Articles Tagged with Powers Law Firm

On May 20, 2026, the North Carolina Court of Appeals decided State v. Myers, a case that may quietly create one of the stranger jurisdictional and constitutional problems in modern North Carolina traffic-stop litigation. The opinion itself appears relatively narrow at first glance. Superior Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction to adjudicate contested standalone traffic ticket infractions unless N.C.G.S. § 7A-271(d) applies, even if those infractions are indicted alongside related felony and misdemeanor charges. Digging a bit deeper, the opinion more subtly raises a harder question for defense lawyers going forward.  What happens when the alleged traffic infraction is not properly triable in Superior Court, yet that same alleged violation is the entire constitutional basis for the felony stop, detention, seizure, or arrest?

TL;DR:  A New Hanover County jury convicted defendant of felony fleeing to elude arrest by motor vehicle and misdemeanor resisting a public officer. The jury also found them responsible for two traffic infractions, those being failure to signal a lane change and failure to carry a valid driver’s license. The Superior Court consolidated the misdemeanor conviction with the infractions and entered judgment. The Court of Appeals vacated the consolidated judgment, holding that Superior Court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the contested standalone infractions because they were not lesser-included violations and the defendant did not admit responsibility. The fact that the infractions were included in an indictment returned by a grand jury did not cure the jurisdictional defect.

N.C.G.S. § 7A-253 sets forth that original and exclusive jurisdiction for the adjudication and disposition of infractions lies in District Court, except as provided in N.C.G.S. § 7A-271(d). Superior Court must submit an infraction to the jury when it is a lesser-included violation of a criminal action properly before the court. Superior Court may also accept an admission of responsibility to an infraction when it is either lesser-included or a related charge. Myers did not fit either category. The defendant did not admit responsibility, and the alleged infractions were not lesser-included violations of the felony or misdemeanor charges.

North Carolina DWI conviction data show a court system in which most convictions resulted in Level 5 punishment (the lowest level), probation was far more common than an active jail sentence, guilty pleas resolved the overwhelming share of cases, and some convictions took more than one year to reach sentencing. These patterns come from the FY 2024 Quick Facts report, published in October 2025 by the North Carolina Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission, which is the latest official statewide DWI conviction dataset currently available from NC Courts.

The report is useful because it gives a statewide snapshot of convictions. It is limited because it does not tell you whether a pending DWI charge in 2026 will be contested, negotiated, tried, or resolved by plea.

TL;DR | The latest official North Carolina DWI Quick Facts report, published in October 2025, analyzes FY 2024 conviction data. It reports 24,694 DWI convictions, with 58% sentenced at Level 5, 94% receiving probation, 6% receiving an active sentence, and 92% resolved by guilty plea. The report does not include arrests, dismissals, pending cases, acquittals, reduced charges, DMV consequences, or case activity after the reporting period. NC Courts has not published a fixed release date for the calendar year 2025 report.

WARNING:  If your child is facing criminal charges in Charlotte and you don’t want to hear the truth, STOP READING NOW.  This blog post isn’t for you. If you want to know how things really work in the legal system, from experienced defense lawyers who honestly care but also tell it like it is, what follows might save you a whole lot of heartache and pain.

Starting off, know this:

  • Defense lawyers understand your child is a good person

Proof of DWI charges in North Carolina does not always require an officer to see the vehicle move or the defendant behind the wheel. In State v. Trexler, the North Carolina Supreme Court sets forth what evidence can prove the operation of a vehicle (a prima facie essential element of the offense) when law enforcement arrives after a crash and determines who was driving from statements, including confessions, physical and forensic evidence, witness observations, and the surrounding circumstances.

Trexler matters because of the State’s Burden of Proof. An overturned vehicle, signs of impairment, a breath test result, and a defendant’s statements may be enough in one case, but not so in another. The legal question (and factual inquiry) involves whether the evidence proves more than the defendant’s mere presence near a wrecked car supports a reasonable inference, sometimes predicated on circumstantial evidence, that the person charged actually drove while impaired.

