MCFADDEN, C. J., MCMILLIAN, P. J., and SENIOR APPELLATE JUDGE
McFadden, Chief Judge.
McKeever, Jr., acting pro se, brings this timely direct
appeal from the trial court's judgment of conviction
following McKeever's entry of an Alford plea.
See North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (91 S.Ct.
160, 27 L.Ed.2d 162) (1970). McKeever's appellate
briefing is severely deficient, but as best we can discern,
pursuant to our obligations under Felix v. State,
271 Ga. 534 (523 S.E.2d 1) (1999),  McKeever's claims of
error fall into three general categories. His challenge to
the voluntariness of his guilty plea cannot be resolved on
the record. His challenge to the trial court's
jurisdiction over him has no merit. And he waived appellate
review over his various other claims of trial court error by
virtue of his guilty plea. So we affirm.
Facts and procedural posture.
November 13, 2018, McKeever was indicted for, among other
things, violating the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act ("RICO"), OCGA § 16-14-4
(c), predicated on allegations that he engaged in acts of
insurance fraud, theft by deception, and identity fraud that
involved making false claims about car accidents. This was a
reindictment following the state's dismissal of a 2017
indictment of McKeever for the same offenses under a
different case number, and during the course of the
proceedings under the earlier indictment the trial court had
granted McKeever's request to represent himself.
trial court made a number of pre-trial rulings, including
denying McKeever's request to continue a January 14, 2019
trial date. On the day of trial, McKeeever again asked
for a continuance, arguing that he was not prepared to
proceed, and the trial court again denied the request,
informing McKeever that he could either proceed to trial or
enter a guilty plea. After engaging in a plea colloquy,
McKeever entered an Alford plea to the RICO count;
the remaining counts of the indictment were nolle prossed.
thereafter, McKeever filed a notice of appeal from the trial
court's entry of the judgment of conviction. It appears
from the record that he did not ask the trial court to
withdraw his guilty plea.
Challenges to voluntariness of guilty plea.
argues that he felt pressured to enter the guilty plea, which
we construe as a challenge to the voluntariness of the plea.
He argues that the trial court assumed a prosecutorial role
and threatened him, but the transcript of the plea hearing
does not support that claim. And we do not discern within
McKeever's appellate briefs any other challenge to
voluntariness that can be resolved by the existing record. To
win on appeal, a defendant "must be able to show
reversible error, and he must do so on the existing
record." Collier v. State, ___ Ga. ___, ___ (1)
(___ S.E.2d ___) (Case No. S19A0658, decided October 21,
2019). Because McKeever has not shown on the existing record
that his challenge to the voluntariness of his plea has
merit, he has not shown reversible error. See generally
Collier at ___ (1) n. 6 ("Following our
decision today, if a defendant who appeals directly from a
guilty plea cannot prevail on the merits, we will simply
affirm the conviction, rather than dismiss the
Challenges to jurisdiction.
argues that the trial court lacked jurisdiction over him. We
may review this claim of error notwithstanding McKeever's
guilty plea, because it is "grounded upon the right not
to be haled into court at all[.]" Hooten v.
State, 212 Ga.App. 770, 771 (1) (442 S.E.2d 836) (1994)
(citation and punctuation omitted). Accord Davis v.
State, 251 Ga.App. 436, 437 (554 S.E.2d 583) (2001). But
"[t]here is no merit to this contention, as the trial
court clearly had jurisdiction of the person and subject
matter." Duncan v. State, 291 Ga.App. 580, 581
(2) (662 S.E.2d 337) (2008). See Shields v. State,
276 Ga. 669, 671 (3) n. 10 (581 S.E.2d 536) (2003). Thus,
this argument presents no basis for reversal.
makes several claims of error in his briefs that he does not
associate with any ruling by the trial court. Because we are
a court for the correction of errors, Felix, 271 Ga.
at 539, these arguments present no basis for reversal. And as
to McKeever's remaining claims of trial court error, he
"waived his right to assert these arguments on appeal by
pleading guilty. Thus, th[ese] arguments present[ ] no basis
for reversal." LaFette v. State, 285 Ga.App.
516, 518 (3) (646 S.E.2d 725) (2007) (footnotes omitted;
involving Alford plea).