This memorandum opinion was not selected for pub lication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations fr om the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does not include the filing date. IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 1 STATE OF NEW MEXICO, 2 Plaintiff-Appellee, 3

v. NO. 34,852 4 SHIRLEY JACKSON, 5 Defendant-Appellant. 6 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF OTERO COUNTY 7 Angie K. Schneider, District Judge 8 Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General 9 Santa Fe, NM 10 for Appellee 11 Jorge A. Alvarado, Chief Public Defender 12 Sergio J. Viscoli, Appellate Defender 13 Albuquerque, NM 14 for Appellant 15 MEMORANDUM OPINION 16 ZAMORA, Judge. 17
{1} Defendant Shirley Jackson appeals following her entry of a guilty plea 18 admitting a probation violation and seeks re versal of the denial of her motion to 192 dismiss the petition for probation revocation. [DS 1; RP 186] De fendant asserts she 1 moved to dismiss the petition for probation revocation on the ground that the 2 adjudication hearing was not commenced w ithin the time limit prescribed by Rule 5- 3 805 NMRA. [DS 2] In this Court’s notice of proposed disposition, we proposed to 4 dismiss for lack of a final order or because Defendant waived her right to appeal. [CN 5 2] Defendant filed a memorandum in opposition, which we have given due 6 consideration. Remaining unpersuaded, we dismiss. 7
{2} Defendant asks this Court to construe a plea document and order committing 8 her to jail as a final order. [MIO 2–3] Insupport of her argument, Defendant points 9 to the plea document containing hand-writte n language stating, “[Department of 10 Corrections] for nine years from [Septemb er] 9, 2014, with cr edit for pre-sentence 11 confinement and time served.” [MIO 3; RP186] We note, however, that this language 12 refers to Defendant’s understanding of th e range of possible sentences for the 13 violation and not a sentence actually imposed . It appears from a review of Odyssey 14 that a subsequent commitment order wa s entered on November 9, 2015, ordering 15 Defendant to complete a sixty-day dia gnostic evaluation at the Department of 16 Corrections, but no judgment and sentence ha s been ordered. We therefore conclude 17 Defendant’s probation revocation is non-final and dismiss for lack of a final order. See 183 State v. Garcia , 1983-NMCA-017, ¶ 25, 99 N.M. 466, 659 P.2d 918 (holding that, in 1 a criminal case, the final judgment is the judgment and sentence or an order 2 dismissing all the charges against the defendant); see also Thornton v. Gamble , 1984- 3 NMCA-093, ¶ 15, 101 N.M. 764, 688 P.2d 1268 (holding that when a final judgment 4 has not been entered, an appellate court lacks jurisdiction and must dismiss). 5
{3} As we noted in our proposed dispositi on, even if we concluded Defendant’s 6 case was final, which we do not, Defendant waived her right to appeal by entering an 7 unconditional plea. [CN 3] Defendant con cedes her plea was unconditional but asks 8 this Court to use its discretion to considerthe merits of her argument, because, she 9 argues, the district court lacked jurisdic tion to revoke her probation. [MIO 3-4] This 10 Court may consider jurisdictional issues for the first time on appeal following entry 11 of a voluntary guilty plea. See State v. Chavarria, 2009-NMSC-020, ¶ 14, 146 N.M. 12 251, 208 P.3d 896 (recognizing that a voluntary guilty plea ordinarily constitutes a 13 waiver of the defendant’s right to appeal his conviction on other than jurisdictional 14 grounds, but that an illegal sentence (such as one not authorized by the applicable 15 statute) may be challenged for the firs t time on appeal). However, as Defendant 16 acknowledges, dismissal of a probation revocation petition based on violation of time 17 limits is discretionary. See Rule 5-805(L) (“[T]he court maydismiss the motion to 184 revoke probation for violating any of the time limits in this rule.” (emphasis added)). 1 [MIO 4] Thus, the district court did not lack jurisdiction to accept Defendant’s guilty 2 plea. We therefore conclude Defendant doe s not raise a jurisdictional issue that can 3 properly be considered for the first time on appeal after an unconditional plea and 4 decline to consider the merits of her motion to dismiss the revocation petition. 5
{4} Accordingly, for the reasons stated above and this Court’s notice of proposed 6 disposition, we dismiss. 7
{5} IT IS SO ORDERED. 8

9 M. MONICA ZAMORA, Judge 10 WE CONCUR: 11

12 JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge 13

14 RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Judge 15