P. J., COOMER and MARKLE, JJ.
Lane appeals pro se from a superior court order denying his
motion for leave to file an out-of-time appeal. For the
following reasons, we vacate and remand the case to the trial
record shows that on April 27, 2012, Lane entered a
non-negotiated guilty plea to multiple offenses in four
separate indictments in DeKalb County Superior Court: robbery
and two counts of battery in Case No. 09CR4122; theft by
receiving stolen property in Case No. 09CR8519; two counts of
aggravated assault, robbery, and false imprisonment in Case
No. 10CR1206; and three counts of armed robbery in Case No.
11CR2297. Lane was sentenced on each individual case, for a
total sentence of 20 years to serve 15 years in custody. On
December 4, 2017, Lane filed a motion for an out-of-time
appeal in each of the four cases, arguing, among other
things, that his right to appeal was frustrated by plea
counsel. The trial court denied the motions on
August 24, 2018, and this appeal followed.
appeal, Lane contends that plea counsel was ineffective: (1)
by failing to adequately investigate and prepare his case;
(2) by failing to inform him of his rights under Boykin
v. Alabama; (3) by misinforming him that he faced
four possible life sentences in Case No. 11CR2297; and (4) by
failing to file a motion to withdraw his plea.
recent case of Collier v. State,  the Supreme Court
of Georgia overruled decades of prior precedent, holding
"that a defendant has an unqualified right to appeal
directly from a judgment entered on a guilty
plea." "[W]hen counsel's deficient
performance forfeits an appeal that a defendant otherwise
would have taken, the defendant gets a new opportunity to
appeal." With regard to such a claim,
Collier holds that
[b]ecause the trial court denied [the defendant's] motion
for an out-of-time appeal without holding an evidentiary
hearing, we cannot determine from the appellate record
whether [the defendant's] failure to timely pursue an
appeal was actually the result of his counsel's deficient
performance. Moreover, we recognize that, given the clear,
though incorrect, mandate of the case law overruled by this
opinion, [the defendant] has not had a full and fair
opportunity to pursue his motion for an out-of-time appeal
before the trial court, the State has not had a full and fair
opportunity to raise defenses, and the trial court has not
had the benefit of this opinion to guide its consideration of
the parties' evidence and argument.
with that holding, we therefore "vacate the order
denying [Lane's] motion for an out-of-time appeal, and we
remand the case to the trial court for proceedings consistent
vacated and remanded with direction.
and Markle, JJ., concur.
 On appeal, Lane maintains that
immediately after entering his plea, he "attempted to
have trial counsel withdraw the plea." He states that he
sent family members to counsel's office to make such a
request, but counsel responded that he needed to "hear
that from [Lane]." According to Lane, he was not able to
contact counsel before the expiration of the term of court
shortly thereafter, and ...