THI RD DI VI SI ON DOYLE, P. J. , HODGES and W

A TKI NS, JJ.

N O T IC E : M o tions for r e c ons i de r a tion m us t be phy s ic a lly r

e ce ived i n our c le r k ’s offic e w ithin te n da y s of the da te of de c is ion to be de e m ed tim e ly file d.

https ://w w w . ga a ppe a ls .us /r ule s Septem ber 19, 2024



# In t he C ourt o f A ppe a ls o f G e o r g ia

A 24A 0 7 9 3, A 24A 07 9 4. YOUN G v

. TH E STA TE (tw o c a ses).

D O Y L E , Presid ing J ud ge. A f ter entering a nego tiated gu ilty p lea to ro bbery, 1 Rav en A lexis Yo u ng ap p eals f ro m the trial c o u r t ’ s f

inal sentenc ing ord er and its o rd er d enying her mo tio n to

w ithd r aw her gu ilty p lea. 2 Yo u ng c o ntend s that (1 ) her gu ilty plea was no t en t e r e d k no w ingly, v o lu ntarily, and intelligently; ( 2) the trial c o u r t imp ro p erly p artic ip ated in

1 Yo ung w as ind ic t e d f

o r o ne c o u nt o f

armed ro bbery.

2 I n Case N o . A 24A 07 9 3, Yo u ng ap p eals fro m t he trial c o u rt’ s f inal sentenc ing o rd er. I n Case N o. A 24A 07 9 4, Yo u ng ap p eals f ro m t he trial c ou rt’ s o rd er d enying her mo tio n to w ithd raw her gu ilty p lea. B ec au se the same r ec o rd , e nu meratio ns o f erro r, and brief ing a p p ly to b oth cases, w e hav e c o nso lid ated the ap p eals f o r p u rp o s es o f this o p inio n.p lea nego tiatio ns; (3) her gu ilty p lea w as e ntered w itho u t a su f f ic ient f ac t ual basis; and (4) p lea c o u nsel rend ered i n e f fe cti v e a s s i s t anc e. Fo r t he reaso ns that f o llo w , w e af

f irm. The rec ord s ho w s that o n Oc to ber 5, 2020, Yo u ng an d h e r c o - def e nd a nt arriv ed
at a B u r ger K ing in Co bb Co u nty in a v e hic le belo nging t o Yo u ng’ s mo ther. The c o d ef end ant exited the vehic le and entered the B u rger K ing, w here he u s ed a f irearm to

ro b the w o rk ers, w hile Yo ung remained in the v ehic le. A f ter exiting the B urger K ing, the c o - d ef

end ant reentered the v ehic le, w hic h w a s d riv en aw ay by Yo u ng. Fo llo w ing their arrest, Yo u ng and h e r c o -d ef end ant w ere ind ic ted f

o r armed

ro bbery. On Oc to ber 1 1 , 2023, Yo u ng entered a nego tiated p lea to the r e d u ced c harge

o f ro b bery. I n exc hange f

o r p ostp o nement o f her s entenc ing, Yo u ng w aiv ed her right
to w ithd raw t he gu ilty plea. On Oc to ber 30, 2023, the trial c o u rt sentenc ed Yo u ng to ten years to serv e w ith three in c o nf inement and the remaind er o n p ro batio n. Yo u ng t imely f

iled a m o t io n to w ithd ra w h e r gu ilty p lea, w hic h she amend ed

o nc e. On N o v ember 8, 2023, the trial co u rt c o nv e ned a hearing o n t h e mo tio n, at

w hic h hearing Yo ung’ s mo ther and plea c o u nsel testif ied

. Yo u ng did no t testif

y at the hearing. On N o v ember 9 , 2023, the trial c o u rt denied Yo u ng’ s mo tio n t o w ith d r a w

2her gu ilty p lea b y w ritten o rd er. Yo u ng no w ap p eals the trial c o u rt’ s f inal sentenc ing

o rd er and its o rd er d e nying her mo tio n to w ithd rawher gu ilty p lea. 3
1
. Yo u ng argu es that t he t rial c o u rt ab u sed its d isc retio n by d enying her mo tio n
to w ithd raw her gu ilty p lea bec a u se the p lea w as no t entered v o lu ntarily, k no w ingly, and intelligently. Similarly, Yo u ng c o ntend s that she sho u ld hav e b e en a l lo w ed to

w ithd r aw her gu ilty p lea bec au se su c h withd raw al w as nec essary to c orrec t a manif est inj ustic e . W e d isagree.

