MCFADDEN, P. J., MCMILLIAN and GOSS, JJ.
appeal from the denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty
plea, Rudy Cameron Lee argues that he was not properly
informed of the consequences of his plea, which rendered it
defective, and that trial counsel was ineffective. We find no
error and affirm.
sentencing, the decision on a motion to withdraw a guilty
plea is within the trial court's discretion and
withdrawal of the plea is allowed only when necessary to
correct a manifest injustice," such as where "a
defendant is denied effective assistance of counsel."
(Citations and punctuation omitted.) Gay v. State,
342 Ga.App. 242, 243 (803 S.E.2d 113) (2017).
viewed in favor of the judgment, the record shows that while
serving a prison sentence in Tatnall County, Lee was indicted
in that county for murder (Count 1), two counts of felony
murder (Counts 2 and 3), two counts of aggravated assault
(Counts 4 and 5), street gang participation (Count 6), and
riot in a penal institution (Count 7). On March 15, 2018, and
pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, Lee entered a plea
of guilty to the lesser included offense of voluntary
manslaughter as to Count 1 and to Counts 4, 5, 6 and 7. Lee
was sentenced to 20 years to serve. Represented by new
counsel, Lee filed a timely motion to withdraw his plea.
After a hearing, the trial court denied the motion to
withdraw. This appeal followed.
first argues that his guilty plea was not knowingly,
voluntarily, and intelligently entered because the trial
court's explanation of the sentence was confusing. We
parties agree that Lee's previous sentence, which he was
serving at the time the plea at issue was entered, was 20
years with 10 to serve. The record shows that after the trial
court established on the record that Lee's plea to the
charges at issue was intelligent and voluntary, the following
colloquy took place:
THE COURT: It is the judgment of this Court, as to Count
Number 1, Mr. Lee, that you serve 20 years to serve. Counts
4, 5, 6, and 7 are all 20 years to run concurrent. Count 1 is
consecutive to the sentence that you're now serving. It
starts, my understanding is, today - -
DEFENDANT LEE: It's consecutive?
THE COURT: - - because you had a lot of - -
[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: No, Judge. It's supposed to be
concurrent to his existing sentence.
THE COURT: I'm sorry. They're all concurrent?
[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: All concurrent and concurrent to the