assistance of trial counsel would be likely. In Estep v. People, 753 P.2d 1241, 1248 (Colo.1988), the supreme court recognized that if it declined to accept the appeal, which was untimely, the case would continue because the defendant's remedy for the loss of his right to appeal would be another Crim. P. 35(c) motion alleging that his counsel's negligence constituted ineffective assistance. The court concluded that requiring the defendant to pursue yet another Crim. P. 85(c) motion "would not serve the interests of substantial justice and judicial economy." Id. (internal quotations omitted). 138 Thus, the specter of an ineffective assistance claim favors permitting flawed appeals to proceed in the interest of judicial economy. See, eg., People v. Baker, 104 P.3d 893, 898 (Colo.2005) (<HOLDING>); People in Interest of M.A.M., 167 P.3d 169,
holding no ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claim for failure to raise as basis for appeal of conviction ineffective assistance of trial counsel where basis for the latter claim was inadequate recognizing a constitutional claim for ineffective assistance of counsel holding that the court of appeals abused its discretion by dismissing the defendants appeal as untimely because as relevant here it would be in the interest of judicial economy to avoid a crim p 85c claim for ineffective assistance of counsel holding that to the extent defendants claim is one of ineffective assistance of counsel it is not cognizable on direct appeal and rule 2915 is the exclusive procedure by which a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel can be advanced holding that defendants claim for ineffective assistance of counsel due to a conflict of interest was not cognizable on direct appeal