On appeal from the denial of his motion to grant an out-of-time appeal concerning his guilty plea, Antone Leonard argues that the trial court erred when it denied the motion because his plea was not knowingly entered, because he was not properly informed of his right to appeal from the denial of his motion to withdraw his plea, because counsel at that hearing was ineffective, and because venue was not proved. Because Leonard was not appointed the counsel he requested soon after the denial of his timely motion to withdraw the plea, and because his right to a direct appeal of that denial was thus frustrated, we reverse and remand for entry of an order granting an out-of-time appeal. The record shows that Leonard was charged with crimes including robbery, identity fraud, fraud, and financial transaction card theft. At a hearing, Leonard pled guilty to six of the counts against him, and he was convicted. Leonard timely filed a motion to withdraw his plea, and a hearing on the motion was held on February 13, 2006. After the trial court denied Leonard’s motion at the hearing, Leonard’s prior appointed counsel announced that he would not be representing Leonard in any appeal of the matter. The trial court then stated that it would check with the public defender on the issue of appointing counsel to handle the appeal.
On February 22, 2006, nine days after the hearing, Leonard filed a letter with the trial court inquiring about the appointment of counsel to pursue his appeal. The record contains no evidence that appellate counsel was appointed or that there was any response to Leonard’s letter. On April 11, 2006, after the time for filing a direct appeal had expired, Leonard filed a pro se motion for an out-of-time appeal. The trial court denied the motion on the ground that although Leonard knew that he had no representation on appeal from the denial of his motion for an out-of-time appeal, he “did not request further representation.” This appeal followed.
