Mr. Winkler that he plead guilty was based on the fact that the district attorney spoke in terms of alcohol rehabilitation and not jail time. Bryson stated that he explained to Winkler that it was the policy of the district attorney in charge of the case not to make sentence recommendations and not to engage in plea bargains that included sentence recommendations. Although Bryson could not remember explaining the statutory maximum and minimum sentences to Winkler, he testified that it was his procedure normally to do so.

Further, at the hearing on the motion to withdraw, which was held before Judge Occhipinti, the court noted that in a series of letters from Winkler to the sentencing judge (Judge Burke), there was no mention by Winkler of any desire to withdraw his guilty plea. Additionally, Judge Occhipinti specifically found that no promises as to sentence were made to Winkler and concluded that Winkler should not be allowed to withdraw his guilty plea.

We are not persuaded that the trial court erred in ruling that Winkler had failed to make out a case of "manifest injustice." We note that the situation before the court is quite similar to that described in Pinedo v. United States, 347 F.2d 142 (9th Cir. 1965), cert. denied, 382 U.S. 976, 86 S.Ct. 547, 15 L.Ed.2d 468 (1966). Pinedo also claimed that on appeal he should not have been denied a post-sentencing opportunity to withdraw his plea because of manifest injustice based on contentions of an unfulfilled promise of probation and ineffective assistance of counsel. The Ninth Circuit, in affirming the lower court's denial of relief, initially noted:

[T]he allegations in Pinedo's motion for relief under Rule 32(d) are rendered suspect by the fact that almost seven weeks elapsed between the day he pled guilty and the day he was sentenced, without any claim of innocence or misrepresentation of counsel, nor were any such claims made at the time of sentencing.

In Winkler's case, not only was no claim raised during the 4 1/2-month period between plea and sentencing, but the first notice of such a claim was brought to the court's attention only after one year from the date of the guilty plea. As in Pinedo, we also think there is justification for the superior court's characterization of Winkler's claims as suspect based upon his failure to make any such claims until a considerable time after he had received a sentence calling for a substantial period of incarceration.

In denying Pinedo's claim that there was a promise of probation, the Ninth Circuit pointed to the following facts:

Alkow, [Pinedo's attorney] never once testified that any [promise of probation] had been made him by the United States Attorney. The strongest statement that Alkow could and did make was that the United States Attorney believed that the Pinedos would be placed on probation and that the United States Attorney did not propose to recommend imprisonment. If Alkow is to be believed at all, in making his representations to the Pinedos he did tell the Pinedos that he, as well as the United States Attorney, believed the Pinedos would get probation. Alkow insists that he told the Pinedos that if the judge wanted to impose a prison sentence he could do it.

Pinedo himself did not claim that Alkow had said that the United States Attorney had promised probation, testifying only that Alkow had reported to him that the United States Attorney was `favorable to probation.' While Pinedo claimed that he had . . . pled guilty because Alkow had promised that he and Mrs. Pinedo would get probation, as indicated, Alkow denied making any such flat promise. (emphasis in original)

In the case at bar, Winkler was not promised by either the district attorney or his own counsel that he would receive probation. He knew that one of the two assault counts would be dismissed as a result of his plea. This was fully disclosed in court at the hearing on the change of plea, and the second count of the indictment was, in fact, dismissed. Winkler's subjective impression from the tone of pre-plea discussions is not sufficient to support his claim of manifest injustice. The superior court reminded Winkler, before accepting his plea, of its power to sentence him to maximum penalty of 10 years incarceration. Winkler acknowledged that he had been given no promises other than the dismissal of the second charge. In light of these circumstances, we do not find any basis, premised on any promise, express or implied, sufficient to show manifest injustice.

Having concluded there were no unkept promises, we now consider Winkler's claim that he was denied effective assistance of counsel. The court in Pinedo cited with approval the following statements from United States v. Parrino, 212 F.2d 919, 921 (2nd Cir. 1954):

[I]n criminal cases, the defendant's surprise as to the severity of sentence imposed after a plea of guilty . . . is not such manifest injustice as to require vacation of the judgment and . . . to withdraw a plea of guilty. . . . [S]urprise . . . which results from erroneous information received from the defendant's own attorney, at least without a clear showing of unprofessional conduct, is not enough. . . .

[A]ny notion . . . that the Court guarantees the accuracy of information given by a member of its Bar to a client-defendant is obviously subject to the qualification that the Court represents not that members of its Bar are infallible but, at most, that they will function with due regard to their professional obligations. (footnote omitted)

The standard in Alaska for effective assistance of counsel is as follows:

Defense counsel must perform at least as well as a lawyer with ordinary training and skill in the criminal law and must conscientiously protect his client's interest, undeflected by conflicting considerations.

