☢ test - Í

appointed counsel for his motion for out-of-time appeal. Accord, Davis v. State , 286 Ga.App. 80, 648 S.E.2d 670 (June 22, 2007); Barlow v. State , 282 Ga. 232, 647 S.E.2d 46 (June 25, 2007); Clayton v. State , 285 Ga. 404, 677 S.E.2d 126 (May 18, 2009) (issues relating to effective assistance and voluntariness of plea which can’t be resolved from the record can’t be raised by out-of-time appeal, but must instead be raised by habeas); Rodriquez v. State , 299 Ga.App. 10, 682 S.E.2d 133 (June 11, 2009); Campos v. State , 292 Ga. 83, 734 S.E.2d 359 (November 19, 2012); Pineda v. State , 328 Ga.App. 806, 762 S.E.2d 626 (August 7, 2014); Raheem (September 16, 2015), above. Murray v. State, 265 Ga.App. 119, 592 S.E.2d 898 (January 9, 2004). “In denying Murray’s requests for counsel and an out-of-time appeal, the trial court vaguely asserted that any appeal relating to his motion to withdraw the guilty plea would be discretionary, rather than as of right. Clear Georgia law establishes the contrary. A defendant has a right to appeal directly the denial of his timely motion to withdraw a guilty plea. [Cit.] Our Supreme Court has also determined that a ‘plea withdrawal proceeding is a critical stage of the criminal prosecution.’ [Cit.] A defendant who files such a motion, therefore, is entitled to the assistance of counsel, and the trial court must inform the defendant of this right. [Cit.] Moreover, the right to counsel extends through the direct appeal of an order denying the defendant’s motion.” Copeland v. State, 264 Ga.App. 905, 592 S.E.2d 540 (December 22, 2003). Trial court erred in denying defendant’s motion for out of time appeal where record clearly showed defendant’s efforts to have his attorney file timely appeal, attorney’s promises to do so, and attorney’s failure to do so. Defendant sought to appeal denial of his motion to correct void (recidivist) sentence, from which direct appeal is authorized notwithstanding that defendant’s underlying conviction was already affirmed on appeal. Heavener v. State, 264 Ga.App. 249, 590 S.E.2d 215 (November 19, 2003). “A defendant moving for an out-of-time appeal following a conviction and sentence based on a guilty plea bears the burden of showing two things: first, that he or she actually had a right to file a timely direct appeal; and second, that the right to appeal was frustrated by the ineffective assistance of counsel.” “Because no motion to withdraw his guilty plea was filed and no order denying such a motion was entered, Heavener had no right of appeal that was lost as a result of his counsel’s ineffectiveness. Heavener’s redress for his counsel’s alleged ineffectiveness in failing to tell him about the option of moving to withdraw his guilty plea is in a habeas corpus proceeding.” Simpson v. State, 263 Ga.App. 467, 588 S.E.2d 291 (October 1, 2003). Transcript of habeas corpus hearing cannot provide the basis for a direct appeal from Simpson’s guilty plea. “‘[T]he requirement that appeal issues following a guilty plea must be capable of resolution by reference to facts on “the record” relates to the record of the judgment sought to be appealed.’ In other words, the record developed in a collateral attack on a conviction – such as through habeas corpus proceedings — ‘do[es] not produce a right to an appeal from the [guilty] plea and judgment.’” Denial of defendant’s motion for out-of-time appeal without an evidentiary hearing or specific findings of fact was therefore proper. Smith v. State, 263 Ga.App. 414, 587 S.E.2d 787 (September 11, 2003). Trial court did not err in denying defendant’s motion for out-of-time appeal, and in not holding an evidentiary hearing to determine fault for missing the deadline, where it is clear that defendant herself bears responsibility for the delay. Here, defendant “had already explained to the court that on her own, she had carefully reviewed the post-judgment options available to her, including the right to a direct appeal. Following sentencing, she had decided as a matter of strategy to pursue a motion in arrest of judgment pro se rather than an immediate direct appeal.” An unusual procedural situation. Better practice in almost every case will be to hold the evidentiary hearing. But see Dykes (March 12, 2004), above. Johansen v. State, 260 Ga.App. 181, 581 S.E.2d 564 (March 11, 2003). A defendant “bears the burden of showing ‘good and sufficient’ reason entitling her to an out-of-time appeal.” The trial court has no duty to advise a defendant that she may have a right to directly appeal a conviction resulting from a guilty plea. OVERRULED ; ‘good and sufficient’ grounds for appeal no longer required, see White (March 8, 2004), above. Phillips v. State, 275 Ga. 595, 571 S.E.2d 361 (October 15, 2002). “‘[T]he grant of an out-of-time appeal constitutes permission to pursue appropriate post-conviction remedies, including a motion for new trial.’ ” Thus, the trial court erred in granting an out-of-time appeal but denying the right to file a motion for new trial. This is essential to challenge the effectiveness of trial counsel. Accord, Sweet v. State , 276 Ga. 545, 580 S.E.2d 231 (May 5, 2003); Claritt v. State , 274 Ga.App. 897, 619 S.E.2d 399 (August 5, 2005); Garcia v. State , 275 Ga.App. 504, 620 S.E.2d 624 (September 7, 2005). Harrell v. State, 257 Ga.App. 525, 571 S.E.2d 502 (September 20, 2002). “The disposition of a motion for out-of-time