A f ter sentenc ing, the d ec isio n o n a m o t io n t o w i thd raw a gu ilty p lea is w ithin t he trial c o u r t ’ s d i s c r e tio n, and withd raw al o f the p lea is allo w ed o nly when nec essary to c o rrec t a m anif est inj u stic e. The test f

o r manif est inj u stic e w ill by nec essity v ary f ro m c ase to c ase, bu t it has been said that w ithd raw al is nec essary to c o rrec t a manif est inj u s tic e if

, f o r instanc e, a d ef

e nd ant is d enied ef

f ec tiv e as s i s tanc e o f c o u nsel, o r the gu ilty p lea w a s entered inv o lu ntarily o r w itho u t an u nd erstand ing o f the natu r e o f the c harges.

. . . When a d ef

e nd ant c hallenges the v alid ity of [her] gu ilty p lea i n th i s
w ay, the [S]tate bears the bu rd en of sho w ing that the d ef end ant entered [ h e r ] p l e a k n o wi n g ly , intelligently, and v o lu ntarily. T he [S]tate may meet

3 Yo u ng d o es no t enu merate any erro rp artic u lar to the sentenc ing o rd er. 3its bu r den by sho wing on the rec o rd of the gu ilty plea hearing tha t the

d ef end ant u nd e rsto od th e r i g h t s b e i n g w a i v e d an d p o s s i ble c o nsequ enc es
o f t he p lea o r by po inting to extrinsic ev id enc e s ho w ing that t he p lea w as
v o l u ntary and k no wing. I n ev alu ating w hether a def end ant’ s p lea w as
v alid , the t rial c ou rt sho u ld c o nsid er all t he relev ant circ u mstanc e s
su rro u nd ing the p lea. 4

“ A dec isio n o n a mo tio n to w ithd raw a gu ilty p lea is a m atter f o r t he so u nd d isc retio n

o f the trial c o u rt and w ill no t be d istu rbed absent manif est abu se. ” 5 H ere, Yo u ng testif

ied a t the p lea hearing t hat she w a s entering a gu ilty p lea o f her o w n f ree w ill af

ter c o nsu lting w ith her atto r ney, w ith w ho se serv ic es s he w as satisf ied , and that no o ne had inf lu enc ed her to enter the plea. Pu r su ant to Bo yki n v . Ala ba ma , 6 Yo u ng exp ressly w aiv ed the right to trial by j ury, the p riv ilege against self

inc riminatio n, and the right to c o nf r o nt her ac c u sers, as w ell as other rights, bo t h in her signed p lea pap erw o rk and d u ring the p lea c o llo qu y . The rec o rd ref lec ts that

4 (Citatio ns and p u nc tu atio n o mitted .) Reeder v . Sta te , 349 Ga. A p p . 881 , 881

- 8 8 2 (827 SE2d 7 0 ) (201 9 ), qu oting Johnso n v . S ta te , 303 Ga. 704, 706

- 7 07 (2) ( 8 1 4 SE2d 6 88) (201 8), and Gi ddens v . S ta te , 349 G a. A p p . 39 2, 39 3 (1 ) (825 SE2d 824) (201 9 ).

5 (Pu nc tu atio n o mitted

. ) Gi d dens , 349 Ga. A p p . at 39 3 (1 ).

