Jerome Hammett claims the trial court erred by denying his motion to withdraw guilty pleas he entered to charges of aggravated assault two counts; false imprisonment two counts, and terroristic threats. We find no error and affirm. Hammett entered a negotiated guilty plea and was sentenced at a hearing at which he was represented by counsel. He stated under oath that he understood the nature of the charges; that he committed the charged offenses; that he was fully advised by counsel as to the consequences of the guilty plea; that no threats or promises were made to him to induce his guilty plea; that he thoroughly discussed the case with his counsel, and that he was satisfied with the advice and services of his counsel. Nevertheless, within the term of court in which the guilty plea was entered, Hammett appeared with new counsel and moved to withdraw his guilty plea on the basis that his prior counsel provided ineffective assistance during the plea process.1 Hammett claimed that his guilty plea was involuntary or coerced because, shortly prior to entering the plea, counsel told him and the trial court that he was not adequately prepared to try the case, and the trial court refused to continue the case to give counsel more time to prepare. See Wharton v. Jones , 248 Ga. 265, 266 282 SE2d 310 1981. In effect, Hammett claims that, because of inadequate trial preparation, counsel advised him to accept the negotiated guilty plea, and that he was forced to accept this advice and plead guilty rather than go to trial with unprepared counsel.
A defendant who waives the right to a jury trial and enters a guilty plea retains the Sixth Amendment right to effective legal assistance during the plea process. Williams v. Duffy , 270 Ga. 580, 581 513 SE2d 212 1999. Where the defendant seeks to withdraw a guilty plea based on a claim that ineffectiveness of counsel rendered the plea involuntary or coerced, the defendant must satisfy both parts of the two-part test applied by Strickland v. Washington , 466 U. S. 668 104 SC 2052, 80 LE2d 674 1984 to claims that counsel was ineffective during trial. Hill v. Lockhart , 474 U. S. 52, 56-59 106 SC 366, 88 LE2d 203 1985. In the context of guilty pleas, the defendant must show 1 that counsel’s performance was deficient because it fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, and 2 that the defendant was prejudiced because, but for the deficient performance, there was a reasonable probability the defendant would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial. Id.; Williams , 270 Ga. at 581. “A claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is a mixed question of law and fact: we accept the trial court’s factual findings unless clearly erroneous, but we independently apply the legal principles to the facts.” Franks v. State , 278 Ga. 246, 250 599 SE2d 134 2004.
