Sandro Campos, pro se, appeals the denial of his motion for an out-of-time appeal, following his entry of a plea of guilty to malice murder for the 2004 fatal shooting of Henry Jayaprakasham, and Campos’s resulting sentence of life in prison. For the reasons which follow, we affirm.
In February 2005, a Whitfield County grand jury returned a six-count indictment against Campos: Count 1—malice murder; Count 2—armed robbery; Count 3—felony murder while in the commission of armed robbery; Count 4—aggravated assault; Count 5—felony murder while in the commission of aggravated assault; and Count 6—possession of a firearm during the commission of a crime. Campos entered into an agreement with the State, whereby he would plead guilty to Count 1 and be subject to a life sentence and orders of nol prosequi would then be entered as to the remaining counts. On October 4, 2005, a plea and sentencing hearing was held at which Campos entered his negotiated guilty plea to malice murder, and he was sentenced to life in prison. In March 2012, he filed a pro se “Motion for Out-Of-Time Appeal and Request for Evidentiary Hearing on the Issue of Ineffective Assistance of Counsel,” alleging that his attorney’s representation was not effective because the attorney did not file a “pre-plea entry demurrer to ‘quash’ the fatally defective indictment of the case,” and that his guilty plea was not knowing and voluntary because the superior court failed to advise him of his rights prior to his entry of the plea. Campos asked, inter alia, that the indictment against him be dismissed and that he be allowed to withdraw his guilty plea. On April 20, 2012, the superior court entered the ruling at issue, dismissing as untimely Campos’s motion to the extent that it could be construed as a motion to withdraw his guilty plea, and denying the remaining portions of the motion, which alleged the defectiveness of the indictment and the ineffectiveness of plea counsel based principally upon the claim that, prior to his plea, Campos was not advised of his rights under Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U. S. 238 98 SC 1709 1969.
