1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 48970

STATE OF IDAHO ,

Plaintiff

- Respondent ,

v.

AARON JOHN McCORMICK ,

Defendant

- Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Filed: September 13, 2022

Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the First Judicial District, State of Idaho, Kootenai County. Hon. Cynthia K.C. Meyer , District Judge.
Order denying motion to withdraw guilty pleas

, affirmed ; order revoking probation, affirmed

. Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Emily M. Joyce , Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.
Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Justin R. Porter , Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

________________________________________________ LORELLO, Chief Judge

Aaron John McCormick appeals from the district court’s order denying his motion to
withdraw his guilty pleas and from an order revoking his probation

. W e affirm.

I.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In April 2019, the district court entered judgment s of conviction following McCormick ’s
Alford 1 pleas to burglary and misdemeanor assault or batter y on certain personnel. 2 The district

1 See North Carolina v. Alford , 400 U.S. 25 (1970).

2 Although the district court pronounced both sentences during a single sentencing hearing, separate written judgments of conviction were entered for the two offenses. A form “judgement” with blanks completed with hand written notations was entered the same day as the sentencing hearing for the assault and batt ery on certain personnel charge and a typed judgment of conviction for the burglary charge was entered three days later.2

court sentenced McCormick to a unified term of four years, with a minimum period of confinement
of two years, for the burglary and 110 days in jail for the assault or battery on certai n personnel.
The district court suspended the sentence for the burglary and placed McCormick on probation for
three years. Before McCormick was to report to the jail to serve the misdemeanor sentence, he

was arrested on an a gent’s warrant for violating h is probation. The State filed a probation violation

motion and

, a fter McCormick subsequently admitted violating various terms of his probation

, the
district court revoked his probation, imposed the underlying sentence, and retained jurisdiction.

At the c onclusion of the period of retained jurisdiction, the district court placed McCormick back
on probation for a period of two years.

In M ay 2021, the State again filed a probation violation motion . McCormick responded
by moving to withdraw his guilty plea s and his admissions to the first probation violation motion

. After a hearing, the district court denied McCormick’s motions , concluding his guilty pleas were
knowing, voluntary, and intelligent

. Subsequently, McCormick admitted violating his probation.
The district court then revoked and reinstated McCormick’s probation. 3 McCormick appeals.

II.

ANALYSIS

A. Motion to Withdraw Guilty Plea s McCormick asserts that, although he is “mindful” that a trial court “loses jurisdiction to
permit the withdra wal of a guilty plea once the judgment of conviction becomes final ,” the district
court abused its discretion by denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea s . The State agrees,
as do we, that the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider McCormick ’s motion to withdraw
his guilty plea s

. A lthough the district court did not address whether it had subject matter jurisdiction to
consider McCormick’s motion to withdraw his guilty pleas, we may address the issue for the first
time on appeal

. S ee S tate v. Rogers , 140 Idaho 223, 227, 91 P.3d 1127, 1131 (2004) (explaining
that subject matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time, including for the first time on appeal).

3 The district court’s decisions to revoke and reinstate McCormick’s probation are not at issue in this appeal.3

Whether a court has subject matter jurisdiction is a question of law over which the appe llate court

exercises free review. State v. Gorringe , 168 Idaho 175, 178, 481 P.3d 723, 726 (2021).

A trial court ’ s jurisdiction to grant a motion to wit hdraw a guilty plea under

I.C.R. 33(c) expires once the judgment becomes final, either by expiration o f the time for appeal
or affirmance of the judgment on appeal. See State v. Jakoski

, 139 Idaho 352, 355, 79 P.3d 711,

714 (2003) . Because McCormick did not appeal from his judgment of conviction, it became final
forty

- two day s after judgment was entered in April 2019

. See I.A.R. 14(a)

. McCormick did not
seek withdrawal of his guilty plea s until June 2021 , which was well beyond the date his judgment s

became final. Thus, as McCormick acknowledges, t he district court lacked jurisdiction to consider

his motion to withdraw his guilty pleas

. B

. Motion to Withdraw Admissions
McCormick further asserts that, although he is “mindful” that “I.C.R. 33(c) does not allow
a probationer to withdraw a probation violation admission,” the district court abused its di scretion
by denying his motion to withdraw his admissions in the first probation violation proceeding

. McCormick does not contend that his probation violation admissions were not knowing, voluntary,
and intelligent. Rather, w ithout citation to legal auth ority authorizing such, McCormick contends

he should have been allowed to withdraw his probation violation admissions because “he should
be permitted to withdraw his guilty plea, and therefore there would be no basis for any subsequent
probation violations as he should never have been placed on probation from the outset.” Because
the district court lacked jurisdiction to allow McCormick to withdraw his guilty pleas

, his argument
that the district court erred by denying his motion to withdraw his subsequent admissions at the
first probation violation proceeding also fails.

III

. CONCLUSION
The district court lacked jurisdiction to consider McCormick’s motion to withdraw his
guilty pleas. McCormick also failed to show error in the denial of his motion to withdraw his
admissions in his first probation violation proceeding . Accordingly, the district court’s orders
denying McCormick’s motion to withdraw his guilty pleas and motion to withdraw his probation

violation admissions are affirmed.
Judge GRATTON and Judge HUSKEY, CONCUR

.