State v. Ali, 2025 ND 73

Said Ali was charged with eight counts of possession of prohibited materials after allegedly possessing videos involving sexual conduct by a minor.
Prior to trial, Ali filed a motion in limine seeking to exclude the video evidence and related witness testimony.
The district court denied the motion in limine after a hearing.
Ali, his counsel, and the State signed a written stipulation indicating intent to enter conditional guilty pleas preserving Ali's right to appeal on the suppression issue.
Ali pled guilty to all counts, but the resulting criminal judgment did not specify the pleas were conditional.
On appeal, Ali did not provide a transcript of the change of plea hearing, and the record was unclear on whether the court accepted conditional pleas.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Ali preserved the right to appeal the denial of his motion in limine by entering a conditional guilty plea	Ali did not meet the requirements for a conditional plea under Rule 11(a)(2); no clear record or judgment.	Ali argued he entered a conditional plea allowing him to appeal the pretrial ruling.	Issue not preserved; judgment affirmed as there's no record evidence of a conditional plea.

State v. Abuhamda, 923 N.W.2d 498 (N.D. 2019) (strict compliance needed for conditional guilty pleas under Rule 11(a)(2))
State v. Trevino, 807 N.W.2d 211 (N.D. 2011) (court can accept conditional guilty pleas if consent is recorded on the record)
State v. McCleary, 16 N.W.3d 445 (N.D. 2025) (judgment must clearly state if guilty plea is conditional)
Field v. Field, 6 N.W.3d 595 (N.D. 2024) (appellant's obligation to provide necessary transcripts for appeal)
State v. Glaum, 4 N.W.3d 540 (N.D. 2024) (risks of failing to submit transcript on appeal)