“Dispositive Must Mean Case-Ending”: Wyoming Supreme Court Invalidates Non‑Dispositive Conditional Plea Under W.R.Cr.P. 11(a)(2) in Kotrc v. State

Introduction

In Cody Allan Kotrc v. State of Wyoming, 2025 WY 114 (Wyo. Oct. 22, 2025), the Wyoming Supreme Court vacated a conviction entered on a conditional guilty plea and remanded, holding that the plea was invalid because it reserved a non‑dispositive issue for appeal under Wyoming Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(a)(2). The case arose from an alleged domestic violence incident during which Mr. Kotrc made inculpatory statements to police without receiving Miranda warnings. He sought to suppress those statements, and when the district court denied suppression he entered a conditional guilty plea designed to preserve the Miranda issue for appellate review.

On appeal, neither party questioned the plea’s validity; both urged the Court to reach the Miranda merits. The Supreme Court sua sponte identified a threshold defect: the suppression issue was not “dispositive” because the State possessed independent, non‑tainted evidence sufficient to proceed to trial. Emphasizing that “dispositive” means success on appeal would end the case, the Court refused to reach the suppression question, vacated the judgment of conviction, and remanded for further proceedings.

Summary of the Opinion

The Court reviewed the validity of a conditional plea de novo and applied the four-part test governing Rule 11(a)(2):

• Written reservation of a specified pretrial issue;
• Consent of the State;
• Approval of the district court; and
• Dispositivity of the reserved issue.

The first three elements were satisfied: the reservation was in writing; the prosecutor consented; and the court approved the plea. The plea failed on the fourth element. Even if Mr. Kotrc’s pre-arrest statements were suppressed, the State had independent evidence—eyewitness and victim accounts and physical evidence—sufficient to continue the prosecution. Because suppression would not end the case, the issue was not dispositive. The district court’s characterization of the suppression motion as “potentially dispositive” underscored the defect.

Consistent with prior practice, the Court declined to reach the merits or convert the appeal into a writ of review in the absence of special circumstances, particularly after the State declined the Court’s invitation at oral argument to stipulate that a defense victory on the merits would result in dismissal (which would have rendered the issue truly dispositive). The Court vacated the judgment and reversed for further proceedings.

Analysis

Precedents Cited and Their Influence

• Barney v. State, 2022 WY 49, 507 P.3d 459: The Court relied on Barney to articulate the four elements required for a valid conditional plea. Barney anchors the modern Wyoming framework for Rule 11(a)(2).
• Robinson v. State, 2019 WY 125, 454 P.3d 149: Cited with Barney to reaffirm that Rule 11(a)(2) requires a written reservation, State consent, court approval, and a dispositive issue.
• Walters v. State, 2008 WY 159, 197 P.3d 1273: Two teachings from Walters loom large. First, when even one preserved issue is non‑dispositive, the entire conditional plea is invalid. Second, upon finding invalidity, appellate courts ordinarily do not reach the merits. Walters thus frames both the defect and the remedy applied in Kotrc.
• Brown v. State, 2017 WY 45, 393 P.3d 1265: Brown supplies the governing definition of “dispositive” and emphasizes the “case-ending” test:

  “The essential inquiry for the court is whether the appeal will end the case.”

  Brown also illustrates a narrow discretionary exception: converting a procedurally improper appeal into a writ of review to clarify law when warranted.
• Johnson v. City of Laramie, 2008 WY 73, 187 P.3d 355: Johnson is a template for today’s result. There, suppression of a breath test was not dispositive because other evidence could sustain a DUI conviction. The parallel is exact: in Kotrc, other evidence (victim and eyewitness testimony and physical signs of a disturbance) likewise prevents dispositivity.
• Bouch v. State, 2006 WY 122, 143 P.3d 643: Bouch cautions trial courts to approve conditional pleas “only if assured that the decision of the appellate court will dispose of the case,” and recognizes rare “unique circumstances” justifying merits review despite a conditional-plea defect. The Court found no such circumstances here.
• Hardman v. State, 2018 WY 24, 413 P.3d 116: Confirms that a non‑dispositive issue renders a conditional plea invalid—reinforcing the bright-line approach applied in Kotrc.
• United States v. Bundy, 392 F.3d 641 (4th Cir. 2004): Quoted for the proposition that, with a proper conditional plea, “there should be no trial after the specified issues are resolved by the court of appeals,” crystallizing the case-ending criterion.
• Matthews v. State, 2014 WY 54, 322 P.3d 1279: Demonstrates that the Supreme Court may raise conditional-plea validity sua sponte and treat it as dispositive of an appeal—precisely what occurred in Kotrc.

Legal Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning proceeds in three disciplined steps:

1. Rule 11(a)(2) Framework and Standard of Review. Interpreting a conditional plea is a question of law reviewed de novo. The rule allows conditional pleas only with written reservation of a specified pretrial issue, State consent, court approval, and—and this is the fulcrum—the issue must be dispositive.
2. Application to the Record. The written reservation, State consent, and judicial approval were all present. The defect lies in dispositivity. To be dispositive, success on appeal must end the case—either by necessitating dismissal or by excluding evidence essential to conviction. Here, even if Mr. Kotrc’s statements were suppressed, the State had:
   • AP’s statements describing difficulty breathing, pain, and being thrown to the ground;
   • Eyewitness Diane Johnson’s corroborative account of a chokehold and a throw to the ground;
   • Physical evidence of a disturbance, including blood and injuries on Mr. Kotrc’s knuckles;
   • Other officers’ observations and interviews independent of the challenged statements.
   Because this evidence could support prosecution for aggravated assault and related charges without the defendant’s statements, the reserved Miranda issue did not satisfy the case-ending test. The district court’s order calling the motion “potentially dispositive” underscored the problem: potential dispositivity is not enough.
3. Remedial Choice and Institutional Considerations. Consistent with Walters and general practice, the Court declined to reach the suppression merits. Nor did it convert the appeal into a writ of review (as in Brown) because no special need to clarify law existed, the defendant had already completed his sentence, and—critically—the State declined a stipulated dismissal in the event of reversal on the merits, which would have created dispositivity. The Court thus vacated the conviction and remanded.

