Gossett v. State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Cite as 2009 Ark. App. 835
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION IV
No.
CACR08-1356
LATORE DURAND GOSSETT,
APPELLANT
V.
STATE OF ARKANSAS,
Opinion Delivered 9
DECEMBER 2009
APPEAL FROM THE CLARK
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT,
[NO. CR-2006-185]
THE HONORABLE JOHN
ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE
APPELLEE
DISMISSED
D.P. MARSHALL JR., Judge
In the fall of 2008, the supreme court adopted a “Conditional Plea Form” and
appended it to Rule of Criminal Procedure 24.3. This Rule governs pleas of guilty
and nolo contendere.
The new form clarifies the contemporaneous-writing
requirement and helps ensure that conditional-plea cases are decided on the merits
instead of falling to a jurisdictional defect. Waters v. State, 102 Ark. App. 8, 10–11, 279
S.W.3d 493, 495–96 (2008) (Glover, J., concurring).
In the summer of 2007, more than a year before the new form made its
appearance, Latore Gossett pleaded guilty to five drug-and-firearm-related offenses.
The circuit court and the lawyers agreed at the guilty-plea hearing that the plea was
conditional, reserving Gossett’s right to appeal a suppression issue. The circuit court
Cite as 2009 Ark. App. 835
sentenced him to fourteen years’ imprisonment. Gossett now challenges the circuit
court’s denial of his pre-trial motion to suppress evidence found during a warrantless
search of his apartment. He raises a co-tenant consent issue. Cf. Georgia v. Randolph,
547 U.S. 103 (2006). The State, however, argues that we do not have jurisdiction
because Gossett failed to comply strictly with the requirements for entering a
conditional guilty plea. The State is correct.
Generally, a defendant who pleads guilty has no right to appeal. Ark. R. App.
P.–Crim. 1(a).
But “[w]ith the approval of the court and the consent of the
prosecuting attorney, a defendant may enter a conditional plea of guilty or nolo
contendere, reserving in writing the right, on appeal from the judgment, to review of
an adverse determination of a pretrial motion to suppress seized evidence . . . .” Ark.
R. Crim. P. 24.3(b). This means that when the defendant enters his conditional guilty
plea, he must contemporaneously reserve his right to appeal in writing. Waters, 102
Ark. App. at 9, 279 S.W.3d at 494. “Absent strict compliance, the appellate court
acquires no jurisdiction to hear an appeal, even when there has been an attempt at trial
to enter a conditional plea.” Grupa v. State, 83 Ark. App. 389, 390, 128 S.W.3d 470,
471 (2003).
At the plea hearing, Gossett’s attorney stated that Gossett’s plea was conditional.
The State agreed. And the circuit court did too. But the only contemporaneous
-2-
Cite as 2009 Ark. App. 835
writing—the statement in advance of a plea of guilt—did not mention that Gossett was
entering his plea conditionally. Instead, the statement recites that Gossett was waiving
his rights to appeal and to challenge the admissibility of any evidence that might have
been offered against him. Both Gossett and his attorney signed the statement. We
have searched the record and there is no other writing—contemporaneous or
otherwise—reserving Gossett’s right to appeal or indicating that his plea was
conditional. Under the strict-compliance standard imposed by precedent, we therefore
lack jurisdiction. Waters, 102 Ark. App. at 10, 279 S.W.3d at 495.
Dismissed.
GRUBER and HENRY, JJ., agree.
-3-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.