PAINO v. STATE

SMITH, Judge.

With the assistance of retained counsel, appellant entered a negotiated plea of guilty to misdemeanor charges of criminal trespass and simple battery. After sentencing, he sought to withdraw those guilty pleas. Appellant appeals from the judgments of conviction and sentences entered by the trial court, enumerating as error the denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty pleas.

The record amply demonstrates that appellant's guilty pleas were voluntarily and intelligently entered into in open court, with the assistance and advice of counsel. Stevens v. State, 202 Ga. App. 473 (1) ( 414 S.E.2d 702) (1992). See also Lopez v. State, 207 Ga. App. 554 (1) ( 428 S.E.2d 448) (1993). Compare Hamm v. State, 123 Ga. App. 10 ( 179 S.E.2d 272) (1970). His contentions that he did not authorize the entry of a guilty plea on his behalf, are contradicted by the record and are without merit. An accused, having participated in the court's inquiry into the voluntariness of a guilty plea and having approved "`in the presence of the court while his attorney entered a plea of guilty in his behalf and the court acting thereon imposed the sentence, [is not permitted] to deny thereafter the authority of his attorney to enter the plea or to deny his approval of such action by his attorney. Had he had any objection, he should have made it known at the time and before the court acted thereon.' [Cits.]" Smith v. Fuller, 223 Ga. 673, 675 (2) ( 157 S.E.2d 447) (1967). Whether to allow the withdrawal of a voluntary, intelligently entered guilty plea after the pronouncement of sentence remained within the sound legal discretion of the trial court. State v. Germany, 246 Ga. 455, 456 (1) ( 271 S.E.2d 851) (1980). There was no abuse of that discretion in the instant case. Stevens v. State, supra at 474 (3).

Judgment affirmed. Johnson and Blackburn, JJ., concur.