6 39 5 U. S. 238, 243 (89 SCt 1 709 , 23 LE2d 27 4) (1 9 6 9 ).
4Yo u ng w as f u lly aw are o f the charge against her and its po tential sentenc e. Thu s, the

ev id enc e su p p o rts t he trial c o u rt’ s f ind ing th at Yo u ng entered her plea v o lu ntarily, k no w ingly, and intelligently. Yo u ng’ s assertio n that the trial c ou rt m i s l e d h e r into think ing that she c o u ld

w ithd r aw her p lea bef

o r e sentenc ing is u nav a iling. A f ter plead ing gu ilty, bu t “ [b]ef o re [her] sentenc e is p ro no un c e d , a d ef end a nt has an abso lu te right to w ithd raw [her]
gu ilty p lea. ” 7 N ev e rtheless, “ a c riminal d ef end ant’ s right u nd er OCGA § 17

- 7

- 9 3 (b)

to w ithd raw his o r her gu ilty p lea at any time prio r to sentenc ing is a right that c an be

w aiv e d

. ” 8 H ere, as p art o f p lea nego tiatio ns, Yo u ng w aiv ed her right to w ithd raw her
gu ilty p lea p rio r to sentenc ing in exc hange f o r p o stp o nement o f her sentenc e. D u ring the p lea c o llo qu y, Yo u ng testif ied that she u nd ersto od that she w as waiv ing the right
to w ithd raw her p l e a p r i or to sentenc ing. A t t he hearing o n Yo u ng’ s mo tio n to

w ithd r aw her gu ilty p lea, p lea c o u ns el t e s t i f ied t hat she mad e a “ hu ge p o int” o f

7 Ma ha ffey v . S t a te , 308 Ga. 7 43, 7 45 (2) (843 SE2d 5 7 1 ) (2020), c iting OCGA § 1 7 -7

- 9 3 (b) (“ A t any t ime bef o re ju d gment is p ro no u nc ed , the ac c u sed p erso n may w ithd r awthe p lea o f

gu ilty and p lead no t gu ilty. ” ).

8 Bla ckwell v . S ta te , 29 9 Ga. 1 22, 1 23 (7 86 SE2d 6 6 9 ) (201 6 ).
5exp laining this “ v ery sp ec if ic ” w aiv er to Yo u ng and that c o u nsel “ d id no t sense any

c o nf u sio n abo ut that issu e. ” Yo u ng’ s assertio n that the trial c o u rt’ s p lea c o llo qu y misled her into b eliev ing that she c o u ld w ithd raw her gu ilty p lea “o nc e the trial c o u rt m a d e a d ec isio n w hether

o r no t the nego tiated p lea terms w o uld be ac c ep ted by the trial c ou rt” misstates the

rec o rd

. The trial c ou rt a d v ised Yo u ng that if the trial c ou rt rej ected t he nego tiated p lea agreement, Yo u ng w ou ld hav e t he right to withd raw her plea bef o re the s entenc e w as p ro no u nc ed

. B u t the trial c o u rt d i d n o t rej ec t the nego tiated plea agreement—it

ac c e p ted Yo u ng’ s p lea as nego tiated

. There is n o t h i n g in the rec o rd to su p p o rt Yo u ng’ s c laim t h a t s h e w as misled abo u t her right to w ithd raw her gu ilty p lea,
p artic u larly bec au se Yo u ng d id no t testif y a t the hearing o n her mo tio n to w ithd raw her gu ilty p lea. Ac c o r dingly, the trial c o u rt d id no t abu se its d isc retio n in d enying Yo u ng’ s mo t io n to w ithd rawher gu ilty p lea o n these gro u nd s. Yo u ng c o ntend s t hat sh e s h o u l d h av e been allo wed to w ithd raw her p lea to

c o rrec t a manif

e st inj u s tic e bec au se she “d id no t w ant to tak e a p lea” and has “co n s i s t e n tly , ” “ co n ti n u a l ly , and c atego ric ally d enied c o m mitti n g any cri m i n a l a ct s . ”

