In the third appearance of his case before this Court, Jeremy Patrick Lewis appeals from the denial of his motion for an out-of-time appeal from the 1994 judgments denying his motions to withdraw his guilty plea.
An appeal will lie from a judgment entered on a guilty plea only if the issue on appeal can be resolved by facts appearing in the record, and the trial court’s denial of a motion for out-of-time appeal is reviewed for abuse of discretion. The denial of a request for out-of-time appeal is proper if an examination of the record reveals no merit to the claimed errors.
(Citations and punctuation omitted.) Dennis v. State,
So viewed, the underlying facts of this case show that Lewis was charged with multiple counts of violating the Georgia Controlled Substances Act,
In March 1996, the trial court entered two orders denying Lewis’s motion to withdraw his plea. Lewis appealed those orders. Lewis, supra,
In the instant case, Lewis contends that the trial court erred in dismissing his motion for an out-of-time appeal because his plea was not knowingly and voluntarily entered and because his counsel failed to advise him that he was subject to recidivist sentencing under OCGA § 17-10-7 (c) based on his prior felony convictions.
It is well established that a criminal defendant has no unqualified right to file a direct appeal from a judgment of conviction and sentence entered on a guilty plea, and an appeal will lie from a judgment entered on a guilty plea only if the issue on appeal can be resolved by facts appearing in the record. The ability to decide the appeal based on the existing record thus becomes the deciding factor in determining the availability of an out-of-time appeal when the defendant has pled guilty.
(Citations and punctuation omitted.) Brown v. State,
Pretermitting whether the issues in this case were fully addressed in Lewis’s prior appeal,
The trial court also confirmed on the record that Lewis understood the maximum fine and sentence for each count, that he was charged with being a recidivist, that the trial court could impose consecutive sentences and that the trial court could take his prior offenses into consideration in deciding whether to probate all or part of his sentence. Finally, the trial court confirmed on the record that Lewis was not threatened, intimidated or coerced into pleading guilty, and that he was satisfied that his counsel had considered all the facts and possible defenses in the case.
Based on our review of the record, we conclude that Lewis has failed to demonstrate that a manifest injustice will result unless his guilty plea is invalidated. See Adams, supra,
Judgment affirmed.
Notes
See Lewis v. State,
In two separate indictments, Lewis was charged with possession of cocaine and marijuana with intent to distribute, two counts of attempted possession of lysergic acid, and two recidivist counts.
“Ordinarily, our determination on direct appeal of a criminal judgment is res judicata, and a criminal defendant is not entitled to another bite at the apple by way of a second appeal.” (Citation, punctuation and footnote omitted.) Ward v. State,
