☢ test - Í

the defendant's motion for appointment of new counsel. An assertion of ineffectiveness is sufficient to invoke a ruling by the trial court, which ruling should be made after hearing from counsel. Thus, when the effectiveness of counsel is challenged, the Sixth Amendment requires more than a perfunctory, surface inquiry to determine the truth and scope of the allegations.’ Id. at 544-545(1), 327 S.E.2d 767 (citation and punctuation omitted). But Ware disregards Heard's further instruction that a trial court's error in refusing to conduct a hearing ‘can be cured by a post-trial hearing before the judge in the trial court. If on the basis of evidence introduced at such hearing the trial judge concludes that appellant was afforded ineffective assistance of counsel, it must order a new trial.’” Post-trial hearing here established no entitlement to other counsel and no ineffective assistance of counsel. Carleton v. State, 302 Ga.App. 29, 690 S.E.2d 426 (January 13, 2010). “‘A defendant who seeks to appeal a guilty plea on the ground of ineffective assistance of counsel must develop those issues in a post-plea hearing and may not file a direct appeal if the only evidence in the record is the transcript of the guilty plea hearing. The proper remedy is to move to withdraw the plea or, if the term of court in which the plea was entered has expired, to petition for a writ of habeas corpus.’ (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Duffey v. State, 289 Ga.App. 141, 142(2) (656 S.E.2d 167) (2007). Carleton having failed to move to withdraw his guilty plea before the term of court expired, he may not obtain a hearing on remand and must petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Id.” Gravitt v. State, 301 Ga.App. 131, 687 S.E.2d 150 (November 18, 2009). Defendant’s convictions for DUI and serious injury by vehicle reversed based on ineffective assistance of counsel. On motion for new trial, defendant presented testimony of other passengers in his vehicle, who stated “that Gravitt did not appear to be under the influence of drugs or alcohol, that he did not ingest drugs or alcohol in his presence, that Gravitt's driving did not worry him, and that Gravitt pulled on the shoulder because the vehicle in front of them ‘slammed on brakes’ and that was the only way to avoid an accident.” The witnesses backed up defendant’s assertion that they left the scene because they were not aware an accident had taken place. Trial court found that failure to present the witnesses was deficient, but not harmful as a jury would not have found the witnesses credible; Court of Appeals reverses: “[a]lthough a trial court properly judges the credibility of witnesses who testify at a motion for new trial hearing regarding disputed issues, for example relating to how the trial was conducted or between a defendant and his trial counsel, see Mobley v. State, 264 Ga. 854, 856(2) (452 S.E.2d 500) (1995), here the trial court judged the credibility of the witnesses had they testified at trial, and that is ‘solely a matter to be resolved by the jury.’ Hawkins v. State, 254 Ga.App. 868, 869 (563 S.E.2d 926) (2002). ‘It is the jury's prerogative to choose what evidence to believe and what to reject.’ Trammell v. State, 253 Ga.App. 725, 726(1) (560 S.E.2d 312) (2002).” Sims v. State, 296 Ga.App. 368, 674 S.E.2d 392 (March 2, 2009). Defendant’s pro se notice to court that he wanted to raise the issue of ineffectiveness of trial counsel was sufficient to preserve the right to do so, even though appellate counsel failed and refused to raise the issue in motion for new trial. After his conviction for child molestation, defendant retained appellate counsel, who filed motion for new trial but didn’t raise ineffectiveness of trial counsel. While the motion for new trial was pending, defendant filed a pro se notice “explains that a conflict arose with appellate counsel because he would not raise the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel in Sims's motion for a new trial and that Sims seeks to preserve his right to ‘pursue claims of trial counsel's ineffectiveness on appeal[, pursuant to Glover v. State, 266 Ga. 183, 183-185(2) (465 S.E.2d 659) (1996)] [a]nd the right to be represented by court appointed appellate counsel on said first level of appeal.’” The trial court denied the motion for new trial without acting on defendant’s pro se notice; new retained appellate counsel raises the issue of ineffectiveness of trial counsel for the first time on appeal. “Under the circumstances, we do not agree with the state that Sims has waived the claim. Because Sims alerted the trial court to his claim of ineffective assistance before a ruling on the motion for new trial, and because appellate counsel, who was retained after the filing of the notice of appeal, raised the issue at the earliest practicable moment, we remand this case to the trial court for a hearing on the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.” Disapproved on other grounds, State v. Gardner , 286 Ga. 633, 690 S.E.2d 164 (February 1, 2010). Hills v. State, 296 Ga.App. 101, 673 S.E.2d 614 (February 13, 2009). Denial of defendant’s motion to withdraw guilty plea, based on alleged ineffectiveness of post-conviction counsel, reversed; defendant was entitled to evidentiary hearing on post-conviction counsel’s ineffectiveness. Love v. State, 293 Ga.App. 499, 667 S.E.2d 656 (September 4, 2008). Appellate counsel, employed by same public defender’s office as trial counsel, couldn’t raise effectiveness of trial counsel on motion for new trial; but same appellate counsel, no longer employed by public defender’s office, could timely raise issue on appeal.