Defendant was threatened by anyone, or promised anything other than the plea agreement that caused him to enter the pleas against his wishes, to which Defendant answered, “No, sir.” Finally the trial court asked if Defendant entered the pleas of his own free will, fully understanding what he was doing. Defendant answered, “Yeah, I do.” In light of this colloquy, Defendant’s signature on the Transcript of Plea, and the trial court’s statement that Defendant’s sentence for felony assault on a handicapped person was “contingent upon your performance on the misdemeanors[,]” we hold the trial court did not err by accepting Defendant’s guilty plea to felony assault on a handicapped person as a product of his informed choice. See State v. Salvetti, 202 N.C. App. 18, 29, 687 S.E.2d 698, 705 (<HOLDING>), disc. review denied, 364 N.C. 246, 699 S.E.2d
holding that a defendant must have knowledge of the likely consequences of entering the guilty plea in order for a plea to be voluntary and knowing holding that a failure to inform the defendant of the minimum possible sentence meant that the defendant did not fully understand the consequences of his plea and his rights were therefore automatically substantially affected holding that the defendants guilty plea was valid where the district court carefully questioned the defendant about whether he understood the consequences of his guilty plea holding that a courts inquiry as to disputed facts in connection with a prior conviction is limited to the terms of the charging document a plea agreement a transcript of the plea colloquy or a comparable judicial record holding that in light of the trial courts inquiry the defendants verbal responses and the defendants answers to the questions on the transcript of plea the trial court did determine that defendant was fully informed of the consequences of his choice to enter an alford plea