As a general rule, the state cannot withdraw from a plea agreement once the defendant has pleaded guilty. See State v. Collins, 300 N.C. 142, 148 (1980); State of Isom, 119 N.C. App. 225 (1995) (the "consideration" that the defendant gives in exchange for plea bargaining is the fact that he pleads guilty to the prosecution). However, the State may be able to prosecute other charges dismissed under the plea if the defendant violates the agreement. See Rickets, 483 U.S. 1 (no violation of double jeopardy, in which the state sued the defendant on initial murder charges after the defendant failed to testify against the co-accused, as agreed in the agreement with a lesser charge, and the agreement expressly stated that such failure would render the agreement "null and void" and that previous charges would be "automatically reinstated"); see also State v. Fox, 34 N.C.

App. 576 (1977) (on the question of appeal to the de novo trial after opposition by agreement before the District Court: "If a defendant decides not to maintain his share in an agreement to bring an appeal, the State is not obliged, by its agreement, to waive the higher fee"); cited by State v. Rodriguez, 111 N.C. App. 141 (1993). Criminal trials include softer or alternative sentences promised in exchange for an accused`s admission of guilt. One of the most visible forms of criminal trial occurs when defendants plead guilty to murder in order to avoid the death penalty. Criminal trials also take place in less serious cases, such as .B. confessing an indictment in exchange for a "time served" sentence, which usually means that the accused is released immediately. Plea bargaining, in law, is the practice of negotiating an agreement between the prosecution and the defence, whereby the defendant pleads guilty to a lesser crime or (in the case of multiple offences) to one or more of the accused offences, in exchange for more lenient sentences, recommendations, a particular sentence or a dismissal of other charges.

Proponents of plea bargaining say it speeds up court proceedings and guarantees a conviction, while opponents say it prevents justice from being done. The vast majority of criminal cases in the United States involve some form of plea bargaining. Taken together, these five cases illustrate the Court`s view that plea bargaining is acceptable and deserves to be recognized as valid agreements. In fact, the Santobello court went so far as to argue that plea bargaining was "not only an essential part of the process, but for many reasons a highly desirable part." Advocacy negotiations have thus become an established and protected routine. Although Section 58 of Chapter 15A applies only to guilty pleas in a higher court, Boykin`s requirements (free and willing to fully understand the nature of the charges) apply to any admission of guilt, including offenses in district court. See State v. Harris, 14 N.C. App. 268 (1972) (erroneous admission of guilt for the charge of bodily harm emanating from the District Court). In practice, however, the procedure for accepting pleas before the District Court is somewhat less formal than the procedure before the Supreme Court. For example, the District Court may collectively inform all defendants of their rights or have them sign a pre-printed waiver form. In addition, the fact that the defendant`s lawyer (not the judge) informs the defendant of his rights and the consequences of admitting guilt will adequately meet Boykin`s requirements in most cases.

See Bradshaw v. Stumpf, 545 U.S. 175 (2005) ("We have never decided that the judge himself must explain the elements of each charge to the defendant in the record. On the contrary, the constitutional requirements of a valid plea may be satisfied if it is apparent from the minutes that the nature of the charge and the constituent elements were explained to the defendant by his own competent lawyer. North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, n. 3 (1970) (concluding that there was no Boykin problem in which "Alford had been fully informed by his lawyer of his right to plead not guilty and the consequences of an admission of guilt"). There are three main types of advocacy negotiations. Each type includes sentence shortenings, but these reductions are obtained in very different ways. If the State violates the agreement, the defendant`s remedy is to ask the court to order, if possible, a specific execution or to authorize the withdrawal (annulment) of the plea. .