Williаm Russell Ethridge pled guilty to one count of child molestation. He now appeals, pro sе, from the denial of his motion for an out-of-time appeal, arguing ineffective assistance of counsel and the trial court’s failure to inform him of the right to withdraw his guilty plea. Discerning no error, we affirm.
When a defendant pleads guilty and then seeks an out-of-time appeal from that plea, he must establish, by facts appearing in the record, including the transcript, that “hе actually had a
right
to file a timely direct appeal which was frustrated by the ineffective assistance of his counsel.” (Emphasis in original.)
Smith v. State,
must make the threshold showing that he would have been entitled to file a timely direct appeal from the plea because the issues he is raising can be decided from facts appearing in the record. [Smith, supra,266 Ga. App. at 687 .] If the defendant makes that showing, he must then show that he did not timely file a direct appeal because he reсeived ineffective assistance of counsel. [Grantham v. State,267 Ga. 635 (481 SE2d 219 ) (1997).]
Brown v. State,
1. Ethridge contends that his right to file a timely direct appeal was frustrated by the ineffective assistance of counsel, arguing that trial counsel failed to object to a probation officer’s testimony insofar as it indicatеd that he would not be required to register as a sex offender if he were sentenced under the First Offender Act (see OCGA § 42-8-60), andfailedto advise him of his right to appeal. We disagree.
(a) Finding that Ethridge has raised an issue that maybe decided upon facts appearing in the record with respect to the testimony of the probation officer, we analyze trial counsel’s fаilure to object thereto for ineffectiveness.
Ethridge entered his guilty plea in November 2003. At that time, the statute governing sexually violent predators, former OCGA
*290
§ 42-1-12 (a) (3), did not require that defendants afforded treatment as first offenders register as sex offenders. See Ga. L. 2002, p. 1400, § 1;
Evors v. State,
A defendant who is discharged without adjudication of guilt and who is not considered to have a criminal conviction pursuant to the First Offender Act shall be subject to the registratiоn requirements of this Code section for the period of time prior to the defendant’s dischаrge after completion of his or her sentence or upon the defendant being adjudicated guilty. . . . Ga. L. 2004, p. 1064, § 1.
(Punctuation and emphasis omitted.)
State v. Plunkett,
Since Ethridge entered his guilty plea prior to July 7, 2004, the testimony of the probatiоn officer indicating that he would not have to register as a sex offender if he were sentеnced as a first offender constituted an accurate statement of the then existing law. Cоnsequently, trial counsel’s failure to object to such testimony was not ineffective assistanсe. The “failure to make [a] meritless objection [does not] amount to ineffective аssistance [of counsel].”
Scott v. State,
(b) Ethridge has not met his initial burden to raise an issue on appeal whiсh could be resolved by facts appearing in the record insofar as he claims that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to inform him of his “right” to appeal.
Brown,
supra,
2. Further, Ethridge contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion for out-of-time appeal in that it failed to inform him of his right to withdraw his guilty plea prior to sentencing. An out-of-time appeal, however, is a remedy for a right of appeal frustrated by ineffective assistance of counsel.
Smith,
supra,
It would not be otherwise even had Ethridge cast his claim of error in terms of counsel’s failure to object to the trial court’s omission — this because the trial court sentenced Ethridge pursuаnt to a
*291
negotiated plea agreement, foreclosing any duty in the trial court to advisе him of the right to withdraw his plea. See Uniform Superior Court Rule 33.10; see also
McMillian
v.
State,
In light of the foregoing, the trial court correctly denied Ethridge’s motion for an out-of-time appeal, and his remaining remedy is that of habeas corpus.
Grantham,
supra,
Judgment affirmed.