Warren, Justice. Eddie Clark pleaded guilty to felony murder and other crimes in connection with the stabbing death of Elizabeth Hutcheson. Years later, he filed a motion for out-of-time appeal, which the trial court summarily denied without a hearing. For the reasons explained below, we vacate the trial court’s order and remand this case for an evidentiary hearing. 1. In July 2012, a Polk County grand jury jointly indicted Cadedra Cook and Clark, charging them with malice murder of Hutcheson, felony murder predicated on aggravated assault, armed robbery, aggravated assault, and obstruction of a law enforcement officer. In February 2014, Clark entered a non-negotiated plea of guilty to all counts except malice murder.[1] He was sentenced to life in prison for felony murder, a consecutive 20-year term of imprisonment for armed robbery, and a concurrent 12-month term for obstruction of an officer. The aggravated assault count merged into the felony murder count. Clark did not file a timely appeal. In September 2018, Clark filed a pro se motion for out-of-time appeal, contending (among other things) that his failure to file a timely appeal stemmed from his plea counsel’s constitutionally ineffective assistance. Clark asserted that he had never waived his appeal rights and that his plea counsel did not “discuss the appeal” with him.[2] The trial court denied Clark’s motion for out-of-time appeal without a hearing, and Clark timely appealed that decision. 2. “We review a trial court’s denial of a motion for an out-of- time appeal for an abuse of discretion.” Burley v. State, 308 Ga. 650, 651 (842 SE2d 851) (2020). “A criminal defendant is entitled to an out-of-time appeal if his counsel’s constitutionally deficient performance deprived him of an appeal of right that he otherwise would have pursued.” Collier v. State, 307 Ga. 363, 364 (834 SE2d 769) (2019). See also Ringold v. State, 304 Ga. 875, 881 (823 SE2d 342) (2019) (“‘[W]hen counsel’s constitutionally deficient performance deprives a defendant of an appeal that he otherwise would have taken,’ the defendant is entitled to an appeal because he effectively has been deprived of an appellate proceeding altogether.”) (quoting Roe v. Flores-Ortega, 528 U.S. 470, 484 (120 SCt 1029, 145 LE2d 985) (2000)). For this reason, “when a defendant alleges in a motion for an out-of-time appeal that he was deprived of his right to appeal due to his counsel’s ineffective assistance, the trial court must hold an evidentiary hearing to determine whether counsel was in fact responsible for the failure to pursue a timely appeal.” Rutledge v. State, ___ Ga. ___ (847 SE2d 143, 144) (2020).[3] And a trial court “abuses its discretion when it fails to make such a factual inquiry.” Burley, 308 Ga. at 651 (citation and punctuation omitted). Here, Clark alleged in his motion for out-of-time appeal that his failure to file a timely appeal resulted from his plea counsel’s constitutionally ineffective assistance. If Clark can prove this allegation, he would be entitled to an out-of-time appeal. See Collier, 307 Ga. at 364. However, the trial court denied Clark’s motion without conducting a factual inquiry into his claim of ineffective assistance.[4] Accordingly, as the State concedes we should under the circumstances presented in this case, we vacate the trial court’s judgment and remand “for the court to conduct an evidentiary hearing and determine whether plea counsel’s ineffective assistance was responsible for [Clark's] failure to pursue a timely appeal.” Rutledge, 847 SE2d at 145. See also Collier, 307 Ga. at 376 (“Because the trial court denied Collier’s motion for an out-of-time appeal without holding an evidentiary hearing, we cannot determine from the appellate record whether Collier’s failure to timely pursue an appeal was actually the result of his counsel’s deficient performance.”). Judgment vacated and case remanded with direction. Melton, C. J., Nahmias, P. J., and Boggs, Peterson, Warren, Bethel, Ellington, and McMillian, JJ., concur.
