### IN THE COURT OFAPPEALS 

### OFTHE STATE OF 

### IDAHO Docket 

### No.38962 BRANDON 

### KEITH BLOCI,\ Petitioner-Appellant,

STATE OF 

### IDAHO, Respondent 2012 

### Unpublished Opinion 

### No.484 Filed: May 21,2012 Stephen 

### W. Kenyon, 

### Clerk THIS IS 

### AN 

### UNPUBLISHEI) OPINION AND 

### SHALL NOT BE 

### CITED AS

### AUTHORITY ) 

### ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 

### ) ) Appeal from the 

### District Court of the FourthJudicial 

### District, State 

### of Idaho, 

### Ada County. Hon. Michael E.Wetherell, 

### District Judge. Order summarily dismissing applicationfor post-conviction relief, affrrmed. Brandon Keith Block, Boise, pro seappellant. Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden,

### Attomey General; 

### LoriA. Fleming, Deputy 

### Attomey General, Boise, for respondent. 

### MELANSON, Judge Brandon 

### Keith Block appeals

### from the 

### district court's order 

### summarily dismissing his applicationfor post-conviction 

### relief. For the reasons setforth below, we affrrm. On June 9,2008, after 

### Block pled 

### guilty to lewd conduct

### with a 

### minor under the age

### of sixteen, 

### I.C. $ l8-1508, the district court sentenced Block to a unified term of twenty years, 

### with 

## a minimum period

## of confinement

## of six 

### years. The district court retained 

### jurisdiction. Following 

### Block's rider, he was placed 

### on probation 

### on November 

### 26, 2008, 

### for aterm

## of twenty 

### years. Block violated the terms

### of his probation, andthe

### district court imposed 

### Block's underlying sentence 

### on

### April 

### 27,2010. Block 

### did not

### file an appeal

### from hisjudgment 

### of conviction 

### or sentence, 

### but 

### didfrle a 

### pro se application 

### for post-conviction 

### relief on March 2, 2011, asserting that he received 

### ineffective assistance 

### of counsel. Thereafter,

### the state

### filed a motion 

### for summary dismissal 

### of Block's application on the basis that 

### it was 

### untimely. After a hearing, 

### the 

### district court summarily dismissed 

### Block's application because

## it found that the application was untimely 

### pusuantto the statute 

### of limitation set

### forth in I.C. 

### $ l9-4902(a). The

### district court also found 

### that Block had 

### not identified any reason

### for tolling the statute

### of

limitation. Block appeals. 

### Block argues 

### that the 

### district court ened 

### by summarily dismissing 

### his application

### for post-conviction 

### relief. However, 

### Block does 

### not challenge the 

### district court's 

### finding that his 

### application was 

### untimely pursuant

### to the statute 

### of limitation set

### forth 

### in I.C. 

### $ l9-4902(a). When 

### the basis

### for a

### trial court's 

### ruling 

### is not challenged 

### on appeal,

### an appellate 

### court 

### will afErm on the unchallenged 

### basis. ,Srare

### v. Goodwin, 131 

### Idaho 364, 

### 166-67,956 P.2d 1311, 1313-14 (Ct. 

### App. 1998). Further, our review 

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

### of the f

### imitation statute 

### is a matter 

### of free 

### review. Freeman v. State, 122 ldaho 

### 627, 628, 836 P.2d 1088, 1089 (Ct.

### App. 1992). 

### Idaho Code 

### Section l9-4902(a) provides 

### that an application 

### for post-conviction 

### relief may be

### filed at any time 

### within one year

### fromthe expiration 

### of thetime 

### for appeal 

### or from the determination 

### of an appeal

### or from the determination 

### of a proceeding 

### following an appeal, whichever 

### is 

### later. Idaho Appellate 

### Rule 14(a) provides that an appeal 

### from the 

### district court must be

### filed 

### within forty-two days 

### "from the date evidenced bythe

### frling stamp

### of the clerk 

### of the court on any

### judgnent or order 

### of the district court appealable as a matter of 

### right in any 

### civil

or criminal 

### action." Rule 14(a) further provides, in pertinent part: 

### If, at thetime 

### ofjudgment, the district court retains

### jurisdiction pursuant to Idaho 

### Code

## $ 19-2601(4), 

### the length 

## of time

## tofile an appeal 

### fiom the sentence contained 

### in the criminal judgment 

### shall be enlarged 

### by the length 

## of time between entry 

### of thejudgrnent 

### of conviction and entry 

### of the order relinquishing 

### jurisdiction 

### or placing

### the defendant 

### on probation; provided, however, 

### that all other appeals challenging thejudgment must be brought 

### within 42 days 

### of that judgment. 

### Accordingly, the 

### timefor appeal expired 

### on January

### 7, 

### 2009-forty-fwo days 

### afterthe 

### district court entered its November 

### 26,2008, order placing 

### Block on probation 

### following the period

### of retained

### jurisdiction. Block filed his application 

### for post-conviction 

### relief on March 

### 2,2011. Therefore, absent a reason to

### toll the statute 

### of limitation set

### forth in 

### I.c. $ 19-4902(a), 

### Block's application was rurtimely because 

### it wasfiled more than ayear 

### after Januxy 7,2009.1 

# t We note that 

### I.A.R. 14 was amended 

### in2011. Prior to this amendment, the rule provided that "the time to

### file an appeal is enlarged by the length of time the district court actually retains 

### jurisdiction pursuantto Idaho 

### Code." See also State 

### v. Ward,150 Idaho 

### 446,448,247 P.3d 673'

### This Court has recognized instances 

### of equitable

### tolling 

### with respect 

### to the statute 

### of

limitation set 

### forth in 

### I.C. 

### $ l9-4902(a). See Sayas v- State, 139 Idaho 

### 957,960' 88 P.3d 776' 779 (Ct. App. 

### 2003). However, 

### Block did not allege any basis to

### toll the statute 

### of limitation 

### in his application

### for post-conviction 

### relief, at 

### the hearing 

### onthe state's 

### motion

### to summarily dismiss 

### his application, 

### or on appeal 

### from the 

### district court's order dismissing 

### his application. Therefore, because 

### Block's application was untimely pursuant to 

### I.C. $ l9-4902(a), and because 

### Block does not challenge the district court's dismissal 

### of his application onthat ground or assert any basis upon which the statute 

### of limitation setforth 

### in 

### I.c. $ l9-a902(a) wastolled, we 

### affirm thedistrict court's summary dismissal of 

### Block's application. No costs or attomey fees awarded

on appeal. Judge 

### LANSING and Judge GUTIERREZ, 

### CONCUR.

675 

### (Ct. App. 2010) (holding 

### that the 

### time 

### to 

### file a notice 

### of appeal

### from the

### judgment 

### of conviction beginsto run atthe expiration 

### of the retained

### jurisdiction 

### period). Therefore, under 

### I.A.R. 14 

### prior 

### to the 2011 amendment, the 

### forty-two days permitted 

### for 

### filing an appeal 

### in Block's case commenced on 

### November 26,2008, the date 

### the district court placed 

### Block on 

### orobation. The result would not have beendifferent under the rule 

### prior to the 201

### I amendment-