1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 40028

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

JACOB ALLEN PINNEY,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2013 Unpublished Opinion No. 456

Filed: April 23, 2013

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED 

OPINION AND SHALL NOT 

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada

County. Hon. Ronald J. Wilper, District Judge. 

Appeal from order revoking probation and reinstating previously suspended 

unified six-year sentence with one-year determinate term for burglary, dismissed.

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

Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. 

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney 

General, Boise, for respondent. 

________________________________________________

Before LANSING, Judge; GRATTON, Judge;

and MELANSON, Judge

PER CURIAM

Jacob Allen Pinney pled guilty to burglary. I.C. § 18-1401. On March 17, 2005, the 

district court imposed a unified six-year sentence with a one-year determinate term, but retained 

jurisdiction. The district court suspended Pinney’s sentence and placed him on probation

pursuant to an order which was filed on September 16, 2005. However, the district court dated 

the order September 12, 2005, nunc pro tunc in an effort to circumvent its loss of jurisdiction 

over Pinney’s case on September 13, 2005. A court cannot enter a nunc pro tunc order to extend 

jurisdiction. State v. Doe, 153 Idaho 588, 592, 288 P.3d 805, 809 (2012). 

Pinney admitted to violating the terms of the probation in 2006, and the district court 

revoked probation, ordered execution of the underlying sentence, but retained jurisdiction. In 
2

2007, the district court again suspended Pinney’s sentence and placed him on probation. Pinney 

violated the conditions of his probation again and the district court revoked probation and 

ordered execution of the suspended sentence. Pinney filed an I.C.R. 35 motion for reduction of 

his sentence, which the district court denied. Pinney appeals. Pinney acknowledges that the 

district court lost jurisdiction on September 12, 2005, but continues to assert that the district 

court abused its discretion when it revoked his probation and should have sua sponte reduced his 

sentence upon revocation of his probation. 

We consider first the state’s argument that Pinney cannot obtain relief because the district 

court had no jurisdiction to place Pinney on probation on in September 2005. The state is 

correct. Furthermore, Pinney, in his appellant’s brief, also acknowledges that the district court 

lost jurisdiction on in September 2005. 

The district court’s jurisdiction ceased to exist on September 12, 2005, and Pinney

automatically came under the control of the Department of Correction. See State v. Petersen, 

149 Idaho 808, 31, 121 P.3d 961, 962 (Ct. App. 2010). Because the district court lost 

jurisdiction on September 12, 2005, all subsequent proceedings in Pinney’s case would have 

been a legal nullity. See Petersen, 149 Idaho 808, 811, 241 P.3d 981, 984 (Ct. App. 2010). Any 

attempt to place a defendant on probation after the expiration of the statutorily authorized review 

period is void. State v. Taylor, 142 Idaho 30, 31-32, 121 P.3d 961, 962-63 (2005). 

The district court did not have jurisdiction to place Pinney on probation. Therefore, his 

appeal is dismissed.