TL;DR | Trexler, Prima Facie Proof of Operation, Corpus Delicti, and the State’s Burden

If you have a criminal charge, a traffic matter, an impaired driving case in North Carolina, or a related legal issue that might affect your license, liberty, family, job, reputation, or future, knowing how to work effectively with a defense lawyer is an important first step. Lawyers focus on case analysis, strategy, negotiation, and courtroom advocacy. The client’s role in that is important. We need to know, early on, what really happened.

That sounds simple until fear takes over. A pending case can make normally very reasonable folks act in ways that can hurt them in the long run. They start talking to witnesses, texting, and even trying to call the charging officer.  Sometimes they explain themselves online or respond to a snarky comment on social media. Occasionally, clients hide facts from their lawyer because the truth seems too embarrassing.

To be clear, the lawyer-client relationship is not built on flattery, blind trust, or constant reassurance. Defense lawyers truly want to help their clients. That’s why we went to law school. We enjoy helping people. We want to make a difference. A solid professional relationship and trust can take time.  Here’s What NOT To Do when it comes to working with your lawyer:

The United States Supreme Court’s pending review of the federal firearm ban for unlawful drug users presents a deceptively simple question with potentially wide consequences. At issue is whether Congress may prohibit firearm possession by someone classified as an unlawful user of a controlled substance, even when that person is sober at the time of possession.

The short version is this. The constitutional landscape after Bruen has made status-based firearm prohibitions more vulnerable than they were a decade ago. But vulnerability does not automatically mean invalidation.

After examining the Court’s recent Second Amendment decisions, the current judicial philosophy of the justices, and the institutional posture of the Court, the Over Under prediction here is intended to be relatively straightforward.

The 0.3% Dilemma | NC Marijuana Laws vs. Second Amendment Rights

In North Carolina, the legal distinction between a state-regulated commodity and a federal felony is 0.3% Delta-9 THC. As the U.S. Supreme Court prepares to rule on the constitutionality of firearm bans for cannabis users, North Carolinians face a potentially dangerous legal paradox. Hemp and marijuana are chemically and visually indistinguishable, yet possessing the wrong one can lead to a lifetime loss of gun rights, in addition to other potential criminal consequences both in federal and state court.

Why North Carolina’s Hemp Laws May Cause an Evidentiary Crisis for Gun Owners

Let me start by saying this. I love lawyers. I am one. I am a former president of the North Carolina Advocates for Justice (NCAJ), an association of criminal defense, personal injury, and family law lawyers.

Some of my best friends are lawyers. The profession as a whole is comprised of noble, hard-working professionals dedicated to justice, due process, and helping others.

AND if you ever want to truly test your patience, try defending an attorney when the tables are turned, and the lawyer becomes the defendant.

The Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution guarantees defendants charged with a crime the right to legal counsel. The North Carolina State Constitution reinforces that protection in Article I, Section 23 Declaration of Rights. A lot of folks facing a criminal allegation assume that legal right is absolute. As long as they want an attorney, the Court must provide one. That’s not always the case. Indeed, there are things you can do to lose your right to a lawyer.

TL;DRThe February 2026 NC Court of Appeals Decision, State v. Webber, upheld a trial judge’s decision to strip a defendant of the right to counsel and force them to stand trial alone. The defendant had burned through four appointed attorneys over several years, privately retained a fifth, refused court-appointed counsel, and walked into the courtroom on the day of trial without a lawyer. The Court found the defendant forfeited and otherwise waived the right to counsel through their conduct.

North Carolina courts look at the totality of circumstances before stripping a defendant of the right to counsel. No single act automatically triggers forfeiture. What follows are the seven patterns set forth in Webber that, alone or in combination, can cost a defendant their lawyer:

House Bill 307, known as Iryna’s Law, took effect December 1, 2025, and represents perhaps the most significant statutory reform to North Carolina’s pretrial release framework in decades. 

The legislation emerged in response to a high-profile homicide in Charlotte and puts into effect sweeping changes to bail procedures, pretrial detention authority, and judicial oversight of release decisions.

The law’s core mechanism is the creation of rebuttable presumptions against the release of defendants charged with specified violent offenses or who have prior violent-offense records. Presumptions shift the baseline inquiry from “why should this defendant be detained,” to “why should this defendant be released despite the statutory presumption.”

Contact Information