In Cooks v. State, 240 S.W.3d 906 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007), the defendant was unrepresented by counsel for the first 20 days of the 30-day period for filing a motion for new trial, and his appellate counsel asserted in her motion to abate that she did not have time to decide whether to file a motion for new trial. 240 S.W.3d at 911. The Court of Criminal Appeals held that this was sufficient to rebut the presumption that appellant was adequately represented by counsel during the entire 30-day period for filing a motion for new trial. Id. However, the court further held that this deprivation of counsel was harmless because appellant presented no "facially plausible claims" that he would have raised in a motion for new trial. Id. at 912. The defendant's motion to abate asserted only that he wish to file a motion for new trial to complain about trial counsel's ineffectiveness for failing to call a material witness or adequately investigate the case. Id. The court held that "this conclusory allegation does not establish reasonable grounds to believe that appellant's trial counsel was ineffective" because appellant did not "set out what evidence or information the 'named material witness' or a 'promised investigation' would have revealed that reasonably could have changed the result of this case." Id. Cooks was represented by retained counsel at trial and pled guilty without a plea agreement. After a sentence of fifteen years was pronounced, the retained attorney informed Cooks, on the record, of his right to appeal. Counsel told the trial court that Cooks did not have funds to retain him for appeal and that, although counsel did not see grounds for an appeal, Cooks sought the appointment of an appellate attorney. Id. at 908. The trial attorney, twenty days after sentencing, filed a notice of appeal, which also included a request for the appointment of appellate counsel. On that date, the trial court appointed an appellate attorney. No motion for new trial was filed before the thirty-day deadline imposed by Rule 21.1(a) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See Tex. R. App. P. 21.1(a). About four months later, though, appellate counsel filed a motion to abate the appeal to allow for an out-of-time motion for new trial. Cooks, 240 S.W.3d at 908. The motion alleged that Cooks had had no representation during the period from sentencing to the appointment of appellate counsel and that appellate counsel did not have time "to adequately assist appellant in deciding whether to file a motion for new trial." Id. at 909. Cooks also asserted that trial counsel was ineffective at sentencing because he failed to call a material witness and did not conduct a sufficient investigation. Id. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals observed that Cooks "was unrepresented by counsel during the initial twenty days of the 30-day period." Id. at 911. This, along with "appellate counsel's assertion in the Motion to Abate that there was not enough time after her appointment for her to adequately assist appellant in deciding whether to file a motion for new trial, were sufficient to rebut the presumption that appellant was adequately represented by counsel during this entire 30-day period." Id. The Court of Criminal Appeals also found this deprivation of counsel harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, finding that the motion to abate had presented no "facially plausible claims" that Cooks could have presented in a motion for new trial, even though appellate counsel had more than four months "to discover any such claims from the time of her appointment . . . until she filed the Motion to Abate." Id. at 912.