Title: TERRY E. NEIDLINGER, SR. v. THE STATE OF WYOMING

State: wyoming

Issuer: Wyoming Supreme Court

Document:

TERRY E. NEIDLINGER, SR. v. THE STATE OF WYOMING2010 WY 54230 P.3d 306Decided: 04/27/2010
APRIL 
TERM, A.D. 2010

 
 
TERRY 
E. NEIDLINGER, SR.,

 
 
Appellant

(Defendant),

 
 
v.

 
 
THE 
STATE OF WYOMING,

 
 
Appellee

(Plaintiff).

 
 
Appeal 
from the District Court of Laramie County

The 
Honorable Thomas T.C. Campbell, Judge

 
 
Representing 
Appellant:

Diane 
M. Lozano, State Public Defender; Tina N. Kerin, Appellate Counsel; Kirk A. 
Morgan, Senior Assistant Appellate Counsel.

 
 
Representing 
Appellee:

Bruce 
A. Salzburg, Attorney General; Terry L. Armitage, Deputy Attorney General; D. 
Michael Pauling, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Leda M. Pojman, Senior 
Assistant Attorney General.

 
 
Before 
VOIGT, C.J., and GOLDEN, HILL, KITE, and BURKE, 
JJ.

 
 
BURKE, 
Justice.

 
 

[¶1]        
Appellant, 
Terry Neidlinger, Sr., appeals the district court's "Order Denying Defendant's 
Motion to Withdraw No Contest Plea."  
He contends that the district court abused its discretion in denying the 
motion. We conclude that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction 
to consider the motion and dismiss the appeal.  

 
 
ISSUE

 
 

[¶2]        
Mr. 
Neidlinger presents one issue:  

 
 
Did 
the trial court abuse its discretion when it determined that manifest injustice 
did not exist permitting Appellant to withdraw his no contest plea after 
sentencing?

 
 
FACTS 
AND PROCEEDINGS

 
 

[¶3]        
In 
February 2006, Mr. Neidlinger was charged with two counts of taking indecent 
liberties with a minor and one count of third-degree sexual assault.  In August of 2006, he pled "no contest" 
to one count of indecent liberties.  
 In exchange for the plea, 
the other two charges were dismissed.  
The district court sentenced him to three to five years of 
incarceration.  The sentence was 
suspended and Mr. Neidlinger was placed on probation.  Mr. Neidlinger filed a notice of appeal 
challenging the Judgment and Sentence.  That appeal was docketed in this Court as 
No. 06-0292.

 
 

[¶4]        
Mr. 
Neidlinger was ordered to complete sex offender treatment as a condition of his 
probation, but he was terminated from the treatment program.  In February 2007, the district court 
revoked his probation and reinstated the underlying prison sentence.  Mr. Neidlinger filed a second notice 
of appeal challenging the probation revocation.  That appeal was docketed in this Court as 
No. 07-0062.  The two appeals were 
consolidated and determined in Neidlinger 
v. State, 2007 WY 204, 173 P.3d 376 (Wyo. 2007).  In that decision, we affirmed the 
conviction for indecent liberties and reversed the probation revocation.  Id., ¶¶ 9, 13, 173 P.3d  at 378-79.  On remand, the district court re-imposed 
probation. 

 
 

[¶5]        
In 
August of 2008, Mr. Neidlinger filed a motion seeking discharge from 
probation.  The matter was set for 
hearing, but the district court continued the hearing because Mr. Neidlinger was 
in federal custody, charged with falsely asserting he was a U.S. Marshal.  The State again moved to revoke Mr. 
Neidlinger's probation. 

 

[¶6]        
In 
February of 2009, after Mr. Neidlinger was convicted on the federal charge, the 
district court held a hearing on the motion for discharge from probation and the 
State's petition for revocation.  On 
March 4, 2009, the district court issued an Order Denying Early Discharge from 
Probation and an Order Revoking Probation and Imposing Sentence.  On February 4, 2009, Mr. Neidlinger 
filed a Motion to Withdraw No Contest Plea.  The district court held a hearing on the 
motion on February 26, 2009.  The 
district court entered an Order Denying Defendant's Motion to Withdraw No 
Contest Plea on March 9, 2009.  Mr. 
Neidlinger filed a timely notice of appeal.

 
 
DISCUSSION

 
 

[¶7]        
Initially 
we note that, in his brief, Mr. Neidlinger states: "This case is an appeal from 
the Order Denying Early Discharge from Probation, Order Revoking Probation and 
Imposing Sentence, and Order Denying Defendant's Motion to Withdraw No Contest 
Plea."  Despite this assertion, Mr. 
Neidlinger focuses his argument solely on the Order Denying Defendant's Motion 
to Withdraw No Contest Plea.  To the 
extent that he challenges the other orders, he presents no argument 
whatsoever.  We therefore summarily 
affirm the Order Denying Early Discharge from Probation and the Order Revoking 
Probation and Imposing Sentence.  

 
 

[¶8]        
Mr. 
Neidlinger's primary argument concerning the denial of his motion to withdraw is 
that the trial court did not advise him that a plea of no contest was the 
functional equivalent of a guilty plea.  
He claims that because this distinction was not clearly explained, his 
plea was not voluntary.  The State 
disputes Mr. Neidlinger's claim, but first asks us to determine whether the 
district court had subject matter jurisdiction to entertain the motion.  Whether subject matter jurisdiction 
exists is a question of law that is reviewed de novo.  Patrick v. State, 2005 WY 32, ¶ 6, 108 P.3d 838, 840 (Wyo. 2005).  

 
 

[¶9]        
Mr. 
Neidlinger sought to withdraw his plea pursuant to W.R.Cr.P. 
32(d):

 
 

Plea 
withdrawal.If 
a motion for withdrawal of a plea of guilty or nolo contendere is made before 
sentence is imposed, the court may permit withdrawal of the plea upon a showing 
by the defendant of any fair and just reason.  At any later time, a plea 
may be set aside only to correct manifest injustice.  

 
 
Although 
Rule 32(d) does not set a time limit for filing a motion to withdraw a plea 
after sentencing, we have previously recognized that a limit must exist in order 
to give effect to the general rule that a case is no longer pending after a 
judgment and sentence has been entered.  Nixon v. State, 2002 WY 
118, ¶ 9, 51 P.3d 851, 853 (Wyo. 2002).  Once a defendant's conviction is 
final because he has exercised his right to appeal, or the time for appeal has 
expired, the district court no longer has authority over the case.  
Id., ¶ 13, 51 P.3d  at 854.  The district court only has jurisdiction 
to act if the case has been remanded or if a specific, express exception 
conferring jurisdiction is created by a rule or statute.  See, e.g., 
W.R.Cr.P. 35(a) & (b) (allowing a court to correct an illegal sentence at 
any time and reduce a sentence within specific time limits); Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 
7-14-103 (LexisNexis 2009) (allowing a court to consider violations of 
constitutional rights if challenged within five years of the entry of 
judgment).1  No specific, express exception provides 
the district court with jurisdiction to hear a motion to withdraw a plea after 
the time to appeal has run, or the conviction has been affirmed on appeal.  

 
 

[T]his 
Court's precedent, as well as policy considerations including the interest in 
the finality of criminal decisions, mandate that such a motion to withdraw a 
guilty plea, filed after an appeal of right from a judgment and sentence has 
been concluded, cannot be considered by the district court because of a lack of 
jurisdiction over such matters.

 
 

Nixon, 
¶ 8, 51 P.3d  at 853.  See also Brown v. State, 2008 WY 9, 175 P.3d 1158 (Wyo. 2008). 

 
 

[¶10]     
The 
circumstances of this case are indistinguishable from those presented in Nixon and Brown.  Mr. Neidlinger appealed his judgment and 
sentence on February 27, 2007.  We 
affirmed his conviction and sentence in all respects.  His motion to withdraw his no contest 
plea was filed nearly two years later.  
Because the motion to withdraw the plea was untimely, the district court 
did not have jurisdiction to entertain the motion.  This Court enjoys no greater 
jurisdiction than the district court in such matters.  Nixon, ¶ 8, 51 P.3d  at 853.  

 

[¶11]     
The 
district court's Order Denying Early Discharge from Probation and Order Revoking 
Probation and Imposing Sentence are affirmed in all respects.  Mr. Neidlinger's appeal of the district 
court's Order Denying Defendant's Motion to Withdraw No Contest Plea is 
dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

 
 
FOOTNOTES

 
 

1Mr. 
Neidlinger sought relief pursuant to W.R.Cr.P. 32(d).  It is doubtful, from 
the facts of this record, that a petition for post-conviction relief under Wyo. 
Stat. Ann. § 7-14-101, et seq., would have been successful because the 
claim could have been raised in a prior direct appeal.  See Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 
7-14-103(a)(i).