State v. Rogers, 256 N.C. App. 328

Background

Defendant Israel John Rogers was arrested after being observed breaking into vehicles and charged with two counts of breaking or entering a motor vehicle, resisting a public officer, and habitual felon status.
Defendant sought a pro se motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction (advancing sovereign-citizen style arguments); his retained counsel declined to file it and sought to withdraw, which the trial court denied.
The trial court permitted defendant to present pro se filings and denied his pro se motion to dismiss. The State then offered a plea: consolidated convictions with a 23–40 month sentence; defendant entered an Alford plea.
During the plea hearing the court twice spoke inconsistently about appellate rights: it told defendant pleading imposes limitations on appeal but earlier stated he would have the right to appeal the denial of his motion to dismiss.
Defendant filed a purported appeal and a petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals. The State moved to dismiss because a guilty plea generally forecloses an appeal as of right and review requires certiorari.
The Court of Appeals invoked Rule 2 (suspending appellate rules) to reach the merits, assumed the trial court erred in advising about appeal rights, but held any error was harmless and affirmed (no prejudicial error).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Rogers)	Held
Whether the Court of Appeals has procedural authority to grant certiorari to review issues arising after a guilty plea under App. R. 21	Rule 21 does not provide certiorari bases for appeals following a guilty plea; certiorari is discretionary and limited	Defendant sought certiorari to review trial-court denial of his motion to dismiss and contend plea was invalid due to erroneous appellate-rights advice	Court invoked Rule 2 to suspend the appellate rules and grant review (to avoid manifest injustice/expedite public interest) and proceeded to the merits
Whether the trial court’s statement that defendant "had the right to appeal" the denial of his pro se motion to dismiss invalidated his Alford plea	Any erroneous statement is not shown to have prejudiced the plea; plea colloquy otherwise satisfied statutory requirements	Court’s incorrect assurance about appeal rights rendered the plea involuntary/unknowing	Court assumed error but held it harmless; plea was knowing and voluntary and no prejudicial error (affirmed)
Whether the trial court lacked subject-matter or personal jurisdiction over defendant	Indictment and superior-court jurisdiction were valid; no defect shown	Defendant argued sovereign-citizen theories (no contract, born sovereign) to deny jurisdiction	Court rejected defendant’s jurisdictional theory as legally incoherent and upheld jurisdiction
Whether defendant preserved a right to appeal denial of motion to dismiss after pleading guilty	A guilty plea waives right to appeal unless statute or specific Rule 21 basis applies; defendant may seek certiorari	Defendant contended he retained the right because the court told him he could appeal	Court reiterated guilty pleas generally preclude appeals as of right; review requires certiorari which was granted via Rule 2 for this case

Key Cases Cited

State v. Bolinger, 320 N.C. 596 (defendant who pleads guilty not entitled to appeal as of right regarding plea validity)
State v. Demaio, 216 N.C. App. 558 (guilty plea limits appellate review; certiorari required to challenge improper acceptance of plea)
State v. Stubbs, 368 N.C. 40 (Supreme Court discussion of appellate jurisdiction and certiorari availability)
State v. Thomsen, 369 N.C. 22 (addresses appellate courts’ jurisdiction to issue certiorari under certain statutory circumstances)
State v. Smith, 352 N.C. 531 (plea must be voluntary and knowing; defendant must understand direct consequences)
In re M.S., 199 N.C. App. 260 (facially invalid indictment deprives trial court of jurisdiction)