State v. Harris, 243 N.C. App. 137

In Dec. 2012 police stopped a car and, after searching Kim Lamont Harris (passenger), found two bags of cocaine; Harris moved to suppress the search and for a continuance based on mental-competency concerns.
The trial court denied both the motion to suppress (with detailed findings) and the continuance, but ordered a competency evaluation.
On June 4, 2014 Harris pleaded guilty to possession with intent to sell/distribute cocaine and to habitual-felon status and was sentenced to 100–132 months.
Harris did not notify the State during plea negotiations of any intent to appeal the suppression ruling, nor did he file the statutorily required pre-plea notice of intent to appeal.
After the appeal period expired Harris filed untimely pro se notices of appeal; appointed appellate counsel then filed two petitions for writs of certiorari to review the suppression denial and the denial of the continuance.
The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal and denied both certiorari petitions, concluding it lacked authority to grant review under controlling precedent.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the denial of the continuance is appealable after a guilty plea	State: denial not among narrow statutory exceptions; waived by plea	Harris: seeks certiorari to review despite plea	Denied — waived by guilty plea; certiorari unavailable
Whether the denial of the suppression motion may be reviewed after guilty plea without pre-plea notice	State: defendant waived right by failing to give required notice during plea negotiations	Harris: certiorari appropriate because right was "lost by failure to take timely action" (untimely notice)	Denied — statutory right to appeal suppression is conditional and pre-plea notice required; certiorari unavailable under controlling precedent
Whether this panel should follow a recent conflicting panel that granted certiorari (Davis)	N/A: rely on binding earlier precedent	Harris: points to Davis allowing certiorari	Court follows earlier controlling precedent (Pimental), not Davis; certiorari denied
Whether allowing post-plea appeal undermines plea bargaining integrity	State/Opinion: permitting review after plea would allow a second bite at the apple	Harris: argues equitable review is warranted here	Court agrees with State; upholding notice requirement preserves plea finality

State v. Pimental, 153 N.C. App. 69 (2002) (holds failure to give pre-plea notice of intent to appeal a suppression ruling is not a "failure to take timely action" that would permit certiorari)
State v. Davis, 763 S.E.2d 585 (N.C. Ct. App. 2014) (panel granted certiorari to review suppression denial despite no pre-plea notice; no analysis)
State v. Jones, 358 N.C. 473 (2004) (Court of Appeals must follow earlier panel precedent when opinions conflict)
State v. McBride, 120 N.C. App. 623 (1995) (explains statutory rule requiring specific pre-plea notice to preserve suppression appeal right)