☢ test - Í

motion.” No such showing here. Smith v. State, 287 Ga. 391, 697 S.E.2d 177 (June 28, 2010). Affirming 298 Ga.App. 458, 459 (680 S.E.2d 516) (2009), trial court properly denied defendant’s motion for out-of-time appeal from his pleas of guilty but mentally ill to “several child molestation offenses.” Defendant contended that trial court erred by failing to advise defendant “that his. guilty plea may have an impact on his immigration status.” Warning on immigration impact of plea. Although Padilla v. Kentucky , 559 U.S. 356, 130 S.Ct. 1473, 176 L.Ed.2d 284 (March 31, 2010), recently held that defendants may sometimes be entitled to withdraw guilty pleas when not advised of the immigration consequences, and the trial court here admittedly failed to do so, because of the procedural status of the case, defendant isn’t entitled to relief here because he didn’t allege ineffective assistance of counsel in connection with the failure, instead focusing on the court’s failure. Padilla focused on the violation of defendant’s constitutional right to effective counsel; the trial court’s failures here, on the other hand, are violations of court rule and statute, but do not rise to a constitutional level, and in any event the record here fails to show harm in the nature of “manifest injustice.” Instead, defendant may need to seek habeas relief based on ineffective assistance. Although a trial court has a duty by statute and by duty to give such a warning, “the trial court's failure to advise a defendant regarding the potential impact does not require that the guilty plea be set aside as a matter of constitutional law.” “[T]o show that a manifest injustice resulted in this context, it is clear that the defendant will need to establish, at a minimum, three facts. First, the defendant will have to show that his guilty plea actually ‘may have an impact on his or her immigration status.’ … [C]onclusory allegations that a guilty plea has an impact on a particular defendant's immigration status, made without support in fact and in immigration law, are insufficient to establish harm.” Record here shows that defendant was born in Panama, but doesn’t disclose his current citizenship. “Second, the defendant must show that he was not aware of the potential impact of the guilty plea on his immigration status from some source other than the trial court. Otherwise, the trial court's omission of the § 17-7- 93(c) and Rule 33.8(C)(2) advice will have made no difference to the decision to enter the plea.” Again, the record doesn’t disclose whether defendant knew about the immigration consequences of his plea from counsel or some other source. “Finally, the defendant will need to show that he would not have pled guilty even if he knew about the risks to his immigration status.” No such showing on this record. “The defendant may be able, initially, to make these showings through his own testimony by stating: (1) that he is not a citizen; (2) that the facts, viewed in conjunction with the immigration laws, show some real risk to his immigration status; (3) that no one ever advised him of those risks; and (4) that if he had known of the risks, he would have refused to plead guilty and taken his chances at trial. The State may then seek to rebut the claim of manifest injustice on any or all of these grounds or on other grounds. These issues will be the subject of factual determinations by the trial court, whose findings we will accept unless they are clearly erroneous, see Stinson, 286 Ga. at 501, and whose ultimate decision as to whether to allow the guilty plea to be withdrawn will be reviewed for abuse of discretion, see Norris v. State, 277 Ga.App. 289, 292 (626 S.E.2d 220) (2006).” “FN7: Although a defendant who hopes to appeal successfully from a guilty plea is not required to first file a motion to withdraw the plea, the possibility of expanding the record on which the appeal will be reviewed, and doing so with the assistance of appointed counsel if indigent, should create a strong incentive for defendants to do so. A motion to withdraw the plea also permits the trial court to consider and correct any defects in the guilty plea in the first instance.” “We close by emphasizing to the trial courts that the difficult issues and additional litigation which may arise if defendants are not advised on the record that a guilty plea may have an impact on their immigration status can be avoided simply by complying fully with the mandates of OCGA § 17-7-93(c) and Uniform Superior Court Rule 33.8(C)(2). Prosecutors may assist the trial courts by reminding them of those mandates if the advice is not provided at the guilty plea hearing. And defense lawyers should serve as an additional backstop, especially now that their failure independently to advise non- citizen clients about the potential for immigration consequences will be deemed constitutionally deficient professional performance.” McKiernan v. State, 286 Ga. 756, 692 S.E.2d 340 (March 22, 2010). 1. Trial court erred in ruling that defendant’s letter to the court couldn’t be considered a proper motion to withdraw his guilty plea to felony murder. “[T]he appellate courts of this State have long recognized that such a letter may serve as such a motion. See Stinson v. State, S09A2105, 286 Ga. 499, fn.1 (689 S.E.2d 323 ) (Feb. 8, 2010); Brown v. State, 271 Ga. 550 (522 S.E.2d 230) (1999); Moon v. State, 286 Ga.App. 360 (649 S.E.2d 355) (2007). And, McKiernan's letter was filed with the court within the same term of court as the entry of his conviction and sentence, and was at that time treated by the court as a motion to withdraw his guilty plea.” Compare Stokes v. State , 287 Ga. 182, 695 S.E.2d 206 (May 17, 2010) (defendant’s letter to clerk, alleging that his lawyer and the district attorney had tricked him into pleading guilty, and asking for “my discovery packet” “[s]o I could look over my case because I want to appeal my case” was not a motion to withdraw plea.). Accord, James v. State , 309 Ga.App. 721, 710 S.E.2d 905 (June 1, 2011) (trial court properly “treated James's letter as a proper motion and scheduled a hearing on the matter”). 2. Motion to withdraw plea is not required to be served on State