1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 37790

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

CHARLES ROY CELLAN,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2011 Unpublished Opinion No. 394

Filed: March 16, 2011

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THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED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. Cheri C. Copsey, District Judge. 

Order denying motion to withdraw guilty pleas, affirmed.

Molly J. Huskey, State Appellate Public Defender; Spencer J. Hahn, Deputy 

Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. 

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Mark W. Olson, Deputy Attorney 

General, Boise, for respondent. 

________________________________________________

GRATTON, Chief Judge

Charles Roy Cellan appeals from the district court’s denial of his motion to withdraw his 

guilty pleas. We affirm.

I.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Cellan pled guilty to two counts of felony domestic battery, Idaho Code §§ 18-903, 18-

918(2). The district court imposed a ten-year determinate sentence for the first count and a 

consecutive ten-year sentence with five years determinate for the second count. Cellan filed an 

Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion, which the district court denied. Cellan appealed and this Court 

affirmed in an unpublished decision. State v. Cellan, Docket No. 35145 (Ct. App. March 12, 

2009) (unpublished). A remittitur was issued on June 3, 2009.
2

More than eight months later, on February 26, 2010, Cellan filed a motion to withdraw 

his guilty pleas pursuant to I.C.R. 33. The district court appointed counsel. Cellan argued that 

the district court should have ordered a psychological evaluation prior to acceptance of his guilty 

pleas, that the pleas were not made knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily, and that he should 

be permitted to withdraw his pleas to correct a manifest injustice. Following a hearing, the 

district court denied the motion, concluding that it lacked jurisdiction to decide the motion and, 

alternatively, that Cellan had failed to demonstrate manifest injustice. Cellan appeals.

II.

ANALYSIS

Cellan claims that the district court erred by denying his motion to withdraw his guilty 

pleas. Cellan states: “Mindful of the fact that his argument is foreclosed by this Court’s decision 

in State v. Jakoski, 139 Idaho 352, 79 P.3d 711 (2003), Mr. Cellan asserts that the district court 

erred when it denied his motion on jurisdictional grounds. Additionally, Mr. Cellan asserts that 

the district court erred when it denied his motion on the merits.” The State contends that, indeed, 

under Jakoski, the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider the motion to withdraw guilty 

pleas. We agree.

In Jakoski, the Idaho Supreme Court held that, absent a statute or rule extending its 

jurisdiction, a trial court’s jurisdiction to amend or set aside a judgment expires once the 

judgment becomes final, either by expiration of the time for appeal, or affirmance of the 

judgment on appeal. Id. at 355, 79 P.3d at 714. The Court further held that I.C.R. 33(c) does not 

include any provision extending the jurisdiction of the trial court for the purpose of hearing a 

motion to withdraw a guilty plea. Id. 

The district court no longer had jurisdiction to hear Cellan’s motion to withdraw his 

guilty pleas after the judgment of conviction became final. Cellan’s judgment of conviction 

became final upon the issuance of the remittitur following appeal, over eight months before 

Cellan filed his motion to withdraw guilty pleas. The district court lacked jurisdiction to 

entertain the motion. See also State v. Peterson, 148 Idaho 610, 614, 226 P.3d 552, 556 (Ct. 

App. 2010).
3

III.

CONCLUSION

The district court was without jurisdiction to entertain Cellan’s motion to withdraw guilty 

pleas, filed after his judgment of conviction became final. The district court’s order denying 

Cellan’s motion to withdraw his guilty pleas is affirmed.

Judge LANSING and Judge MELANSON CONCUR.