Court Opinion

ID: 9852680
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 05:34:50.847338+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:22:32.008247
License: Public Domain

Pope, Judge,
concurring specially.
I agree with all that is said by the majority in this case including the majority’s conclusion that the case should be remanded so that a hearing can be held on defendant’s ineffectiveness of counsel claim. However, I write separately in order to enunciate specifically my disagreement with the dissent and also to urge that the case of Thompson v. State, 204 Ga. App. 220 (419 SE2d 541) (1992), as more particularly set out below, should be disapproved. I would also urge an alternative to the circuitous appeal resulting from the decision in Thompson.
The dissent holds that the only procedural avenue available to a defendant to contest the validity of a guilty plea after the term of court in which the plea was entered has expired is a habeas corpus proceeding. That holding, however, overlooks the fact that the Georgia appellate courts have recognized the procedure of allowing a defendant to challenge his guilty plea via an out-of-time (and out-of-*45term) appeal. See, e.g., Hunter v. State, 260 Ga. 762 (399 SE2d 921) (1991) Moreover, “[t]he State of Georgia recognizes the right to effective assistance of counsel at trial and on first appeal as of right ‘and has provided for ameliorative relief in the form of an out-of-time appeal.’ Cannon v. State, 175 Ga. App. 741 (334 SE2d 342) [(1985)].” Brantley v. State, 190 Ga. App. 642, 643 (1) (379 SE2d 627) (1989). In Hunter v. State, supra, the defendant had entered a guilty plea to murder and other offenses in 1974. In 1990, he filed a “Motion for Out-of-Time Appeal.” In reaching the result in Hunter, the Georgia Supreme Court expressly recognized that “[a]n out of time appeal occasionally is appropriate where, due to ineffective assistance of counsel, no appeal has been taken. (Cit.)” Hunter, 260 Ga. at 762. However, the court went on to hold that the defendant in that case was not entitled to an out-of-time appeal on this basis because his ineffective assistance claims had been decided adversely to him in a previous habeas proceeding. Id. However, the court did not intimate that defendant could raise his claims only in habeas proceedings, only that that issue had already been decided in that case.1 See also Holbrook v. State, 171 Ga. App. 449 (320 SE2d 637) (1984) (upholding the trial court’s denial of defendant’s request for out-of-time appeal, made approximately three years after the entry of his guilty plea, because defendant did not claim substantive or technical ineffectiveness).
The dissent, however, correctly notes that the procedure recognized in Thompson v. State, 204 Ga. App. 220, supra, sanctions circuitous appeals in cases in which motions for out-of-time appeals are granted.2 Although the procedure adopted in Ponder v. State, 260 Ga. 840, 841 (400 SE2d 922) (1991) is not strictly applicable to the situation in the case at bar, inasmuch as a motion for new trial is not a proper vehicle to challenge a guilty plea, I believe the spirit of Ponder should be followed and a defendant should be allowed to raise the issue of trial counsel’s ineffectiveness in the trial court within 30 days following the grant of his motion for out-of-time appeal, and to request an evidentiary hearing on that issue. If the trial court rules adversely to defendant he should then be allowed, within 30 days, to file his out-of-time appeal to the appropriate appellate court. The use of *46this procedure in a case involving an out-of-time appeal challenging a guilty plea will serve the same two purposes that it did in Ponder in the post-conviction context, in that it “will settle the question of when a person pursuing an out-of-time appeal must present the issue of ineffective assistance of counsel to the trial court and will meet the goal expressed in Lloyd v. State, 258 Ga. 645, fn. 1 (373 SE2d 1) (1988), that such claims be promptly resolved by the judge who presided over the trial as opposed to having it resolved by a habeas (corpus) court somewhere down the road.” Ponder, 260 Ga. at 842 (1). Furthermore, it solves the dilemma of how to avoid circuitous appeals on this issue, since if the defendant does not promptly raise the issue of counsel’s effectiveness during the 30-day period after his motion for an out-of-time appeal is granted, he will be deemed to have waived that issue on appeal.
As in Ponder, the defendant in this case raised the issue of ineffective assistance of counsel, albeit unartfully and incompletely, in pleadings filed with the trial court before his notice of out-of-time appeal was filed. Consequently, this case should be remanded to the trial court so that a hearing can be held on defendant’s claims concerning his counsel’s effectiveness.

 I agree that the only avenue available to a defendant who has been denied the right to file an out-of-time appeal by the trial court (and that denial has been affirmed by the appellate courts) is a habeas proceeding.

 I also agree with the dissent’s observation that Thompson appears to be inconsistent to the extent that it holds, in Division 1, that the plea is valid but then goes on, in Division 2, to remand the case to the trial court so that a hearing can be held on defendant’s ineffectiveness claim. Consequently, I would disapprove of the holding in Thompson, to the extent that it suggests that a determination on the validity of the plea can be made prior to the determination of whether the plea was entered with effective assistance of counsel, when such issue is properly raised by the defendant.