1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 45682

STATE OF IDAHO ,

Plaintiff

- Respondent ,

v.

MICHAEL R. MURPHY ,

Defendant

- Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Filed: August 22, 2018

Karel A. Lehrman, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Fifth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Jerome County. Hon. John K. Butler , District Judge.

Order denying motion to withdraw guilty plea, affirmed

. Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Jenny C. Swinford
, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Ted S. Tollefson , Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

________________________________________________ GRATTON, Chief Judge Michael R. Murphy appeals from the district court’s order denying his Idaho Criminal

Rule 33(c) moti on to withdraw his guilty plea. We affirm.

I.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On October 16, 2006, a judgment of conviction and sentence w as entered upon Murphy’ s guilty plea to t rafficking in m ethamphetamine or a mphetamine. On November 9, 20 17, Murphy
filed an I

. C

. R

. 33(c) motion t o withdraw his 2006 guilty plea

. The district court denied Murphy’s motion for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Murphy timely appeals.

II.
ANALYSIS On appeal, Murphy argues that the distric t court abused its discretion when it denied his

m otion to withdraw his guilty plea. Mindful of controlling precedent regarding jurisdiction to2 entertain a Rule 33(c) motion, Murphy argues the distric t court abused its discretion by denying
his motion. The State arg u es that the trial court was correct in denying Murphy’s motion
because the motion was not timely filed. Whether a court lacks jurisdiction is a question of law, over which thi s Court exercises
free review. State v. Jones
, 140 Idaho 755, 757, 101 P.3d 699, 701 (2004); State v. Savage
, 145 Idaho 756, 758, 185 P.3d 268, 270 (Ct. App. 2008). Post

- judgment motions to withdraw guilty pleas are authorized by I.C.R. 33(c). Once a judgment becomes final, however, a trial court doe s not have jurisdiction to amend or set aside the judgment absent a statute or a rule extending jurisdiction. State v. Jakoski , 139 Idaho 352, 355, 79 P.3d 711, 714 (2003); State v. Armstrong
, 146 Idaho 372, 377

- 78, 195 P.3d 731, 736

- 37 (Ct. App. 2008). A judgment becomes final at the expiration of time for appeal or affirmance of the judgment on appeal, and a motion to withdraw a guilty plea may not be granted thereafter. Jakoski , 139 Idaho at 355, 79 P.3d at 714; Armstrong , 146 Idaho at 377

- 78, 195 P. 3d at 736

- 37. The district court correctly held that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to entertain Murphy’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea because Murphy’s motion was untimely

. The judgment of convictio n was entered on October 16, 200 6. The judg ment became final forty

- two days therefrom
, when Murphy failed t o appeal the original judgment. See Idaho Appellate
Rule 14(a). Contrary to Murphy’s assertion, manifest injustice, the only ground for granting a motion to withdraw a guilty plea post

- sentencing under I.C.R. 33(c), does not create an exception to the trial court’s loss of subject matter jurisdiction upon a judgment becoming final. Murphy does not argue, nor can he sh ow , that there is a statute or rule that extends the jurisdiction of the
district court.

III.
CONCLUSION Murphy’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea was untimely and the district court lacked jurisdiction to c onsider the motion

. The order denying Murphy’ s motion to withd raw his guilty plea is affirmed

. Judge GUTIERREZ and Judge HUSKEY CONCUR

.