While exoneration data shows innocent persons sometimes plead guilty, little empirical research has explored how such wrongful convictions may be recognized and corrected on appeal. Through a qualitative content analysis of 104 Australian appellate court judgments where an applicant contested a guilty plea conviction and claimed factual innocence, this study examines how judges respond to such claims and the justifications provided for overturning (n = 28) or upholding (n = 76) the convictions. The findings reveal that appellate judges often consider claims of innocence irrelevant, instead focusing on the integrity of the plea decision. Without “exceptional” exonerating evidence, support from legal actors, and proof of misconduct, they were likely to find that the applicant made a free and informed plea decision and uphold the conviction. This underscores the restrictive access to appeals for persons who plead guilty, raising important implications for the legal system and post-conviction process.