State v. Scott, COA23-936, ___ N.C. App. ___ (Jun. 4, 2024)

In this New Hanover County case, defendant appealed after a guilty plea to four counts of selling crack cocaine, arguing error in denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea and failing to advise him of the consequences of pleading guilty. The Court of Appeals denied defendant’s petition for review of the trial court’s advice regarding his guilty plea, and found no error. 

Between September 2017 and May 2018, defendant sold crack cocaine to confidential informants working for the Wilmington Police Department while being recorded on video. Defendant reached a plea agreement where he would plead guilty to four counts of selling crack cocaine and other charges would be dismissed, and the State prayed for judgment to be continued with defendant on pretrial release with the presumption that defendant would testify in an unrelated matter. While on pretrial release, defendant was arrested for possession of a firearm by a felon and other charges, and his pretrial release was revoked. Defendant subsequently decided not to testify for the State in the unrelated matter, and the State prayed for judgment on defendant’s plea, leading to his sentencing in January 2023. At the sentencing defendant moved to withdraw his plea, but the trial court denied his motion after reviewing the plea colloquy.  

Considering defendant’s first issue, the Court of Appeals explained that defendant’s side agreement to testify for the State was not put before the trial court, and thus his argument that the trial court did not advise him of the possible consequences was not appealable. This led defendant to file a petition for writ of certiorari. Looking to the record, the court noted that it was defendant’s choice not to put the agreement for his testimony on the plea transcript, as he did not want to be seen cooperating with the State. The court noted that the trial court still attempted to advise defendant of possible consequences, and found no merit in his petition. 

Moving to defendant’s motion to withdraw his plea, the court explored defendant’s argument about an “order for his arrest” that the State delayed serving on defendant before his plea, finding no clear evidence of this issue. Slip Op. at 8-9. The court did find clear evidence that defendant did not provide a just and fair reason for withdrawing his plea, as the State’s evidence against defendant was strong, defendant had ample time to review and prepare prior to entering his plea, and the trial court explained the possible outcomes from his plea prior to entering it. Instead, the record showed defendant “was dissatisfied with the outcome of his plea despite being made fully aware of said outcome prior to entering the plea.” Id. at 9.