Opinion ID: 2508594
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: jurisdiction

Text: [¶ 6] Because jurisdiction is at issue, we will review whether this Court can obtain jurisdiction by considering whether Padilla had timely requested relief from judgment as permitted by W.R.C.P. 60(b). [1] The Wyoming Rules of Criminal Procedure do permit the rules of civil procedure to apply to questions not governed by criminal procedure rules. W.R.Cr.P. 1(a). [2] Further, we have indicated that under limited circumstances this Court will consider an appeal from a motion for reconsideration. See Sherman v. Rose, 943 P.2d 719, 720-21 (Wyo.1997) (reconsideration motion must be the functional equivalent of a motion to amend or alter judgment); see also Simon v. Teton Bd. of Realtors, 4 P.3d 197, 202 (Wyo.2000) (arbitration procedural review request did not alter statutory filing time). [¶ 7] Here, Padilla must comply with the timing requirements of W.R.Cr.P. 35(b): (b) Reduction. A motion to reduce a sentence may be made, or the court may reduce a sentence without motion, within one year after the sentence is imposed or probation is revoked, or within one year after receipt by the court of a mandate issued upon affirmance of the judgment or dismissal of the appeal, or within one year after entry of any order or judgment of the Wyoming Supreme Court denying review of, or having the effect of upholding, a judgment of conviction or probation revocation. His original motion was filed within one year and his motion for reconsideration filed on December 11, 2002, must provide grounds for relief under the applicable rule of civil procedure and must also comply with that rule's timing requirements. [¶ 8] Our review shows that Padilla's motion for reconsideration was not based upon any ground that affords him relief from the order denying sentence reduction. See W.R.C.P. 60. The contents of his original motion requested a review on the merits and the district court's denial made clear that it had reviewed the judgment and sentence for which Padilla requested reduction. Padilla's motion for reconsideration contended the district court had mistakenly considered a dismissed case; however, the record does not support that contention. Therefore, Padilla's motion for reconsideration cannot be considered a proper motion under Rule 60, and the district court and this Court are without jurisdiction to consider the motion. [¶ 9] This appeal is dismissed for failure to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court.