Can You Appeal After a Guilty Plea in North Carolina?

Quick Take: North Carolina v. Branham shows that guilty pleas in North Carolina do not automatically preserve appellate rights, but certiorari may sometimes fill the gap.

The Court of Appeals held no statutory right existed to appeal a denied immunity motion after a guilty plea.
The majority nevertheless granted certiorari to give the defendant the “benefit of his bargain.”
The dissent warned that such an approach risks creating illusory plea terms and undermining informed choice.

New Questions About a Guilty Plea

The Court of Appeals of North Carolina’s October 2025 decision in North Carolina v. Branham grapples with the meaning of guilty pleas, the scope of appellate rights, and the extent to which the defendant may preserve certain rights to appeal (Suppression Issues vs Denial of Motion to Dismiss), pursuant to a specific reservation of rights within a Transcript of Plea in Superior Court.

The defendant in Branham entered a plea agreement that purported to preserve his right to appeal the denial of his immunity motion. The trial court accepted the guilty plea, the terms of which were specifically incorporated in the Transcript of Plea and ostensibly discussed on the record during the plea colloquy.

The Guilty Plea that made the Courtroom Listen

It very much appears that everyone in the courtroom seemed to agree that the appeal could be preserved.

Unfortunately, per the trial court’s ruling (and later appellate court’s decision), the defendant did not qualify for limited immunity protection under N.C.G.S. § 90-96.2. The deeper questions arise from what happened next.

This tension makes Branham an interesting case to study. It is not simply another application of the Good Samaritan law and the North Carolina drug immunity statute.

It illustrates the recurring clash between negotiated expectations in the trial court and the jurisdictional boundaries of appellate review.

It forces criminal defense lawyers, judges, and law enforcement to consider how far the system should go in honoring bargains that rest on problematic legal ground, where everyone agreed (mistakenly) that issues are preserved and all who are interested in maximizing judicial efficiency (court time) while appropriately preserving issues for appeal.

When you need insight on a complex DUI or criminal defense matter, Bill Powers and the team at Powers Law Firm are available to consult. With years of focused experience in North Carolina criminal law, we’re happy to serve as a resource for case strategy discussions, referral questions, or continuing education. Professional courtesy consultations are welcome.

What the Court of Appeals Decided: Guilty Plea and Appeals Rights

The defendant was purportedly found unconscious in a running car with heroin and a needle in plain view. He later admitted to injecting fentanyl and later testified he believed paramedics gave him Narcan, though officers stated he refused medical care and displayed none of the typical signs of overdose.

The defendant moved to dismiss under North Carolina’s Good Samaritan law, codified at N.C.G.S. § 90-96.2.

The “Drug-related overdose treatment; limited immunity” statute grants immunity from prosecution for certain low-level drug offenses when evidence is obtained because someone sought medical assistance for a drug-related overdose.

The legislature designed it to encourage people to call for help without fear of prosecution.

The trial court denied the motion, finding the defendant failed to establish the threshold requirement of experiencing a “drug-related overdose” as defined in the statute.

Unconsciousness alone is not necessarily enough to trigger limited immunity.

The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the State, did not show an acute condition reasonably believed by a layperson to require medical assistance.

As such, on the merits, the immunity defense failed.

The Guilty Plea Agreement with a Preserved Appeal

The case could have ended there.

Instead, the defendant entered a guilty plea to multiple charges, including habitual felon status. The related plea transcript contained thoughtfully crafted language, relative to preservation of appellate rights.

Counsel for the defendant acted to preserve for appellate review the denial of his immunity motion, citing N.C.G.S. § 15A-979. The trial judge confirmed that understanding with the defendant in open court.

Section 15A-979, however, applies only to suppression motions.

North Carolina law on the issue is, some might say, problematic and perhaps a bit unreasonable.

A guilty plea in North Carolina, in many if not most instances, waives the right to appeal except in narrow statutory circumstances under § 15A-1444.

Immunity under § 90-96.2 is not a suppression issue, consistent with a pretrial Motion to Suppress. As such, no statutory right to appeal exists.

Still, the plea was entered, and oral notice of appeal was given.

This set up the central question: Was the plea knowing and voluntary when it rested on the promise of an appeal right that did not exist?

The Jurisdictional Puzzle: Demaio, Ledbetter, and Certiorari

The Court confronted the precedent.

In North Carolina v. Demaio (2011), the Court of Appeals held that a plea agreement preserving issues with no statutory appeal right “violates the law.”

The court vacated the plea, reasoning that it lacked jurisdiction to provide what the plea had promised.

In North Carolina v. Ledbetter (2018), the North Carolina Supreme Court clarified that the Court of Appeals retains broad discretionary power to grant certiorari absent specific statutory limitations.

Rule 21 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure is procedural, not jurisdictional. In other words, the court can choose to grant certiorari even when no right of appeal exists.

