See State ?. Parisi, 372 N.C. 639, 649- 50, 831 S.E.2d 236 (2019) (quoting Statev. Carroll, 226 N.C. 237, 241, 37 S.E.2d 688 (1946)). B. The Suppression Ruling

¶ 23 Likewise, in State v. Parisi our Supreme Court addressed whether probable cause existed to place defendant under arrest for driving while impaired. State v. Parisi, 372 N.C. 639, 639, 831 S.E.2d 236, 237 (2019). There, the officer "did not observe any unlawful or bad driving" but noticed defendant's eyes were glassy and an open container of alcohol in the passenger's side of the vehicle.

" '[A] person is under the influence of intoxicating liquor or narcotic drugs, within the meaning and intent of the statute, when he has drunk a sufficient quantity of intoxicating beverages or taken a sufficient amount of narcotic drugs to cause him to lose the normal control of his bodily or mental faculties, or both, to such an extent that there is an appreciable impairment of either or both of those faculties.' " State v. Parisi, 372 N.C. 639, 649-50, 831 S.E.2d 236, 243-44 (2019) (quoting State v. Carroll, 226 N.C. 237, 240-41, 37 S.E.2d 688, 691 (1946)). "The fact that a motorist has been drinking, when considered in connection with faulty driving . . . or other conduct indicating an impairment of physical or mental faculties, is sufficient prima facie to show a violation of [N.C. Gen. Stat.] § 20-138."

Atwater v. Lago Vista, 532 U.S. 318, 354 (2001). “According to well-established federal and state law, probable cause is defined as ‘those facts and circumstances within an officer's knowledge and of which he had reasonably trustworthy information which are sufficient to warrant a prudent man in believing that the suspect had committed or was committing an offense.'” State v. Parisi, 372 N.C. 639,649-50, 831 S.E.2d 236, 243-14 (2019) (quoting State v. Williams, 314 N.C. 337, 343, 333, S.E.2d 708, 713 (1985)).

As in other motions implicating a defendant’s due process rights, such as motions to suppress, our review of these findings of fact is limited to determining whether they are supported by competent evidence. See, e.g., State v. Parisi, 372 N.C. 639, 649, 831 S.E.2d 236 (2019) (cleaned up) ("As we have stated on many occasions, this Court reviews a trial court’s order granting or denying a defendant’s suppression motion by determining whether the trial court’s underlying findings of fact are supported by competent evidence and whether those factual findings in turn support the trial court’s ultimate conclusions of law."). However, whether Defendant took these actions in detrimental reliance upon—and was therefore prejudiced by—the withdrawn plea agreement is an issue of law which we review de novo.

Additionally, "the trial court's findings of fact are conclusive on appeal if supported by competent evidence, even if the evidence is conflicting." State v. Parisi, 372 N.C. 639, 649, 831 S.E.2d 236, 243 (2019) (internal marks and citation omitted). However, "[c]onclusions of law are reviewed de novo and are subject to full review."

Probable cause to effectuate a warrantless arrest exists when the "facts and circumstances within an officer's knowledge ... are sufficient to warrant a prudent man in believing that the suspect had committed or was committing an offense." State v. Robinson , 221 N.C. App. 267, 272–73, 727 S.E.2d 712, 717 (2012) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted); seeState v. Parisi , 372 N.C. 639, 656, 831 S.E.2d 236, 247–48 (2019). Probable cause to arrest for driving while impaired can arise from the defendant's appearance, odor, speech, and/or performance on field sobriety tests.

We review a trial court's order on a motion to suppress to determine "whether the trial court's underlying findings of fact are supported by competent evidence and whether those factual findings in turn support the trial court's ultimate conclusions of law." State v. Parisi , 372 N.C. 639, 649, 831 S.E.2d 236 (2019) (cleaned up). "Findings of fact not challenged on appeal ‘are deemed to be supported by competent evidence and are binding on appeal.’

. See, e.g. , State v. Parisi , 372 N.C. 639, 831 S.E.2d 236, 243-44 (2019) ("[A] person is under the influence of intoxicating liquor or narcotic drugs ... when he has drunk a sufficient quantity of intoxicating beverages or taken a sufficient amount of narcotic drugs to cause him to lose the normal control of his bodily or mental faculties, or both, to such an extent that there is an appreciable impairment of either or both of those faculties." (emphasis added; quotations and citation omitted));

"[T]he trial court's findings of fact are conclusive on appeal if supported by competent evidence, even if the evidence is conflicting." State v. Parisi , 372 N.C. 639, 649, 831 S.E.2d 236, 243 (2019) (cleaned up). While "a [trial] court's finding[s] of fact on the question of discriminatory intent [are] reviewed for clear error," when "a finding of fact is based on the application of an incorrect burden of proof, the finding cannot stand."