☢ test - Í

with direction to authorize an out-of-time appeal from the denial of [Cobb’s] motion to withdraw his guilty plea.’ Carter v. Johnson, supra at 205(2).” Sweeting v. State, 291 Ga.App. 693, 662 S.E.2d 785 (May 28, 2008). Motion for out-of-time appeal of guilty plea properly denied where plea petition and transcript showed valid Boykin waiver. Duncan v. State, 291 Ga.App. 580, 662 S.E.2d 337 (May 19, 2008). Trial court erred in concluding that it lacked jurisdiction to consider defendant’s motion for out-of-time appeal. “‘An out-of-time appeal is appropriate where, as the result of ineffective assistance of counsel, a timely direct appeal was not taken.’ Smith v. State, 266 Ga. 687 (470 S.E.2d 436) (1996). … When a movant seeks an out-of-time appeal alleging that the right to direct appeal was frustrated by ineffective assistance of counsel, the trial court must inquire into the facts to determine responsibility for the failure to pursue a timely direct appeal, and the failure to make such inquiry is an abuse of the court’s discretion. [Cit.]” Accord, Nesbitt v. State , 295 Ga.App. 394, 671 S.E.2d 877 (December 29, 2008); McGee v. State , 296 Ga. 353, 765 S.E.2d 347 (November 3, 2014). Compare McMullen (January 7, 2013), above (denial of motion for out-of-time appeal appropriate where motion doesn’t allege that failure to file timely appeal was caused by ineffective assistance of counsel). Smith v. State, 291 Ga.App. 459, 662 S.E.2d 253 (May 9, 2008). Defendant’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, pre-plea entry, don’t entitle him to out-of-time appeal absent a showing, not made here, that counsel’s actions frustrated defendant’s desire to appeal. Anderson v. State, 284 Ga.App. 776, 645 S.E.2d 362 (April 4, 2007). Superior court which entered sentence had jurisdiction to entertain habeas petition (although couched as motion for out-of-time appeal) filed by federal prisoner held out of state, pursuant to OCGA § 9-14-53. Anderson v. State, 281 Ga.App. 215, 635 S.E.2d 828 (August 21, 2006). VACATED, Anderson v. State , 284 Ga.App. 776, 645 S.E.2d 362 (April 4, 2007). See above. Brown v. State, 280 Ga. 658, 631 S.E.2d 687 (June 26, 2006). Trial court properly denied defendant’s motion for leave to file out of time appeal of his guilty plea to malice murder and armed robbery, as record showed on its face that defendant was not entitled to appeal from his plea of guilty. “As to the allegations regarding the validity of Brown’s guilty plea, if their resolution against him is apparent from this Court’s examination of the record, ‘it cannot be said that he had a right to file even a timely notice of appeal.’ Barnes v. State, 274 Ga. 783 (559 S.E.2d 446) (2002). If that is so, there would be no error in denying his motion for out-of-time appeal. Id.” Accord, Davis v. State , 286 Ga.App. 80, 648 S.E.2d 670 (June 22, 2007); Childs v. State , 311 Ga.App. 891, 717 S.E.2d 509 (October 7, 2011); Dennis v. State , 292 Ga. 303, 736 S.E.2d 428 (January 7, 2013). Riley v. State, 280 Ga. 267, 626 S.E.2d 116 (January 30, 2006). Trial court properly dismissed pro se defendant/inmate’s notice of appeal, filed late; Massaline v. Williams , 274 Ga. 552, 554 S.E.2d 720 (2001), establishing a “mailbox” rule for pro se inmate habeas petitions, is limited only to habeas petitions. Jackson v. State, 280 Ga. 27, 622 S.E.2d 356 (November 21, 2005). “Jackson’s allegation that he was deprived of the right to direct appeal due to trial counsel’s ineffective assistance requires that a trial court conduct a hearing to determine whether the failure to pursue a timely direct appeal ‘was attributable to [Jackson] himself or his then legal representative.’ Porter v. State, 271 Ga. 498, 500 (521 S.E.2d 566) (1999). It is an abuse of discretion for a trial court to fail to make such a factual inquiry. Simmons v. State, 276 Ga. 525 (579 S.E.2d 735) (2003).” Accord, Fleming v. State , 276 Ga.App. 491, 623 S.E.2d 696 (November 21, 2005); Mock v. State , 298 Ga.App. 118, 679 S.E.2d 118 (May 22, 2009). Hudson v. State, 278 Ga. 409, 603 S.E.2d 242 (September 27, 2004). Trial court erred in denying defendant out-of-time appeal because defendant waited several years to proceed after obtaining copy of trial transcript. “[T]he trial court concluded that, although the attorney may have been ineffective, Hudson still was not entitled to an out-of-time appeal because he did not explain his failure to seek that remedy earlier. Contrary to this conclusion, however, ‘the mere passage of time [does] not preclude a defendant from pursuing an out-of-time appeal....’ Dykes v. State, [266 Ga.App. 635, 597 S.E.2d 468 (March 12, 2004)]. Assuming that defense counsel was ineffective, there is nothing to show that, before seeking the out-of-time appeal to which Hudson was entitled, he ever undertook any post-conviction action which could be construed as a waiver of his right to seek that remedy. Compare Dykes v. State, supra (defendant sought