FOURTH DIVISION DOYLE, P. J., COOMER and MARKLE, JJ. NOTICE: Motions for reconsideration must be physically received in our clerk’s office within ten days of the date of decision to be deemed timely filed. http://www.gaappeals.us/rules October 28, 2019 In the Court of Appeals of Georgia A19A0983. BRADSHAW v. THE STATE. DO-032 DOYLE, Presiding Judge. Thomas Bradshaw entered a non-negotiated Alford1 plea to aggravated child molestation and a non-negotiated guilty plea to child molestation and possession of drug-related objects, and he was sentenced to life in prison.2 Bradshaw later filed a motion to withdraw his plea, which the trial court denied. Bradshaw appeals, arguing that (1) first appellate counsel was ineffective and (2) his plea was not knowingly, voluntarily, or intelligently made. For the reasons that follow, we vacate the trial court order to the extent that it denied his motion to withdraw his guilty plea on the 1 See North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U. S. 25 (91 SCt 160, 27 LE2d 162) (1970). 2 The court later sua sponte modified his sentence to 25 years in prison followed by probation for the remainder of his life. basis of ineffective assistance of counsel and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.3 The record shows that after Bradshaw was indicted, he was denied bond and remained in jail pending trial. The State offered him a plea agreement of 20 years to serve 15, which he declined to accept, proceeding to trial. After the jury was impaneled, Bradshaw decided to enter an non-negotiated guilty plea to child molestation and possession of drug-related objects and a non- negotiated Alford plea to aggravated child molestation. During the plea colloquy, among other things, the trial court advised Bradshaw of his right to a jury trial and that he would be giving up that right by entering the Alford plea and guilty plea. Bradshaw completed a waiver of rights form, which listed the three charges at the top of the form. He answered questions on the form, including that he was 38 years old; had a tenth grade education; was not mentally disabled or under the influence of alcohol, drugs, or medication; fully understood the charges against him; and had conferred with his attorney about the case and the possible range of sentences he could receive, including the maximum of life in prison. Bradshaw answered 3 We affirm the order to the extent that the trial court sua sponte modified Bradshaw’s sentence. 2 affirmatively that he understood he had a right to a trial by jury, to be presumed innocent, to confront and examine witnesses against him, to testify and present his own witnesses, to subpoena witnesses, to be assisted by an attorney at trial, to remain silent and not incriminate himself, to appeal any conviction if he went to trial, and that he was giving up of all those rights by pleading guilty. Bradshaw also answered affirmatively that he understood that any guilty plea could affect his immigration status if he was not a ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals