out and that Child’s motion to suppress was premised on one central question — whether the search was justified absent particularized suspicion — it is obvious that Child intended to reserve the right to appeal this issue. Moreover, we note that Child’s attorney specifically referred to the crossed-out provision when electing to enter into the plea, and that the district court also stated that Child would retain his right to appeal should he so desire. We conclude that this is sufficient to reserve Child’s right to appeal. See id. (providing for a “substance-over-form” approach in considering whether an issue is reserved for appeal, rather than requiring “rigid adherence” to reservation requirements); see also State v. Padilla, 2006-NMCA-070, ¶¶ 10-12, 139 N.M. 700, 137 P.3d 640 (<HOLDING>). Consequently, we proceed to address the
holding that an issue was sufficiently reserved in a plea even though not reduced to writing when both the prosecution and the district court were aware of the defendants intent to appeal holding that a defendants guilty plea was unconditional where the guilty plea was not in writing and the government did not consent to it being conditional holding that an issue is preserved for appeal where the issue was sufficiently raised for the court to rule on it   holding that a counsels oral statements at a plea hearing  that the plea being entered was conditional  did not satisfy the rule 11 writing requirement holding that where the issue of sanctions was not before the court of appeals when the appeal was filed the district court retained jurisdiction