Rule 33 May Not Be Used to Challenge Jurisdiction of Court After a Conviction Becomes Final

The Supreme Court has affirmed the denial of a Rule 33 Motion to Withdraw Guilty Plea holding the District Court did not have jurisdiction to consider the claim.

Micah Wegner pleaded guilty to a single count of L&L after being waived into adult court. His judgment and sentence was affirmed on direct appeal. He did not file a post-conviction petition. Two and a half years after his direct appeal was final, he filed a pro se "Motion to Withdraw Plea to Correct Manifest Injustice, I.C.R. 33(c)." His argument was that could not have been found guilty of L&L because he was under the age of fourteen at the time of the alleged offense and Idaho Code section 20-509 does not list L&L as one of the offenses for which minor children can be tried as adults.

The Supreme Court relied upon State v. Jakoski, 139 Idaho 352, 355, 79 P.3d 711 (2003), where it stated that:

"Absent a statute or rule extending its jurisdiction, the 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."

The Jakoski Court held that once a judgment of conviction becomes final, "the district court no longer [has] jurisdiction to hear a motion to withdraw [a] guilty plea."

The Court, in rejecting Wegner's argument that there should be an exception to Jakoski for cases where the court did not have adult jurisdiction over a juvenile, explained that:

"Wegner seeks, in essence, to utilize Rule 33 as a means of collaterally attacking a judgment that has become final. We decline to allow such an attack. The appropriate avenue for obtaining relief from a final judgment of conviction is a proceeding brought pursuant to the Uniform Post-Conviction Procedure Act set out in Chapter 49, Title 19, Idaho Code. Wegner may not utilize Rule 33 as a means of circumventing or supplementing this statutory remedy."

State v. Wegner, http://www.isc.idaho.gov/opinions/Wegner%20Opinion.pdf

Lesson learned: Do not sit on your rights. Even though there are many cases which say that a challenge to subject-matter jurisdiction is never waived, in fact, such challenges are waived if not raised on direct appeal, in a Rule 33 motion made before the appeal is over, or in a timely post-conviction application. Possibly such a challenge could be raised in a Rule 35 motion to correct an illegal sentence if the illegality was apparent from the face of the record. See State v. Clements (decided October 15th). In Wegner, however, it was not clear from the face of the record because the charging period included time before and after he turned fourteen and it was not clear when the event he pleaded guilty to occurred.