Armed with Ledbetter, the Branham majority charted a middle course.

It acknowledged there was no statutory appeal right.

Instead of vacating the plea under Demaio, the court exercised its certiorari power to review the denial of immunity.

By so doing, it gave Branham the “benefit of his bargain.”

The guilty plea at issue was deemed knowing and voluntary because the promise, though not legally grounded in statute, was fulfilled through the court’s discretionary review.

The Dissent’s Warning: Simmer Down

The dissent agreed certiorari could be granted in the case at hand, but the guilty plea was not an informed choice.

The transcript promised an appeal right that did not exist.

To accept such a plea, in the dissent’s view, violated North Carolina law. It would have vacated the plea and remanded, allowing Branham to withdraw and either face trial or negotiate a valid plea.

The dissent further warned of unintended consequences.

By granting certiorari to rescue a guilty plea and the related bargain, the majority risked elevating non-statutory issues to the level of appealable rights.

It also raises the possibility that defendants could insert “poison pill” provisions into plea agreements, later challenging them as not informed and void.

Practical Implications of Preserving Appellate Issues in a Guilty Plea

For defense counsel, Branham highlights the importance of precision in drafting Transcripts of Plea, effectuating the full scope, purpose, and intent of plea negotiations.

Promising preservation of an appellate issue beyond the statute is risky, at best.

A defendant may later argue that the guilty plea was not entered knowingly, understanding the full force of the entry of judgment, and voluntarily.

Even if an appellate court exercises discretion to honor the “benefit of the bargain,” there is no guarantee it will do so in every case.

The safe path for a criminal defense lawyer, if such a thing exists, is to either negotiate conditional pleas that fit statutory frameworks or file interlocutory appeals where permitted.

For prosecutors, Branham highlights the need for caution when agreeing to terms outside the statutory structure.

To be clear, the issue isn’t whether the folks in the courtroom were proceeding in good faith. And to that end, even if the prosecutor acts in good faith, errors in the entry of judgment can ultimately cause more work consistent with an ineffective assistance of counsel claim.

A prosecutor may believe a preserved appeal provision expedites resolution, which could ultimately create an opening for appellate litigation, restarting the clock and all that entails:

Are witnesses still available?
Can the State still prove the case?
Does the case ultimately unravel, potentially years after the fact?

For judges, the opinion raises questions about how plea colloquies might be handled, best practices, and the balancing of court time, justice, and aspects of fundamental fairness in the courtroom.

Implications for Law Enforcement and Policy

On the law enforcement side, Branham illustrates the limits of Good Samaritan immunity. Officers’ testimony that Branham refused care and lacked visible overdose symptoms was decisive. For officers responding to overdose calls, documenting the observable condition of the subject and any refusal of treatment is vital to whether immunity attaches.

On the policy side, Branham reveals how rarely § 90-96.2 is litigated. The Court itself noted the limited jurisprudence.

As the opioid crisis continues, courts will likely confront more cases testing the statute’s scope. Clearly, the public policy issues involved are admirable, the most obvious being encouraging folks to call for help when needed.

Branham may mark the beginning of a body of law clarifying what qualifies as an overdose and when immunity applies.

Bigger Picture: The Nature of Plea Bargains and Guilty Pleas

Branham also feeds into a larger conversation about the nature of plea bargains in North Carolina and related entry of a guilty plea.

Pleas are often described as contracts, but they are contracts in a constitutional framework.

When a promise in a plea transcript conflicts with jurisdictional limits, what should prevail?

This debate will not end with Branham.

Criminal Defense Lawyers, prosecutors, and judges must wrestle with whether appellate courts should use discretionary writs to save plea agreements or whether doing so blurs the lines between bargaining and jurisdiction.

Why Guilty Plea Appeal Rights Still Raise Hard Questions

North Carolina v. Branham is a case about much more than overdose immunity. It is a reminder that guilty pleas, appellate rights, and discretionary certiorari powers occasionally unsettle assumptions in the courtroom. Everyone in Branham’s case, the judge, the prosecutor, the defense lawyer, and the defendant, appeared to believe that the plea could preserve an appeal of the immunity denial. The Court of Appeals said otherwise, but then exercised discretion to provide review anyway.

For lawyers, judges, and law enforcement personnel, there is a valuable learning opportunity. Plea bargains must be crafted with a sharp awareness of statutory limits. Immunity defenses must be backed by concrete, observable evidence. And appellate review, though flexible under certiorari, remains sometimes unpredictable. Branham’s legacy may be less about whether immunity was properly denied and more about what happens when the justice system promises more than the law strictly allows.

Questions about preserving appellate rights in plea agreements or navigating North Carolina’s immunity statutes? These issues don’t always have straightforward answers. Bill Powers and Powers Law Firm are available to talk through the nuances with fellow legal professionals. Whether you need a second opinion, referral partner, or just want to think through the options, give us a ring at 704-342-4357 or email Bill Powers