6Yo u ng c ites Unif orm Su p erio r Co u rt Ru le ( “ USCR” ) 33. 1 2 (A ) 9 in su pp ort o f her
argu ment. The rec o rd , ho wev er, d o es no t su p p o r t this c o ntentio n. A ltho u gh Yo u ng d enied inv o lv ement in the ro bbery at the time o f her arrest , she sp e c if ic ally testif

ied
at the p lea hearing that s he w as gu ilty as c harged and ac k no w led ged that t here w as a f ac tu al basis f

o r the entry of her p lea. “ [A ] trial c o urt’ s ac c ep tanc e o f a k no w ing and

v o lu ntary gu ilty p lea w ith a su f f ic ient fac t u al basis f

r om a d ef end ant w ho is u nw illing

o r u nable to ad mit [her] p artic ip atio n in the c rime d o es no t amo u nt to a manif est inj ustic e [. ]” 1 0 A c c o rd ingly, Yo u ng’ s argu ment d o es no t p resent a basis fo r rev ersal o f the trial c o u rt’ s o rd er. 2. Yo u n g a r g u es f

o r the f irst time o n ap p eal that the t rial c o u rt erred by
p artic ip ating in plea nego tiatio ns in v io latio n o f USCR 33. 5 (A ), w hic h p ro v id es that

a “ trial j u d ge s ho u ld no t p artic ip a te in p lea d isc u ss i o ns. ” Sp ec if ic ally, Yo u ng

c o ntend s that the trial c o urt’ s statement a t her plea hearing t hat it had read the State’ s

9 USCR 33. 1 2 (A ) p ro v id es that “ [a]f ter sentenc e is p ro no u nc ed , the j u d g e sho u ld allo w t he d ef

end ant to w ithd raw [her] plea of gu ilty o r no lo c o n t end ere w henev er the d ef

e n d an t , u p o n a timely mo tio n f o r withd raw al, p ro v es that withd raw al is nec essary to c orrec t a manif e st inj u stic e. ”

1 0 (Pu nc tu atio n o mitted

. ) Berri en v . S ta te , 300 Ga. 489 , 49 2 (3) ( 7 9 6 SE2d 7 1 8) (201 7 ).
7OCGA § 24- 4- 404 (b) (“ Ru le 404 (b)” ) no tic e relating to ano ther o u tstand ing c ase

c reates t h e i n f

e r enc e that the trial c o u rt w as engaged in p retrial nego tiatio ns in

v io latio n o f USCR 33. 5 (A ) and c a lls into qu e s t i o n t h e trial c o u rt’ s imp artiality. Yo u ng’ s c o ntentio ns are w itho u t merit. The State’ s R ule 404 (b) no t ic e w a s amo n g t h e m a t ters to b e tak en u p at a p resc hed u led mo tio ns c alend ar. B u t bec au se Yo u ng and the State nego tiated a p lea, the mo tio ns calend ar bec a me a p lea hearing. I n p rep aratio n f o r the c alend ar, ho w ev er, the trial co u r t h a d r e a d the State’ s Ru le 404 (b) no tic e. At the p lea hearing, p lea

c o u n s e l r e m i n d e d t he trial c o u rt that Yo u ng had ano ther pend ing c riminal matter. The trial c o u rt inqu ired whether this w as the c ase ref e renc ed in t he State’ s 404 (b) no tic e, and p lea c o u nsel c o nf

irmed that it w as: COUN SEL: She has — there’ s — a s the [ c ] o u r t m ay k no w , there w as
a c ase in Fu lto n Co unty to o w here she’ s c harged

. COURT: Ok ay. J ust bec au se I assu med , so w hen yo u say there’ s [sic ] in Fu lto n, I ’ v e read the 404 (b). I s it that c ase? COUN SEL: Yes. Yo u ng d id no t o bj ec t to this exc hange at any p o int d u ring the p ro ceed ings belo w .

