Summary
The Arkansas Supreme Court reviewed David Gooch’s conditional no-contest plea to possession of a firearm by certain persons under Arkansas Code Annotated section 5-73-103. The court dismissed his challenge concerning whether he had been involuntarily committed because it was not appealable from the conditional plea, and affirmed without reaching his constitutional arguments because they were not adequately raised and ruled upon below.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Gooch could appeal, after a conditional no-contest plea, his claim that he had not been adjudicated mentally ill or involuntarily committed within the meaning of Arkansas Code Annotated section 5-73-103(a)(2) and (3).
- Whether Gooch preserved a void-for-vagueness and due-process challenge to section 5-73-103(a)(3).
- Whether Gooch preserved his Second Amendment and Arkansas constitutional right-to-bear-arms challenges to section 5-73-103(a)(3).
- Whether the circuit court ruled on Gooch's assertion that there was no mechanism for restoring firearm rights.
Holdings
- A conditional plea under Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 24.3(b) does not preserve a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence or to whether the facts fit the elements of the offense. Because Gooch's argument that he was not formally adjudicated mentally ill or involuntarily committed challenged the factual basis for applying the statute, that issue was not properly before the court and was dismissed.
- Constitutional arguments must be presented and developed in the circuit court to be preserved for appeal. Because Gooch did not raise his void-for-vagueness argument below and offered only conclusory assertions concerning his due-process and right-to-bear-arms claims, the court affirmed without reaching their merits.
- An appellant must obtain a ruling from the trial court to preserve an argument for appeal. Because Gooch did not obtain a ruling on his assertion that there was no mechanism to restore his firearm rights, that issue was not preserved.
Key quotations
“Where a defendant has entered a conditional guilty plea, this court has declined to reach the merits of the appellant’s challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence and the factual basis for his plea.” (2015 Ark. 227, at 5)
“In criminal cases, issues raised, including constitutional issues, must be presented to the trial court to preserve them for appeal.” (2015 Ark. 227, at 6)
“A party cannot change the grounds for an objection or motion on appeal, but is bound by the scope of arguments made at trial.” (2015 Ark. 227, at 7)
Factual background
Gooch had previously been placed under an order of involuntary admission to the Arkansas State Hospital or another appropriate facility for seven days of evaluation after a probate court found probable cause to believe that he had a mental illness, disease, or disorder and posed a clear and present danger to himself or others. Gooch testified that he voluntarily agreed to go to the hospital, remained there for approximately five days, and was released without a finding of mental illness. He was later found in possession of a double-barrel shotgun and charged under Arkansas Code Annotated section 5-73-103(a)(3).
Procedural history
Gooch was charged with possession of a firearm by certain persons after police found him with a double-barrel shotgun. He moved to suppress the evidence and dismiss the charge, asserting that his prior involuntary admission did not satisfy the statute and that the statute was unconstitutional. The circuit court denied both motions. Gooch then entered a conditional no-contest plea, was sentenced, and timely appealed. The Supreme Court of Arkansas dismissed the challenge concerning whether the statutory elements were met because it was a sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenge outside the scope of a conditional plea, and affirmed the constitutional points because they were not properly preserved below.