State v. Ali

                   IN THE SUPREME COURT
                   STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

                                  

State of North Dakota,                                   Plaintiff and Appellee
       v.
Said Abdulkadir Ali,                                 Defendant and Appellant



                                 No. 20240281

Appeal from the District Court of Grand Forks County, Northeast Central
Judicial District, the Honorable Theodore T. Sandberg, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Opinion of the Court by Bahr, Justice.

Lindsey Trotter (argued), under the Rule on Limited Practice of Law by Law
Students, and Carmell F. Mattison (appeared), Assistant State’s Attorney, Grand
Forks, ND, for plaintiff and appellee.

Tyler J. Morrow, Grand Forks, ND, for defendant and appellant.
                                   State v. Ali
                                  No. 20240281

Bahr, Justice.

[¶1] Said Ali appeals from a criminal judgment entered upon guilty pleas to
eight counts of possession of certain materials prohibited. On appeal, Ali argues
the district court abused its discretion in denying his motion in limine to exclude
video evidence because the evidence was inadmissible under N.D.R.Ev. 401 and
403. We affirm, concluding Ali failed to preserve the issue because the record
does not reflect his guilty pleas were conditional.

                                        I

[¶2] In April 2023, the State charged Ali with eight counts of possession of
certain materials prohibited, a class C felony, alleging Ali knowingly possessed
videos containing sexual conduct by a minor. The district court scheduled trial
for May 2024. Before trial, Ali filed a motion in limine seeking to exclude the
videos and witness testimony of the videos. After a hearing, the court denied the
motion.

[¶3] Later, Ali, his attorney, and the State signed a “Stipulation for Entry of
Conditional Guilty Pleas” in which Ali would plead guilty to the charges while
reserving the right to appeal the district court’s ruling on the motion in limine.
The district court held a hearing in October 2024 and entered a criminal
judgment. The criminal judgment indicates Ali pled guilty to all eight counts.

                                        II

[¶4] Ali entered guilty pleas to the possession of certain materials prohibited
charges. He claims his pleas were conditioned on the right to appeal the district
court’s ruling on the motion in limine.

[¶5] “Rule 11(a)(2), N.D.R.Crim.P., ‘permits a defendant to enter a conditional
guilty plea, reserving in writing the right to appeal an adverse determination of
specified pretrial motions.’” State v. Abuhamda, 

, 

(quoting State v. Trevino, 

, 

). Rule 11(a)(2) reads:


                                        1
      Conditional Plea. With the consent of the court and the prosecuting
      attorney, a defendant may enter a conditional plea of guilty,
      reserving in writing the right to have an appellate court review an
      adverse determination of a specified pretrial motion. The defendant,
      any defendant’s attorney, and the prosecuting attorney must
      consent in writing to a conditional plea filed with the court. If the
      court accepts the conditional plea, it must enter an order. The resulting
      judgment must specify it is conditional. A defendant who prevails on
      appeal must be allowed to withdraw the plea.

(Emphasis added). “[A]lthough N.D.R.Crim.P. 11 does not require ritualistic
compliance, a court must substantially comply with the rule’s procedural
requirements ‘to ensure a defendant is entering a voluntary and intelligent guilty
plea.’” Abuhamda, ¶ 10 (quoting Trevino, ¶ 8).

[¶6] In Trevino, despite the absence of any reference to the plea being
conditional in the criminal judgment, we held a defendant entered a conditional
guilty plea when (1) the transcript reflected “both the State and the court
consented to entry of the defendant’s conditional guilty plea,” and (2) the State
on appeal did not argue the “guilty plea was not conditional” or that it “did not
consent to the conditional plea.” 

, ¶ 14. However, in Abuhamda, we
declined to extend our holding in Trevino when there was “nothing in the record
aside from mere hints” reflecting a conditional plea. 

, ¶ 11. Although
the State in Abuhamda did not argue the plea was not conditional, we explained
that it is difficult to discern whether a conditional plea was entered when the
deferred imposition of sentence did not state the plea was conditional; there was
no separate writing complying with N.D.R.Crim.P. 11(a)(2); and the defendant
failed to provide a transcript of the change of plea hearing. Id.

[¶7] Here, the judgment does not show Ali’s pleas were conditional. See
N.D.R.Crim.P. 11(a)(2) (“The resulting judgment must specify it is conditional.”);
State v. McCleary, 

, ¶ 25, 16 N.W.3d 445 (“While the judgment does
not use the word ‘conditional,’ it is clear on the face of the judgment McCleary’s
guilty pleas were entered subject to his right to appeal.”). Nor did Ali provide a
transcript of the change of plea hearing for this Court’s review. See Field v. Field,

, 6 N.W.3d 595 (“An appellant assumes the risks and


                                         2
consequences of failing to file a transcript.”); State v. Glaum, 

, 4
N.W.3d 540 (“If an appellant fails to provide a transcript he assumes the risks
and consequences of such failure.”). Thus, unlike in Trevino, we have no
transcript showing Ali’s guilty pleas were conditional and that the district court
consented to the entry of conditional guilty pleas. Although the “Stipulation for
Entry of Conditional Guilty Pleas” indicates Ali planned to enter conditional
guilty pleas, nothing in the record shows that he entered conditional guilty pleas
and that the court accepted conditional guilty pleas. We are unable to discern
from the record that Ali entered and the court accepted conditional guilty pleas.
“Again, we emphasize the importance of compliance with Rule 11(a)(2) to
protect against disputes regarding conditional pleas.” Abuhamda, 

.

                                        III

[¶8] Because Ali has not shown he entered conditional guilty pleas as to the
eight counts of possession of certain materials prohibited, the underlying issue
was not preserved for our review and we affirm the criminal judgment.

[¶9] Jon J. Jensen, C.J.
Daniel J. Crothers
Lisa Fair McEvers
Jerod E. Tufte
Douglas A. Bahr




                                         3