State v. McGillÂ, 250 N.C. App. 121

In Aug–Sept 2013 defendant Ottis McGill committed two robberies (Western Union and New Bridge Bank); surveillance and witness IDs linked him to the crimes.
McGill was indicted for two counts of common-law robbery and habitual felon status; prosecutors offered a plea for concurrent (not consecutive) sentences which he initially rejected.
At trial (March 30, 2015) McGill unexpectedly agreed to plead guilty and signed a plea transcript; the plea included a prayer for judgment continued while he cooperated in an unrelated matter.
After cooperating with the State and receiving no sentencing recommendation, McGill filed a pro se motion to withdraw his plea, alleging counsel misadvised him about habitual-felon concurrent sentencing and asserting a broad conspiracy by court-appointed counsel to push bad pleas.
The trial court denied the motion after an evidentiary hearing and later sentenced McGill to two consecutive terms (117–153 months each) as an habitual felon; McGill’s appellate notice was procedurally defective, but he obtained certiorari review.

Issue	McGill's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Appellate jurisdiction (procedural defect)	McGill contends review should proceed despite imperfect notice; he filed certiorari petitions	State moved to dismiss for untimely/defective notice	Court granted dismissal motion but exercised discretion to grant certiorari and reach merits
Motion to withdraw plea — counsel misadvice re habitual-felon sentencing	McGill said counsel told him sentences could run concurrent with other counties, which was incorrect and induced the plea	State argued McGill was informed, counsel corrected misunderstanding before plea, and plea was voluntary	Court found McGill was informed during colloquy and by counsel; no fair-and-just reason to allow withdrawal
Motion to withdraw plea — alleged conspiracy/coercion by court-appointed counsel	McGill alleged a vague scheme to trick defendants into bad pleas	State rejected conspiracy claim as unsupported; emphasized record and counsel testimony	Court found allegations implausible and unsupported; no coercion or confusion shown
Sufficiency of factual basis for plea	McGill argued the plea lacked adequate factual foundation	State relied on plea stipulation, prosecutor’s factual summary, surveillance and IDs	Court held the prosecutor’s factual statement plus defendant’s stipulation satisfied statutory factual-basis requirement

State v. Handy, 326 N.C. 532 (N.C. 1990) (pre‑sentence plea withdrawal should be allowed for any fair and just reason)
State v. Meyer, 330 N.C. 738 (N.C. 1992) (enumerates factors for evaluating presentence plea‑withdrawal motions)
State v. Marshburn, 109 N.C. App. 105 (N.C. Ct. App. 1993) (independent appellate review of plea‑withdrawal denial and application of Meyer factors)
State v. Collins, 221 N.C. App. 604 (N.C. Ct. App. 2012) (sources adequate for factual-basis finding include prosecutor’s summary plus defendant’s stipulation)
State v. Grooms, 353 N.C. 50 (N.C. 2000) (when fully informed defendant insists on a tactical choice, the defendant’s wish controls)