1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 40631

STATE OF IDAHO , Plaintiff-Respondent ,

v.

TIFFANY MARIE BARTLETT , Defendant-Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2013 Unpublished Opinion No. 718

Filed: October 18, 2013

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Four th Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada County. Hon. Thomas F. Neville , District Judge.

Appeal from o rder revoking probation and reinstating previously suspended sentence, dismissed

. Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Shawn F. Wilkerson , Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Kenneth K. Jorgensen , Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

________________________________________________ Before GUTIERREZ, Chief Judge; LANSING, Judge; and MELANSON, Judge

PER CURIAM Tiffany Marie Bartlett pled guilty to possession of a controlled substance , I.C. § 37

- 2732(c) , and the di strict court withheld judgment and placed Bartlett on probation. Bartlett admitted to violating the terms of her probation and the district court revoked her withheld judgment and probation and imposed a unified sentence of seven years, with a minimum per iod of confinement of one year. The district court retained jurisdiction for 180 days. Thereafter, the district court suspended Bartlett’s sentence and placed her on probation. T he district court entered an order revoking Bartlett’s probation and ordere d execution of the underlying sentence. Bartlett filed an I.C.R. 35 motion for reduction of her sentence, which the district court denied.2 On appeal, Bartlett argues only that the district court erred in declining to sua sponte reduce her

sentence upon r evocation of her probation. Idaho Appellate Rule 14 provides that an appeal may be taken from an order of the district court within forty

- two days form the date of the filing of the order. A motion for

reduction of sentence can extend the time for filin g an appeal, but only if the motion is filed within fourteen days of the entry of the judgment. State v. Thomas , 146 Idaho 582, 593, 199 P.3d 769, 770 (2008); State v. Yeaton , 121 Idaho 1018, 1019, 829 P.2d 1367, 1368 (Ct. App. 1982). The requirement of perfection of an appeal within the for ty

- two days is jurisdictional

, and any appeal taken after expiration of the filing period will be dismissed. Thomas , 146 Idaho at 593, 199 P.3d at 770. The timeliness of an appeal from an order revoking probation und er similar circumstances to those in this case was addressed by this Court in Yeaton , 121 Idaho 1018, 829 P.2d 1367. The Idaho Supreme Court has also held that an order revoking probation is not a judgment and, therefore, the filing of a R ule 35 motion wi thin fourteen days of such order does not terminate the running of the time for appeal from that order. Thomas , 146 Idaho at 594,

199 P.3d at 771. On January 8, 2013, Bartlett filed a notice of appeal, timely only from the district court’s order denying her Rule 35 motion. The district court had revoked Bartlett’s probation on November 21, 2012. Although Bartlett’s Rule 35 motion was filed within fourteen days of the order revoking probation, this did not extend the time for appealing from the order rev oking probation. See Thomas , 146 Idaho at 594, 199 P.3d at 771; Yeaton , 121 Idaho 1019, 829 P.2d 1368. Therefore, this Court lacks jurisdiction to review the order revoking Bartlett’s probation, and her appeal must be dismissed.