Title: Hicks v. State
Citation: 642 S.E.2d 31
Docket Number: S07A0224
State: Georgia
Issuer: Georgia Supreme Court
Date: February 5, 2007

642 S.E.2d 31 (2007) HICKS v. The STATE. No. S07A0224. Supreme Court of Georgia. February 5, 2007. Reconsideration Denied March 27, 2007. Jermarco Hicks, Oglethorpe, pro se. Gwendolyn Keyes Fleming, Dist. Atty., Daniel James Quinn, Asst. Dist. Atty., for Appellee. CARLEY, Justice. In 1992, Jermarco Hicks pled guilty to charges of murder and armed robbery. He was represented by counsel at the hearing where the pleas were tendered and accepted. Hicks did not appeal from the judgments of conviction and sentences entered on the pleas. In 2004, however, he did file a pro se "Motion for Void Judgment," which was, in essence, a motion to withdraw his guilty pleas. The trial court dismissed the motion because it was untimely, and this Court affirmed. Hicks v. State, 279 Ga. 303, 612 S.E.2d 801 (2005). *33 During the pendency of that appeal, Hicks filed a pro se motion for an out-of-time appeal from the judgments of conviction and sentences entered on his 1992 guilty pleas. The trial court denied that motion on October 6, 2005. Hicks attempted to appeal, but the clerk of the trial court returned the notice of appeal and his request to proceed in forma pauperis. Hicks then filed a pro se motion seeking an out-of-time appeal from the October 6, 2005 order. After conducting a hearing, the trial court granted the motion, finding that Hicks had made a timely attempt to appeal the order, but that his effort had been frustrated by errors committed by its clerk's office. Accordingly, Hicks now appeals pro se from the October 6, 2005 order which denied his motion for an out-of-time appeal from the judgments of conviction and sentences entered on his guilty pleas. Grantham v. State, 267 Ga. 635, 481 S.E.2d 219 (1997). Smith v. State, 266 Ga. 687, 470 S.E.2d 436 (1996). "With a few limited exceptions . . ., a plea of guilty generally waives all defenses except that based on the knowing and voluntary nature of the plea. [Cit.]" Edmond v. State, 214 Ga.App. 707, 708(1), 448 S.E.2d 775 (1994). King v. State, 270 Ga. 367, 369(1), 509 S.E.2d 32 (1998). Here, the trial court reviewed the transcript of Hicks' guilty plea hearing and found that it did not show any meritorious ground for a direct appeal. Our review of the transcript confirms that assessment. The transcript shows that Hicks acknowledged that he was aware that his plea would result in a waiver of his rights to a jury trial, against self-incrimination and to confront the witnesses against him. Green v. State, 265 Ga. 263(1), 454 S.E.2d 466 (1995). It also demonstrates that he was apprised of the consequences of his plea, and that he expressed his understanding of those consequences. Green v. State, supra. A factual basis for the plea was established on the record, when "the prosecutor stat[ed] what he expected the evidence to show at trial." State v. Evans, 265 Ga. 332, 335(2), 454 S.E.2d 468 (1995). Hicks affirmed that his attorney had explained the charges to him. See Henderson v. Morgan, 426 U.S. 637, 647(II), 96 S. Ct. 2253, 49 L. Ed. 2d 108 (1976). Compare Breland v. Smith, 247 Ga. 690, 692(2), 279 S.E.2d 204 (1981). Contrary to Hicks' contentions, the indictment was sufficient to charge him with the crime of malice murder, and was not fatally defective and void. Compare Smith v. Hardrick, 266 Ga. 54, 56(3), 464 S.E.2d 198 (1995). Under these circumstances, Brown v. State, 241 Ga.App. 359, 360-361, 526 S.E.2d 873 (1999). See also Bowers v. State, 267 Ga.App. 260(1), 599 S.E.2d 249 (2004). Therefore, the trial court did not err in denying Hick's motion for an out-of-time appeal. Judgment affirmed. All the Justices concur, except HUNSTEIN, P.J., who is disqualified.