### IN THE COURT OF 

### APPEALS OF 

### THE STATE OF 

### IDAHO
Docket No. 40926 

### BRENT

# WILLIAMS, ) 2014 

### Unpublished Opinion No.351 ) 

# Petitioner-Appellant, ) Filed:f,'ebruary 6,2014 ) 

# v, ) Stephen 

### W. Kenyon, 

### Clerk ) 

### STATE OF

# IDAHO, ) THIS IS

### AI\ TJI\PUBLISHED 

# ) OPINION 

### AI{D SHALL NOT 

# Respondent. ) BE 

### CITED AS

### AUTHORITY

Appeal

### from the 

### District Court

### of the Seventh 

### Judicial 

### District, State

### of ldaho. Bonneville 

### County. Hon. Joel E.Tingey, 

### District Judge. Order summarily dismissing petition for post-conviction relief, affirmed. Brent

### Williams, Boise, pro se appellant. 

### Hon. Lawrence 

## G. Wasden,

### Attomey General; 

### Nicole 

## L. Schafer, Deputy 

### Attomey General, Boise, for respondent. 

### GRATTON, Judge 

### Brent 

### Williams appeals

### from the 

### district court's sumrnary dismissal 

### of his petition 

### for post-conviction 

### relief. We 

### affirm. 

### I.

FACTUALAND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Williams pled 

### guilty pusuant to plea agreements 

### in two sepzrate cases and the 

### district court entered twojudgments 

### of conviction and sentences on January I0, 201 1

## . Williams did not 

### file direct appeals in either case.

### on February 28, 2013,

### williams filed a pro se

### petitionfor postconviction 

### relief. The 

### district court

### filed a notice 

### of intent to dismiss 

### Williams' petition because 

### it failed to present viable 

### claims. The State 

### filed a motion 

### to dismiss asserting the 

### petition was 

### filed outside 

### the statute

### of limitations. Williams' objection

### to dismissal 

### did not address thetimeliness 

### of his 

### petition. The court issued an order 

### of dismissal 

### for

### Williams' failure 

### to

### file his

petition 

### within the one-year statute 

### of 

### limitations.l Williams timely appeals. 

## IL ANALYSIS Our review 

### ofthe district court's construction and application of the 

### limitation statute is a matter 

### of free 

### review. Kriebel v. State, 148 

### Idaho 188, 

### 190,219 

### P3d 1204, 1206 

### (Ct. App. 

### 2009). The statute 

### of limitations 

### for post-conviction actions provides that a 

### petition 

### for post

### conviction 

### relief may be 

### frled at any 

### time

### within one year 

### from the expiration 

### of the

### time 

### for appeal, orfrom the determination 

### of appeal, orfrom the determination 

### of a proceeding 

### following

an appeal, whichever is 

### later. I.C. $ 19-4902(a). The appeal referenced in that section means the appeal 

### in the underlying 

### criminal case. Gonzalez v.

### State,I39 Idaho 

### 384,385,79 P.3d 

### 743,744 

### (Ct. App.

### 2003). Thefailure 

### to

### file a

### timely petition 

### is a basis 

### for dismissal 

### of the petition. 

### Kriebel, 148 Idaho at 190, 219 P.3d at 1206. The district court dismissed 

### Williams' petition because 

### it was not

### timely 

### filed. Williams argues his 

### petition for post-conviction 

### relief is not time-barred because his recent due diligence led to the discovery 

### of the legal argument that a grand

### jury indictrnent was required 

### in his case. 

### A party waives an issue on appeal

### if either authority or argument is lacY,ing. State v.

### Zichko, 129 Idaho 

### 259,263,923 P.2d 

### 966,970 

### (1996). Williams offers neither authority 

### nor argument to support the notion that the statutory period istolled because the petitioner later leams 

### of a legal argument (enoneous as

### it 

## is). Williams also argues 

### his innocence 

### tolled the

### time requirement. However, 

### he has again 

### failed 

### to ofler authority 

### or argument

### to support 

### his contention. The statutory period began 

### forty-two days after his

### judgment

### of convictionwas

### entered. Williams has presented nothingto excuse his failure to

### timely file within the one-year period. 

## ilI. CONCLUSION Williams did not

### timely

### file his petition for post-conviction 

### relief. Therefore, the order

## of dismissal is affirmed. Judge 

### MELANSON CONCURS. Judge 

### LANSING CONCURS 

### IN THE RESULT. 

# t The court also dismissed the 

### petition based 

### on

### Williams' failure to present meritorious 

### claims. However, on appeal, the State argues only the issueof timeliness.