Impact and Prospective Significance

Kotrc sharpens and enforces Wyoming’s dispositivity requirement for conditional pleas, with practical consequences for all courtroom actors:

• Trial Courts. Judges should not accept conditional pleas premised on issues described as “potentially dispositive.” Before approving a conditional plea, the court should build a clear record explaining why a defendant’s success on the reserved issue will end the case—either because specific evidence is indispensable to the prosecution or because the parties stipulate dismissal if the defendant prevails.
• Prosecutors. The State cannot cure a non‑dispositive reservation by consenting to a conditional plea. If the State wants appellate resolution of a pretrial question without trial, it should be prepared to stipulate that the case will be dismissed if the defendant prevails on the reserved issue. Absent such a stipulation, the presence of independent evidence (especially in domestic violence cases with multiple witnesses) will often defeat dispositivity—and, as Kotrc shows, will risk vacatur and remand rather than merits review.
• Defense Counsel. Counsel must rigorously assess whether suppression will truly end the case. In cases with eyewitnesses, victim statements, or other corroboration, Miranda or search-and-seizure issues may not be dispositive. Alternatives include:
  • Negotiating a stipulation that the State will dismiss if the defendant prevails on appeal;
  • Pursuing a bench trial on stipulated facts to preserve issues for appeal without running afoul of Rule 11(a)(2);
  • Proceeding to trial and litigating suppression, understanding that an unconditional plea generally waives nonjurisdictional issues on appeal.
• Appellate Practice. The Supreme Court will police Rule 11(a)(2) compliance sua sponte. Even unanimous party agreement that a conditional plea is proper does not bind the Court. Expect strict enforcement of the case-ending standard and a reluctance to convert defective appeals into writs absent compelling reasons (e.g., unsettled law of statewide importance).
• Substantive Criminal Litigation. Because statements by defendants are often cumulative rather than indispensable, Miranda suppression issues will be dispositive only in limited contexts (e.g., confession-only prosecutions). Kotrc signals that conditional pleas are not a vehicle for advisory appellate rulings in routine suppression disputes.
• Collateral Consequences. Even if a sentence is completed, an invalid conditional plea can result in vacatur of the conviction—important where collateral consequences (e.g., firearm disabilities, immigration, employment) persist. On remand, the State may reprosecute; parties may renegotiate; or the case may proceed to trial.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Conditional guilty plea (Rule 11(a)(2)). A defendant may plead guilty while reserving the right to appeal a specified pretrial ruling. The reservation must be in writing, the prosecutor must consent, the judge must approve, and the issue must be dispositive—meaning a defense win on appeal ends the case.
• Dispositive issue. An issue is dispositive if a decision in the defendant’s favor will either require dismissal of the case or suppress evidence without which the State cannot obtain a conviction. As the Court put it, “The essential inquiry … is whether the appeal will end the case.” If other independent evidence remains sufficient, the issue is not dispositive.
• Miranda and custody (context only). Miranda warnings are required before custodial interrogation. Whether a person is “in custody” turns on whether a reasonable person in the suspect’s position would feel free to leave, considering factors such as location, restraints, duration, tone, and police statements. Kotrc did not decide the Miranda question because the conditional plea was invalid.
• Sua sponte. Latin for “of its own accord.” An appellate court may raise and decide issues not presented by the parties—here, the validity of the conditional plea.
• Writ of review (extraordinary review). An appellate court may treat a defective appeal as a petition for an extraordinary writ to resolve important, unsettled legal questions. The Court declined to do so here, finding no special justification.
• Vacate vs. reverse and remand. To vacate a judgment is to nullify it. Reversing and remanding sends the case back to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with the appellate ruling. Here, vacatur of the conviction and remand restore the case to its pre‑plea posture.

Practice Guidance and Checklist

To structure a valid conditional plea in Wyoming after Kotrc:

• Specify the exact pretrial ruling reserved for appeal in a written plea agreement.
• Create a clear, on-the-record explanation for why a defense victory would end the case.
• Consider a stipulation from the State that if the defendant prevails on appeal, the State will dismiss (particularly where other evidence exists).
• Avoid vague formulations such as “potentially dispositive.” The record should reflect certainty, not possibility.
• If dispositivity cannot be established, consider alternative vehicles (stipulated bench trial, full trial, or different plea posture) to preserve issues for review.

Conclusion

Kotrc v. State reinforces a bright-line rule: a conditional plea is valid only when the reserved issue is truly dispositive—meaning that a defense victory on appeal will end the case. “Potentially” case-ending is not enough, and party agreement cannot cure a defect. Where independent evidence would allow the State to proceed absent the challenged proof, a conditional plea reserving suppression is invalid. The Court’s refusal to reach the merits and its insistence on vacatur and remand—despite both parties’ assent to the plea and the fact that the sentence had been served—signal a strong institutional commitment to the narrow, case-ending function of Rule 11(a)(2).

For bench and bar, the message is practical and clear: build a dispositivity record or choose a different path to appellate review. In Wyoming, conditional pleas are not a vehicle for advisory opinions or interlocutory suppression appeals; they are reserved for issues that, if resolved in the defendant’s favor, will eliminate the need for any trial at all.