Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Lee v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia, Fifth Division

May 3, 2019

LEE
v.
THE STATE.

          MCFADDEN, P. J., MCMILLIAN and GOSS, JJ.

          GOSS, JUDGE

         On 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.

         "After 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).

          Thus 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.

         1. Lee 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 disagree.

         The 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?
[PROSECUTOR]: Yes.
[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: All concurrent and concurrent to the existing ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.