8“ G enerally, to p r e s e r v e ap p ellate rev iew o f a c laimed erro r, there mu st be a

c o ntemp oraneo us o bj ec tio n mad e o n the rec o rd a t the earliest p o ssible time. Otherw ise, the issu e is d eemed w aiv ed o n ap p eal. ” 1 1 “ B e c au se t h er e w as no

c o ntemp oraneo us o bj ec t io n, this c o ntentio n is su bj ec t o nly to p lain erro r rev iew

. ” 1 2 Yo u ng c o nc e d e s t h i s in her rep ly brief

. Und er p lain erro r rev iew , w e ap p ly the f o llo w ing analysis: First, there mu st be an erro r o r d ef ec t — so me so rt o f

d ev iatio n f

ro m a legal ru le — that has no t been intentio nally relinqu ished o r aband o ned , i. e. , a f f irmativ ely waiv ed , by the a p p ellant. Sec o nd , the legal erro r mu st be c lear o r o bv io u s, rather than s u bj ec t to reaso nable d isp u te. Third , the
erro r m u st hav e af

f ec ted the ap pellant’ s s u bstantial rights, w hic h in the
o rd inary c a se means [s]he mu st d e mo nstrate that it af f ec ted the o u tc o m e
o f the trial c o urt p ro c eed ings. Fo u rth a nd finally, if the abo v e three p ro ngs are satisf

ied , the ap p ellate c o urt has the d isc retio n to remed y the
erro r — disc retio n w hic h o u ght to be e xerc ised o nly if t he e rro r serio u sly

1 1 (Pu nc t u atio n o mitted

. ) Ben to n v. Sta te , 300 Ga. 202, 205 (2) (7 9 4 SE2d 9 7 ) (201 6 ), qu o ting S

pi ckler v. S ta te , 27 6 Ga. 1 6 4, 1 6 6 -1 67 (5) (57 5 SE2d 482) (2003).

1 2 Alb ri ght v . S t a te , 354 Ga. A p p . 538, 546 (2) (841 SE2d 1 7 1 ) (2020).

9af

f ec ts the f

airness, integrity[,] o r p u blic r ep u tatio n o f j u d ic ial p ro c eed ings. 1 3 [T]he hu rd le to e st a b l i s hing p lain erro r is high, and

. . . the f ailu re to sp ec if

ic a lly artic u late ho w the a lleged erro r satisf ies this high stand ard inc r eases t he lik eliho o d that .

. . c laims in this regard w ill be rej ec t e d .” 1 4 W e d isc ern no erro r or b ias in the trial c o u rt hav ing read a plea d i n g p ro p erly f i l e d i n the c ase and stating a s mu c h o n the r ec ord

. Yo u ng do es no t e xp lai n h o w a
state m ent mad e af

ter plea nego tiatio ns had c o nc lu d ed imp ro p erly af f ec ted tho se

n e g otiatio ns, a nd w e w ill no t assu me erro r. Yo u ng c ites no a u tho rity f o r t h e p ro p ositio n t hat su c h c o nd u c t v i o l a t e s USCR 33. 5 ( A ) o r ind ic ates bias. “A n erro r

c anno t be p lain w here there is no c o ntro lling au tho rity o n p o int. ” 1 5 Yo u ng has no t

1 3 (Citatio n, p u nc tu atio n, and emp hasis o mitted

. ) S ta t e v . K elly , 29 0 Ga. 29 , 33 (1 ) (7 1 8 SE2d 232) (201 1 )

1 4 (Pu nc tu atio n o mitted

. ) Alb ri ght , 354 G a. Ap p . a t 546

- 547 (2), qu o ting Kelly , 29 0 Ga. at 32 (1 ) n. 2.

