The North Dakota Supreme Court issued an opinion in *State v. Vasquez* (2026 ND 9) remanding a criminal case back to the district court due to improper documentation of a conditional plea agreement. The case highlights the critical importance of precise procedural compliance in criminal proceedings, even when all parties agree on the terms.
Jose Francesco Vasquez, representing himself, appealed from a criminal judgment in Mercer County District Court, claiming he had entered a conditional plea that preserved his right to appeal the district court's denial of his motion to dismiss or suppress evidence. Justice Bahr wrote the unanimous opinion for the high court.
The central issue arose from a documentation error. While both the prosecution and defense agreed that Vasquez had entered a conditional plea, the criminal judgment failed to reflect this crucial detail. Under North Dakota Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(a)(2), when a court accepts a conditional plea, "the resulting judgment must specify it is conditional."
Rule 11(a)(2) permits defendants to "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 rule serves an important function in criminal procedure by allowing defendants to preserve certain appeal rights while still entering a guilty plea.
According to the court's opinion, the State, Vasquez, and District Court Judge Daniel J. Borgen had all signed a notice of conditional plea, indicating that all parties understood Vasquez was entering a conditional plea. However, the district court failed to enter the required order, and the resulting judgment did not use the word "conditional" or otherwise indicate that Vasquez's plea was entered subject to his right to appeal.
This procedural deficiency created uncertainty about whether Vasquez had properly preserved his appeal rights. The Supreme Court noted that proper documentation is essential for protecting defendants' rights and ensuring clarity in the appellate process.
The court referenced its recent decision in *State v. Medina*, which established that Rule 11's plain terms require specific procedural steps when accepting conditional pleas. While the full text of the *Medina* holding was not included in the available opinion excerpt, the reference suggests the North Dakota Supreme Court has been emphasizing strict compliance with conditional plea procedures.
Vasquez represented himself throughout the proceedings, with Todd A. Schwarz serving as the State's Attorney for Stanton in representing the prosecution. Both sides submitted their arguments on brief rather than presenting oral arguments.
The Supreme Court's remedy was straightforward but important. Rather than dismissing the appeal or making a ruling on the underlying merits, the court remanded the case with specific instructions. The district court must now clarify whether it actually accepted a conditional plea and, if so, enter an order and judgment that comply with Rule 11(a)(2)'s requirements.
The high court retained jurisdiction under North Dakota Rule of Appellate Procedure 35(a)(3)(B), which allows the Supreme Court to maintain oversight of remanded cases to ensure proper resolution. This retention of jurisdiction indicates the court wants to ensure the district court properly addresses the procedural deficiency.
The case demonstrates several important principles in criminal procedure. First, it shows that even when all parties agree on the terms of a plea agreement, courts must still follow proper documentation procedures. The agreement between prosecution, defense, and the trial court was not sufficient to cure the procedural defect.
Second, the case illustrates that procedural rules exist to protect important rights, including appeal rights in criminal cases. The requirement that conditional plea judgments specifically identify themselves as conditional serves to prevent confusion and ensure that defendants can effectively exercise their preserved appeal rights.
Third, the case shows that self-represented defendants can successfully navigate appellate procedures when they identify legitimate procedural errors. Vasquez's pro se appeal succeeded not on the merits of his underlying suppression motion, but on the straightforward procedural issue of improper documentation.
The remand will allow the district court to correct the record and properly document whether a conditional plea was accepted. If the district court confirms it accepted a conditional plea, Vasquez will then be able to proceed with his appeal of the denial of his motion to dismiss or suppress evidence.
The case serves as a reminder to trial courts throughout North Dakota about the importance of precisely following procedural rules, particularly when accepting conditional pleas. While the error in this case appears to have been inadvertent, it required Supreme Court intervention to resolve.
For practitioners, *State v. Vasquez* reinforces that compliance with Rule 11(a)(2) requires both substantive agreement and proper documentation. The mere existence of a signed notice of conditional plea, while helpful, does not satisfy the rule's requirement that the judgment itself specify the conditional nature of the plea.