Background
Abdulrahman Ibrahim Ali appealed from an order denying his application for postconviction relief, after which the district court entered a consistent judgment. The North Dakota Supreme Court treated the appeal as one from the subsequently entered judgment, citing Broadwell v. State, 2014 ND 6, ¶ 4, 841 N.W.2d 750, and Steinbach v. State, 2003 ND 46, ¶ 1 n.1, 658 N.W.2d 355. The appeal came from the District Court of Cass County, East Central Judicial District, with the Honorable Scott O. Diamond presiding.
In 2017, Ali was found guilty of five felonies: gross sexual imposition, kidnapping, aggravated assault, and two counts of terrorizing. The supreme court had previously affirmed the criminal judgment on direct appeal, the denial of his first application for postconviction relief, and the summary dismissal of his second application. The opinion identifies those decisions as State v. Ali, 2018 ND 87, 909 N.W.2d 112; Ali v. State, 2019 ND 121, 926 N.W.2d 706; and Ali v. State, 2022 ND 76, 973 N.W.2d 7.
In 2025, Ali filed his third application for postconviction relief, alleging that a 2023 psychological evaluation constituted newly discovered evidence. The district court found the application untimely under N.D.C.C. § 29-32.1-01(2) and found that no exception under N.D.C.C. § 29-32.1-01(3)(a) applied. Ali argued that the court erred because his current medication regimen and stabilized condition amounted to newly discovered evidence, and because his mental disease precluded timely assertion of the application.
The Court’s Holding
The court explained that an application filed more than two years after a conviction becomes final may be considered if it alleges newly discovered evidence that, “if proved and reviewed in light of the evidence as a whole,” would “establish that the petitioner did not engage in the criminal conduct for which the petitioner was convicted.” The court quoted Bridges v. State, 2022 ND 147, ¶ 13, 977 N.W.2d 718, which in turn quoted N.D.C.C. § 29-32.1-01(3)(a)(1).
The district court found that Ali’s 2023 psychological evaluation said nothing about whether he engaged in the criminal conduct for which he was convicted. The supreme court likewise concluded that Ali’s current medication regimen and stabilized condition said nothing about whether he engaged in that conduct. The court also upheld the district court’s finding that Ali could not show a mental disease precluded timely assertion of his application, because he filed a timely application in 2018 and testified at the hearing on it. The opinion cited N.D.C.C. § 29-32.1-01(3)(a)(2) for that exception.
The court summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2). It concluded that the district court’s findings of fact were not clearly erroneous and that the district court did not err in determining that Ali’s untimely postconviction relief application failed to meet any exception under N.D.C.C. § 29-32.1-01(3)(a). The per curiam opinion was signed by Chief Justice Lisa Fair McEvers and Justices Jerod E. Tufte, Jon J. Jensen, Douglas A. Bahr, and Mark A. Friese.
Key Takeaways
- The supreme court treated Ali’s appeal as an appeal from the judgment entered after the order denying postconviction relief.
- The newly discovered evidence exception requires evidence that would establish the petitioner did not engage in the criminal conduct for which he was convicted.
- Ali’s 2023 psychological evaluation, current medication regimen, and stabilized condition did not address whether he engaged in the criminal conduct.
- Ali’s timely 2018 application and hearing testimony undermined his claim that mental disease precluded timely assertion of the later application.
- The court summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2), finding no clear error in the factual findings and no error in the untimeliness determination.
Why It Matters
The decision applies North Dakota’s statutory exceptions for untimely postconviction applications to a petitioner’s mental-health evidence. It distinguishes evidence concerning a petitioner’s current condition or treatment from evidence that would establish he did not engage in the conduct underlying the conviction.
The opinion also illustrates the fact-specific nature of the mental disease exception. Ali’s earlier timely filing and participation through hearing testimony supported the district court’s finding that he could not show mental disease precluded timely assertion of his third application.