1 5 (Pu nc tu atio n omitted

. ) S ta te v . Herrera

-Bus ta ma n te , 304 Ga. 259 , 26 4 (2) (b) (81 8 SE2d 552) (201 8).
10sho w n e rro r, mu c h less erro r that is “ c lear and no t o p e n to reaso nable d isp u te. ” 1 6

A c c o rd ingly, Yo u ng’ s c o ntentio n here d o es no t su rv iv e p lain erro r rev iew

. Yo u ng also co ntend s that p lea c o u nsel’ s ad v ic e that the t rial co u rt w as u nlik ely
to ac cep t a p r o b a ted sentenc e led her to believ e that s he w as nego tiating w ith the trial

c o u rt. W hile p lea c o u nsel testif ied at the hearing o n Yo u ng’ s mo tio n to w ithd raw her
gu ilty p lea that she a d v ised Yo u ng that she w as u nsu re w hether the trial c o u rt w o u ld

ac c e p t a sentenc e o f p ro batio n o nly , there is no thing imp ro p er abo u t this ad v ic e. N o r

w o u ld it hav e b een erro r f o r the trial c o u r t to hav e stated s u c h an inc linatio n. USCR
3 3
. 5 ( B) e xp ressly allo w s a trial c o u rt to ind ic ate w hether it is lik ely t o a gree to t h e p ro p osed terms o f

a nego tiated p lea. 1 7 A cc o rd ingly, this argu ment is w itho ut merit.

1 6 (Pu nc t u atio n o mitted

. ) I d

.
1 7 USCR 33. 5 (B ) p ro vid es that “ [ i]f a t e n t a tiv e p lea agreement has been reac hed , up o n requ e st o f the parties, the trial j u d ge may p ermit the p arties to d isc lo se the tentativ e agreement and t he reaso ns t heref o r in a d v anc e of the tim e f o r the tend ering o f t h e p l ea . The j u d ge may then ind ic a te to the p ro sec u ting atto rney and d ef ense c o u nsel w hether the j ud ge w ill lik ely co nc u r in the p ro p o sed d isp ositio n if the inf o rmatio n d ev elo p ed in the p lea hearing o r p resented in t h e p resentenc e rep o rt is c o nsistent w ith t he rep resentatio ns mad e by the p arties. ” See also Bo cci a v. S ta te , 335 Ga. A p p. 6 87 , 6 97 (4) (7 82 SE2d 7 92) (201 6 ) (“ A trial c o u rt is no t a u t ho riz ed to p artic ip ate in p lea nego tiatio ns exc ep t to the extent o f ind ic ating w hether the c o u rt is o r is no t lik ely to agree w ith the p ro po sed d isp o sitio n. ”) (p u nc tu atio n o mitted ).
113. Yo u ng next ar g u e s t hat the trial c o u rt erred by ac c ep ting her gu ilty p lea

w i t h o u t a su f

f ic ient f ac tu al basis in v io latio n o f USCR 33. 9
. 1 8 T his co ntentio n f ails. The t rial c o u rt p ro p erly f

o u nd that there was a f

ac tu al basis f

o r Yo u ng’ s gu ilty p lea at the p lea hearing. The trial c o u rt reiterated this f i n d i ng at the hearing on Yo u ng’ s

mo tio n to w ithd r awher gu ilty p lea: COURT: I a sk e d yo u a qu estio n. I said , d o esn’ t the transc rip t o f the p lea ref lec t the f ac tu a l basis? COUN SEL: I t d o es ref

lec t the f ac tu al basis, J u d ge.

. . . COURT: The f

ac tu al basis w as that she w as the getaw ay d riv e r. Yo u ng t estif

ied at the p lea hearing that she was gu ilty o f ro bbery and ac k no w led ged the f ac tu a l b a s is su p p o rting entry o f the p lea. Und er these c irc umstanc e s , w e d isc ern

no v io latio n o f

USCR 33. 9
. 4. Finally, Yo u ng c o ntend s that she rec eiv ed inef f ec tiv e assistanc e o f c o u nsel in co nnec tio n w ith her gu ilty p lea in s ev e ral resp ec ts. To p rev a i l o n c laims o f inef f ec tiv e assistanc e of c o u nsel, Yo u ng mu st sho w t h a t h e r c o u nsel’ s perf ormanc e

