Dos Santos v. State, 307 Ga. 151

Tia Marie Dos Santos was indicted in Clayton County and, while represented by retained plea counsel, entered Alford guilty pleas and was sentenced on April 16, 2018; the final judgment was filed that day.
On April 24 (during the same term), Dos Santos filed a pro se motion to withdraw her guilty pleas alleging coercion and ineffective assistance by plea counsel.
Plea counsel did not request withdrawal until after the term ended; the trial court later held an evidentiary hearing and denied the pro se motion on the merits (Dec. 31, 2018).
Dos Santos appealed; the Georgia Supreme Court held her pro se motion was a legal nullity because she was represented when it was filed and plea counsel had not properly withdrawn.
The Court vacated the trial court’s merits ruling and remanded with directions to dismiss the pro se motion as inoperative, and clarified that appeals from properly dismissed nullity filings should themselves be dismissed (not affirmed).
The opinion reiterates and expands White v. State: counsel’s representation continues at least through the end of the term (or until the court permits withdrawal or proper substitution), imposing post-plea duties on defense counsel and suggesting practical steps (e.g., timely placeholder motions) to protect clients.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Validity of pro se motion filed during same term while represented	Dos Santos argued she had the right to withdraw her plea and filed timely within the term	State argued pro se filing was unauthorized because Dos Santos was represented and counsel had not been permitted to withdraw	Motion was a legal nullity and should have been dismissed (not adjudicated on merits)
Trial court’s disposition of the motion	Denial on the merits after evidentiary hearing was appropriate	Court should have dismissed the inoperative pleading without reaching merits	Trial court erred; judgment vacated and remanded to dismiss the motion
Proper disposition of appeals from rulings on inoperative filings	(Implicit) appellant sought appellate review of merits ruling	State urged dismissal of appeals from nullity filings	Court clarified future appeals from proper dismissals of legal nullities must be dismissed (not affirmed)
Scope of counsel’s post-plea duties	Dos Santos suggested plea counsel abandoned her after plea	State and precedent: counsel’s representation continues until court permits withdrawal or substitution; counsel must advise re: post-conviction remedies	Counsel must continue representation at least through end of term (or applicable post-judgment period); attorneys should protect client interests (e.g., file placeholder motions if needed)

White v. State, 302 Ga. 315 (reaffirming that counsel’s representation continues through the term; pro se filings by represented defendants are nullities)
Schoicket v. State, 304 Ga. 255 (holding certain post-conviction filings are nullities and appeals should be dismissed)
Henderson v. State, 303 Ga. 241 (same principle: inoperative post-conviction filings should be dismissed)
Williams v. State, 287 Ga. 192 (pro se motions filed while represented are unauthorized)
Brooks v. State, 301 Ga. 748 (timing rule: motion to withdraw plea must be filed in same term)
Ringold v. State, 304 Ga. 875 (counsel’s duty to consult about appeals; recognition of out-of-time appeal remedies)
Collier v. State, 305 Ga. 276 (discussing right to direct appeal from guilty plea and counsel duties)
Flores-Ortega v. United States, 528 U.S. 470 (counsel’s duty to consult about appeals; reasonableness inquiry)
Garza v. Idaho, 139 S. Ct. 738 (counsel may have duty to consult about appeals even where appeal waiver exists)
Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45 (noting importance of counsel’s guiding hand at critical post-trial points)
North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (establishing Alford plea doctrine)