1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 45622

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

LANCE RAYMOND SELLECK,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Filed: January 31, 2019

Karel A. Lehrman, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED

OPINION AND SHALL NOT

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Seventh Judicial District, State of Idaho, 

Bonneville County. Hon. Bruce L. Pickett, District Judge. 

Appeal from no-contact order, dismissed.

Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Jason C. Pintler, Deputy 

Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. 

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; John C. McKinney, Deputy 

Attorney General, Boise, for respondent. 

________________________________________________

HUSKEY, Judge

Lance Raymond Selleck appeals from the district court’s issuance of a no-contact order. 

He argues the district court lacked jurisdiction to enter a no-contact order that exceeds the 

maximum duration of his sentence. The appeal is dismissed.

I.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

After being charged with domestic battery, the district court issued a no-contact order

prohibiting Selleck from contacting the victim. Within months, the State charged Selleck with 

three violations of the no-contact order. Selleck pleaded guilty to the violations; the district court 

imposed a unified four-year sentence, with one year determinate; and the district court issued a

second no-contact order prohibiting Selleck from contacting the victim for fifty years.
2

Selleck filed a motion to dismiss or modify the fifty-year no-contact order. He argued: 

(1) the district court lacked jurisdiction to issue a no-contact order that exceeded the maximum 

duration of his sentence; and (2) the no-contact order failed to comply with Idaho Criminal 

Rule 46.2 because: (a) the order did not contain a distance restriction; (b) the order did not 

contain mandatory advisory language; and (c) the order was not signed by Selleck, and there was 

no indication it was served on Selleck. The district court denied Selleck’s motion. Selleck 

appealed the district court’s denial. On appeal, Selleck acknowledged the jurisdictional 

argument made in the district court, but only argued that the no-contact order failed to comply 

with I.C.R. 46.2. See State v. Selleck, Docket No. 44395 (Aug. 2, 2017) (unpublished). This 

Court reversed the district court’s order denying Selleck’s motion to dismiss or modify the fiftyyear no-contact order and remanded the case with instructions to modify the no-contact order in 

accordance with I.C.R. 46.2. Id.

Upon remand, the district court issued a revised no-contact order in accordance with 

I.C.R. 46.2, prohibiting contact with the victim for fifty years. The revised order included a 

distance restriction and the mandatory advisory language required. Selleck appeals to this Court. 

II.

ANALYSIS

Selleck argues the district court lacked jurisdiction to enter the revised no-contact order

because it exceeds the maximum duration of his five-year sentence. However, this Court does 

not reach Selleck’s argument because it is barred by the law of the case doctrine. This doctrine 

“prevents consideration on a subsequent appeal of alleged errors that might have been, but were 

not, raised in [an] earlier appeal.” State v. Hawkins, 155 Idaho 69, 72, 305 P.3d 513, 516 (2013)

(quoting Taylor v. Maile, 146 Idaho 705, 709, 201 P.3d 1282, 1286 (2009)).

Here, the law of the case doctrine bars Selleck’s jurisdiction argument because Selleck 

could have raised that argument in his first appeal. Instead, he chose to limit his first appeal to 

the argument that the second no-contact order was noncompliant with I.C.R. 46.2, even though 

he had advanced his jurisdiction argument to the district court on his motion to dismiss or modify 

the second no-contact order. Thus, because Selleck’s jurisdiction argument is the only argument 

he advances in this appeal and this Court cannot consider the issue, this appeal is dismissed.
3

III.

CONCLUSION

Because the law of the case doctrine bars Selleck’s sole argument on appeal, the appeal is 

dismissed.

Judge LORELLO and Judge BRAILSFORD CONCUR.