1 8 USCR 33. 9 pro v id es that “ [n]o tw ithstand ing the ac c ep tanc e o f a p lea o f gu ilty, the j u d gment sho u ld no t be entered u p on su c h p lea w itho u t su c h inqu iry o n the rec o rd as may satisf

y the j u d ge that there is a f ac tu al basis f

o rthe p lea. ”
12“ was p ro f

essio nally d ef

ic ient and that, bu t f

o r t he d ef ic ienc y, there is a r easo nable
p ro bability that [s]he w o u ld no t hav e p led gu ilty and wo u ld hav e insisted o n go ing to trial. ” 1 9 “ ‘ A reaso nable p ro b ab ility is a p ro bability s u f f ic ient to u nd ermine c o nf

id enc e in the o u tc o me. T hat requ ires a su bstantial, no t j u st c o nc eiv able, lik eliho o d o f a d if f erent resu lt. ’ ” 2 0 Yo u ng has no t met this bu rd en. (a) Yo u ng asserts that p lea c o unsel w as d ef ic ient by f ailing to o btain and rev iew d isc ov ery w ith her. Co ntrary t o Yo u ng’ s assertio ns, the rec o rd r e f l e c ts that p lea

c o u nsel f iled c o m p rehensiv e d isc o v ery mo tio ns and rec e iv ed d i sc o v ery in this c ase. Plea c o u nsel testif

ied at the hearing o n Yo u ng’ s m o t io n to w ithd r aw her gu ilty p lea that she met w ith Yo u ng at her o f f i c e a n d rev iew ed all d isc o v ery w ith her. The trial

c o u rt f o und that plea co u nsel w as c red ible in her testimo ny a nd that Yo u ng’ s

1 9 (Citatio ns o mitted

. ) Berri en , 300 Ga. at 49 1 ( 2). See a lso Hi ll v . Lo ckha rt

, 47 4 U. S. 52, 57

- 5 9 (1 06 SCt 36 6 , 88 LE2d 203) (1 9 85).

2 0 (Citatio n o m itted

. ) Tho rn ell v . Jo n es ,

___ U. S.

___ ,

___ (I I) (1 44 SCt 1 302, 1 31 0, 21 8 LE2d 6 26 ) (2024).
13allegatio n that p lea c ou nsel had f a i led to p r o vid e d isc o v ery w as unsu bstantiated

. 2 1 B a sed on this rec ord , the trial c o u rt pro p erly d enied Yo u ng’ s mo tio n in this resp ec t. (b) Yo ung also argu e s that p lea c o u nsel w as d ef ic ient f o r f ailing to p u rsu e a

mo tio n to su p p ress her sta t e m e n ts. W e disagree. A mo tio n to su p p ress Yo u ng’ s
statements w as amo ng the mo tio ns p lea c o u nsel had f iled in this c ase. A t t he hearing

o n Yo u ng’ s mo tio n to w ithd raw her p lea, p lea c o u nsel t e s tif ied t hat she had been
p rep a red to go f

o rw ard w ith t h e m o tio n to s u p p ress hearing. N ev e rtheless, p lea

c o u nsel testif

ied that the mo tio n to su p press did no t p ro c eed b ec a u se Yo u ng m ad e the d ec isio n to enter a gu ilty p lea, and that had Yo u ng no t w ished to enter a p lea, c o u nsel

w o u ld hav e go ne fo rw ard w ith the mo tio n to s u p p ress. “ [T]he d e c isio n w hether o r

no t to p lead gu ilty belo ngs to the ac c u sed , no t his o r her atto rney. ” 2 2 Yo u ng’ s d ec isio n
to enter a p lea o bv iated the need to ho l d t h e m o tio n to su p p ress hearing, and this d ec isio n c anno t be attribu ted to p lea c o u nsel. A d d itio nally, the t rial co u rt f o u nd that
p lea c ou nsel w a s reaso nable in her assessment that Yo u ng was unlik ely to p rev ail o n

2 1 See, e . g. , Glo ver v . S ta te , 300 Ga. 88, 90 (2) (7 9 3 SE2d 408) ( 201 6 ) (“ A s the trier of f ac t, the trial c o u rt w as entitled to j u d ge the c red ibility o f the w itnesses

. . . . ” ). See also Berri

en , 300 Ga at 49 2 (2).