Risher v. State, 523 P.2d 421, 424 (Alaska 1974) (footnote omitted). We further noted in Risher:

All that is required of counsel is that his decisions, when viewed in the framework of trial pressures, be within the range of reasonable actions which might have been taken by an attorney skilled in the criminal law, regardless of the outcome of such decisions.

Id. at 424. Specifically, Winkler contends that his counsel failed to consider other defenses and alternatives to pleading, inadequately advised him of the consequences of his plea and failed to inform the court of his dissatisfaction with the plea proceeding and the sentence which was imposed. No specific evidence was offered of any options foregone by Bryson. In light of the likely consequences of a trial, it cannot be concluded that Winkler's attorney provided less than ordinary skill in recommending acceptance of charge negotiations which resulted in the dismissal of one of the two felony counts. As to Winkler's contention that he was inadequately advised of the consequences of his plea, the record shows that the trial court explicitly advised Winkler in this regard, and his counsel testified it was his normal practice to so advise his clients. Thus, we conclude that the record does not show a failure on Bryson's part to fully inform Winkler of the consequences of his plea. Concerning any omission on Bryson's part to inform the court of his client's desire to withdraw his plea, we note that Winkler did not mention his desire in any of the numerous letters he sent to the superior court. Thus, we conclude that the superior court did not err in holding that Winkler had not proven a case of manifest injustice sufficient to warrant a withdrawal of his guilty plea on any of the grounds advanced.

Winkler's second contention is that the superior court failed to comply with provisions of Criminal Rule 11(c) and (d). Specifically, Winkler alleges that the trial court did not adequately determine whether or not he understood the nature of the charge and was entering his plea voluntarily.

This is the first time that this issue has been raised in the case at bar. It was not raised at the evidentiary hearing on Winkler's withdrawal motion, or at the time of plea and sentencing. Normally this court will not address issues which were not presented to the trial court. Lewis v. State, 565 P.2d 846, 853 (Alaska 1977). We will, however, notice plain errors or defects even though they were not brought to the attention of the trial court if they affect substantial rights. Alaska R.Crim.P. 47(b).

In the recent case of Lewis v. State, 565 P.2d 846, 852 (Alaska 1977), we held that violations of Criminal Rule 11(c) are reversible only if they "affect substantial rights of the defendant." In this regard, we further stated that failure of the trial court strictly to comply with the requirement of Rule 11(c) would not be viewed as per se reversible error, but that the impact of any violation would be decided on a case-by-case basis. Id. at 851.

Prior to Winkler entering his plea, the superior court asked him the following question:

THE COURT: All right. Count I alleges that you assaulted one Sonia Foss with a revolver on August 2, 1974. That charges you with assault with a dangerous weapon. To that charge how do you now plead, guilty or not guilty?

MR. WINKLER: Guilty, sir.

Also on the day before Winkler changed his plea, Sonia Foss had testified in court as to the circumstances of the assault during which Winkler was present in court. On this record, we do not find that there is anything approaching plain error in informing Winkler of the charge to which he pled.

Winkler further asserts that the court failed to determine adequately whether his plea was voluntary. Specifically, he alleges that the court made a meager inquiry into Winkler's understanding of the plea bargain. We think that the preferred procedure when complying with Criminal Rule 11(d) is for the trial court to have the defendant articulate in open court his understanding of any plea bargain, if one existed. In this case, the court was informed by the district attorney of the bargain:

THE COURT: . . . I gather you . . . did get together yesterday and you worked out . . . some sort of negotiated plea?

MR. TALBOT: Yes, we have, Your Honor. As I understand it, the defendant wishes to change his plea to Count I and if he enters a plea of guilty to Count I it's my intention to dismiss Count II. Other than that, it will be open sentencing.

Neither Winkler nor his attorney objected to this description of the bargain. After the bargain was put on the record, the court immediately began an extensive inquiry to determine the voluntariness of Winkler's plea. As part of this examination, the court specifically inquired as to whether Winkler had an understanding of the bargain differing from that articulated by the district attorney.

THE COURT: . . . Now there have been no commitments here from the state, as I understand it, as far as any agreed recommendation or what sentence you will receive. Is that correct? Otherwise, has anyone made any promises to you, other than the agreement to drop Count II?

MR. WINKLER: No, sir.

Although as we have said, the preferred procedure would have been for the court to ask the defendant to detail his understanding of the bargain, we do not find from our review of the record that the superior court failed substantially to comply with Criminal Rule 11(d).

The superior court's denial of Winkler's motion to withdraw his guilty plea is Affirmed.

BURKE, J., not participating.