1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 40718

STATE OF IDAHO ,
Plaintiff-Respondent ,

v.

GREGORY SCOTT McAMIS ,
Defendant-Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2014 Opinion No. 17

File d: February 28, 2014

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

Appeal from the District Court of the Third Judicial District, State of Idaho, Adams County. Hon. Bradly S. Ford , District Judge.

Order denying motion to withdraw guilty plea, affirmed

. Greg S. Silvey, Star, for appellant.

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Jessica M. Lorello, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

________________________________________________ GRATTON, Judge Gregory Scott McAmis appeals from the district court’s denial of his motion to withdraw
his guilty plea. We affirm.

I.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The State charged McAmis with grand theft by deception. Pursuant to a plea agreement,
McAmis pled guilty. This Court affirmed his sentence and the denial of his Idaho Criminal

Rule 35 motion to reduce his sentence in State v. McAmis , Docket No. 35945 (Ct. App. Sept. 29,
2009) (unpublished). McAmis subsequently filed a su ccessful post

- conviction claim based on

the State ’s fail ure to follow the terms of the plea agreement

. T he district court ordered specific
performance of the plea agreement at a new sentencing proceeding. 1 At the subsequent

1 McAmis appealed the post

- conviction order seeking a withdrawal of his guilty plea as opposed to being resentenced. We affirmed the district court’s order in McAmis v. State

, __ Idaho __, 317 P.3d 49 (Ct. App. 2013 )

.2 resentencing hearing, McAmis moved to withdraw his guilty plea. He argued that the State

failed to provide certain d ocuments and that he would not have pled guilty if he had known of

the documents or had known that the State had the documents in its possession

. The district

court denied his motion and sentenced him

. McAmis timely appeals.

II.

ANALYSIS

The State contends the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to consider

McAmis’s request to withdraw his guilty plea. Whether a court lacks jurisdiction is a question of

law that may be raised at any time and over which this Court exercises free review

. State v.

Jones

, 140 Idaho 755, 757, 101 P.3d 699, 701 (2004). “ In the absence of a statute or rule
authorizing action, the trial court’s jurisdiction to consider an Idaho Criminal Rule 33(c) motion to withdraw a guilty plea expires once the judgment be comes final, either by expiration of the
time for appeal or by affirmance of the judgment on appeal. ” State v. Woodbury , 141 Idaho 547, 548, 112 P.3d 835, 836 (Ct. App. 2005) (citing State v. Jakoski , 139 Idaho 352, 355, 79 P.3d
711, 714 (2003)). “ Rule 3 3(c) of the Idaho Criminal Rules does not include any provision extending the jurisdiction of the trial court for the purpose of hearing a motion to withdraw a
guilty plea.” Jakoski , 139 Idaho at 355, 79 P.3d at 714. McAmis’ s judgment became final afte r his direct appeal in 2009. He argues that his judgment and commitment was vacated by the post

conviction order and that his criminal case was therefor e , no longer final. Idaho Code § 19

- 4907

authorizes action in a criminal case when a defendant success fully obtains post

- conviction relief.
McAmis successfully obtained post

- conviction relief , but solely as to sentencing. T he post

conviction court specifically found that McAmis’s guilty plea was valid and there was no basis

to set aside his conviction. Instead, the court determined that the sole remedy from the post

conviction action was to provide specific performance of the prosecuting attorney’s plea
bargained sentencing recommendations at a resentencing. However, the court’s subsequent jurisdiction in the criminal case is narrowly constrained to the ordered relief. The district court,
presiding over the criminal case, then had the finite power to effectuate that remedy. 2

2 If this were not so

, a defendant could attack the criminal case carte blanch e any time the defendant successfully obtained re lief in a post

- conviction case no matter how limited the remedy ordered

.3 Because McAmis’s judgment of conviction was final and the post

- conviction court’s

order granted relief solely as to sentencing , the criminal court was without jurisdiction to

consider the motion to withdraw the guilty plea

. III.

CONCLUSION

The district court was without jurisdiction to consider the motion to withdraw the guilt y plea because the motion was outside the scope of the remedy ordered in the post

- conviction
order. Therefore, the denial of McAmis’s motion to withdr aw his guilty plea is affirmed.
Chief Judge GUTIERREZ and Judge LANSING CONCUR.