Jonathan B. GONDER v. STATE of Arkansas
Court of Appeals of Arkansas
Opinion delivered May 3, 2006
JURISDICTION – THERE WAS COMPLIANCE WITH ARK. RULE CRIM. P. 24.3
ESTABLISHING APPELLATE JURISDICTION.– On the facts presented, there was
compliance with Ark. R. Crim P. 24.3 establishing appellate jurisdiction where the
Report of Plea Negotiations reflected what was agreed between the State and
appellant, and it was in writing, signed by the prosecutor, defense counsel, and
appellant; the contents of the Report were recited in open court by the trial court and
agreed to by appellant and the State, as well as by the trial court by verbal assent, and
because the Report was presented in open court at the plea hearing, and was accepted
by the trial court in total, this rendered it contemporaneous within the case law
construing Rule 24.3(b).
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE – APPELLANT GAVE CONSENT TO SEARCH – TRIAL COURT DID
NOT ERR IN DENYING MOTION TO SUPPRESS.– The trial court’s denial of appellant’s
motion to suppress was not clearly erroneous where appellant gave both verbal and
written consent to the search of his home, and the trial court was entitled to believe
the testimony given by the police officer who conducted the search.
Appeal from Jefferson County Circuit Court; Jodi Raines Dennis, Judge; affirmed.
GONDER v. STATE
Cite as 95 Ark. App. ___ (2006)
Brown & McKissic, LLP, by: Gene E. McKissic, for appellant.
Mike Beebe, Att’y Gen., by: Misty Wilson Borkowski, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.
JOHN B. ROBBINS, Judge. Appellant Jonathan B. Gonder appeals his convictions for
possession of controlled substances (marijuana and cocaine) with intent to deliver. This
appeal follows his entry of a conditional guilty plea after the trial court denied his motion to
suppress. The State argues that we do not have jurisdiction to consider appellant’s appeal
because appellant's conditional guilty plea does not conform with Ark. R. Crim. P. 24.3(b)
(2005), and asks that we dismiss the appeal. We do not dismiss