Exceeding Scope of Request for a Search Warrant In Arkansas

Appellants moved to suppress evidence, alleging that the State exceeded "the scope of their request" for a search warrant: Rule 24.3(b) of the Arkansas Rules of Criminal Procedure provides: With the approval of the court and the consent of the prosecuting attorney, a defendant may enter a conditional plea of guilty or nolo contendre contendere, reserving in writing the right, on appeal from the judgment, to review of an adverse determination of a pretrial motion to suppress evidence. If the defendant prevails on appeal, he shall be allowed to withdraw his plea. "As guilty pleas are generally not appealable, an attempted appeal from a guilty plea must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction unless the requirements of Rule 24.3(b) have been met." Burress v. State, 321 Ark. 329, 330, 902 S.W.2d 225, 226 (1995). "If the express terms of Rule 24.3 are not met, we acquire no jurisdiction to hear the appeal of a conditional plea." Id. This court's review, however, is limited to that part of the record which is abstracted. See, e.g., Mayo v. State, 324 Ark. 328, 920 S.W.2d 843 (1996). Hence, in order for this court to determine whether we acquired jurisdiction of this case, it was vital that appellants abstract any pleadings, plea documents, orders, or court proceedings associated with their conditional pleas of no contest. Because appellants failed to abstract these items, we cannot ascertain from the record whether the court approved or the prosecuting attorney consented to their conditional pleas as required by Rule 24.3(b). Likewise, there is no record before us evidencing the mandated reservation, in writing, of appellants' right to appeal the adverse ruling of their pretrial motion to suppress evidence. Thus, we cannot determine whether we have jurisdiction, and consequently, we must dismiss the appeal. See Burress, supra.