2 2 (Citatio n o mitted

. ) C

a mmer v . W

a lker, 29 0 Ga. 251 , 254 (1 ) (7 1 9 SE2d 437 ) (201 1 )

. 14the mo tio n to su p press 2 3 and that Yo u ng f ailed to mak e the r equ isite sho w ing that the

mo tio n to su p p ress w ou ld hav e s u c c eed ed

. 2 4 At the hearing o n the mo tio n to w ithd raw her gu ilty p lea, Yo u ng f

ailed to s u p p o r t her argu m ent w ith ev id enc e — she d id no t c all the interv iew ing o f

f ic er to testif

y, no r d id s he tend er a rec o rd ing o f her interv iew w ith law enf o rc ement into ev id enc e. Thu s, the trial c o u rt’ s d e terminatio n that p lea

c o u nsel’ s p erf

o rmanc e w as no t d ef

ic ient in this regard is su p p o rted by the rec o rd

. 2 5 (c ) Yo u ng asserts that p lea c o u nsel w a s def ic ient f o r f ailing to ad v ise Yo u ng o f all p ossible d ef

enses, inc lu d ing alibi, and fo r f ailing to ad v ise her that statements giv en in vio latio n o f Mi

ra nda v . Ari

z o n a 2 6 c o u ld no t be u sed against her. Bu t Yo u ng d id no t

2 3 See W ha tley v . S ta te , 342 Ga. A p p . 7 96 , 806 (3) (d ) (805 SE2d 59 9 ) (201 7 ) (“ [ T]rial c o u nsel’ s p erf

ormanc e c a nno t be d e emed d ef ic ient based u p o n her f

ailu re to raise a m e ri t less o bj ec tio n to the a d missio n of the Ap p ellant’ s c u sto d ial statements. ” ).

2 4 See Mu rra

y v . S ta te , 306 Ga. A p p. 1 06 , 107 (7 01 SE2d 5 7 9 ) (201 0) (“ [W ]here the inef f ec tiv eness c laim u nd erlying the m o t io n t o w ithd raw the p lea is based o n c o u nsel’ s f

ailu re to f

ile a mo tio n to s u p p r e ss , t h e d ef end ant mu st mak e a stro ng sho w ing that the d amaging ev id enc e w o uld hav e been su p p ressed had c o u nsel mad e the mo t io n. ” )

.

2 5 A ltho ugh no t p art o f the rec o rd bef o re the trial c o u r t, the a p p ellate rec o r d ref lec t s t hat Yo u ng d id rec eiv e Mi ra n da w arnings p rio r to her c u sto d ial interro gatio n in this c ase , a f

ac t t hat Yo u ng’ s p o st- c o nv ic tio n c o u nsel ac k no w led ged at t he hearing o n Yo u ng’ s mo tio n to w ithd rawher gu ilty p lea.

2 6 384 U. S. 436 (86 SCt 1 6 02, 1 6 LE2d 6 9 4) (1 9 6 6 ).
15raise these c laims in the p ro c eed ings belo w , and the trial c o urt d id no t ru le o n these

gro und s. “ [T]heref

o re, these issu es are no t p reserv ed f or ap p ellate rev iew by this Co u rt. ” 2 7 A c c o rd ingly, w e af

f irm the trial c o u rt’ s d enial o f Yo u ng’ s mo tio n to w ithd raw her gu ilty p lea. Ju dgmen ts affi

rmed. Ho dges a n d W

a tki ns, JJ. , co n cu r.

2 7 Vi vi a n v . Sta te , 31 2 Ga. 26 8, 27 4 (2) (b) (86 2 SE2d 1 38) (2021 ).
16