Appeal from the District Court of the Sixth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Bannock County. Hon. David C. Nye, District Judge.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gutierrez, Judge
2012 Unpublished Opinion No. 710
Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk
THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
OPINION AND SHALL NOT
BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Julie J. Joyner appeals from the district court's judgment dismissing her petition for post-conviction relief. We dismiss the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Joyner pled guilty to possession of methamphetamine with the intent to deliver and forgery. The district court sentenced Joyner to concurrent sentences of thirteen years, with ten years determinate, for the possession with the intent to deliver conviction and ten years, with seven years determinate, for the forgery conviction. Joyner subsequently filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion for reduction of her sentences, which was denied; however, the district court later amended its Rule 35 decision to allow for a reduction of the determinate portion of Joyner's sentence for the possession with the intent to deliver conviction to a unified term of thirteen years, with seven years determinate. This Court affirmed the original sentences and the initial denial of the Rule 35 motion in an unpublished decision.*fn1 See State v. Joyner, Docket Nos. 34655/34656 (Ct. App. June 2, 2008).
Joyner filed a timely petition for post-conviction relief in which she made several claims:
(1) ineffective assistance of counsel; (2) the presentence investigator had a conflict of interest because he was Joyner's former parole officer; and (3) her attorney wrongly withheld a tape recording of Joyner selling methamphetamine to an informant, which served as one of the bases for the possession with the intent to deliver charge. The district court dismissed the petition and entered a judgment on May 5, 2011.
On June 17, 2011, Joyner filed an untimely motion to reconsider, forty-three days after the judgment was entered. Although the motion was untimely, Joyner identified an inaccuracy in the court's dismissal of her petition for post-conviction relief: the court incorrectly stated that Joyner's sentence for the possession with the intent to deliver conviction was seven years determinate followed by three years indeterminate for a unified sentence of ten years. The district court entered an amended dismissal of the petition for post-conviction relief on June 22, 2011, to correct the stated sentence to seven years determinate followed by six years indeterminate for a unified sentence of thirteen, not ten, years. The court did not reconsider any other components of its decision in the amended dismissal.
The State contends this Court is without jurisdiction to consider the merits of this appeal. Because we consider the State's argument dispositive, we do not address any of Joyner's issues raised on appeal.
Joyner filed her appeal eighty-four days after the district court entered judgment on the petition for post-conviction relief. Idaho Appellate Rule 14(a) provides that a notice of appeal must be filed with the clerk of the district court within forty-two days from the filing of the final judgment or order from which the appeal was taken. This time limit is jurisdictional and a failure to comply "shall cause automatic dismissal of such appeal." I.A.R. 21. Thus, ...