State v. Austin, Docket No. 44544

• Decision Date: 11 October 2017
• Docket Number: Docket No. 44544,2017 Unpublished Opinion No. 618
• Parties: STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. WESLEY WAYNE AUSTIN, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: Idaho Court of Appeals

STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. WESLEY WAYNE AUSTIN, Defendant-Appellant.

Docket No. 44544

2017 Unpublished Opinion No. 618

COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

October 11, 2017

Karel A. Lehrman, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Seventh Judicial District, State of Idaho, Bingham County. Hon. Jon J. Shindurling, District Judge.

Orders denying post-judgment motions to recuse; to void all judgments, orders, warrants, and detainers; and to enforce the terms of the plea agreement, affirmed.

Wesley Wayne Austin, Oakdale, Louisiana, pro se appellant.

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Russell J. Spencer, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

____________________

GUTIERREZ, Judge

Wesley Wayne Austin appeals from the district court's orders denying his motions to recuse the district judge; to void all judgments, orders, warrants, and detainers filed by that judge; and to enforce the terms of Austin's plea agreement. For the reasons explained below, the district court's orders are affirmed.

In March of 2001, pursuant to a plea agreement, Austin pled guilty to ten counts of felony issuance of insufficient funds check. The judgment of conviction misstated the sentences. Austin appealed. In 2001, while Austin's appeal was pending, the district court filed an amended judgment of conviction correcting the sentences. In an unpublished opinion, this Court ordered the appeal dismissed as untimely. On January 15, 2016, Austin filed a motion to recuse the district judge; to void all judgments, orders, warrants, and detainers filed by that judge; and to enforce the terms of his plea agreement. At a subsequent hearing, Austin limited his argument to

Page 2

only the motion seeking the judge's recusal. The district court denied the motion to recuse and Austin appealed. The Idaho Supreme Court dismissed Austin's appeal for lack of a final judgment or order. When the case returned to the district court, the court entered orders denying Austin's additional motions. Austin filed a notice of appeal.

A question of jurisdiction is fundamental; it cannot be ignored when brought to our attention and should be addressed prior to considering the merits of an appeal. State v. Rollins, 103 Idaho 48, 48, 644 P.2d 370, 370 (Ct. App. 1982). The question of a court's jurisdiction is a question of law over which this Court exercises free review. State v. Cook, 143 Idaho 323, 325, 144 P.3d 28, 30 (Ct. App. 2006).

Absent a statute or rule extending its jurisdiction, the trial court's jurisdiction to amend or set aside a judgment expires once the judgment...