State v. Wolfe

• Decision Date: 17 February 2015
• Docket Number: No. 41750.,41750.
• Citation: 158 Idaho 55,343 P.3d 497
• Court: Idaho Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE of Idaho, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. William Franklin WOLFE, Defendant–Appellant.

158 Idaho 55

343 P.3d 497

STATE of Idaho, Plaintiff–Respondent,

v.William Franklin WOLFE, Defendant–Appellant.

No. 41750.

Supreme Court of Idaho.

Feb. 17, 2015.

Sara Thomas, Idaho Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. Justin M. Curtis, Deputy Idaho Appellate Public Defender, argued.

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Idaho Attorney General, Boise for respondent. Kenneth K. Jorgensen, Deputy Attorney General, argued.

BURDICK, Chief Justice.

This case comes to the Idaho Supreme Court via a petition for review of a Court of Appeals decision. William Franklin Wolfe appealed the Idaho County district court's decisions denying (1) his motion for a hearing on his motion for reconsideration of his I.C.R. 35 motion to correct an illegal sentence; and (2) his successive Rule 35 motion to correct an illegal sentence. Specifically, Wolfe argues the district court denied his motions based on two erroneous conclusions: that the subject matter jurisdiction issue had been previously adjudicated and that Wolfe could not file a successive Rule 35 motion. Wolfe asserts that if the district court had properly considered the merits of his motions, the district court would have found it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over Wolfe's original criminal proceedings. Accordingly, Wolfe asks this Court to vacate his judgment of conviction and sentence, or alternatively, to remand the case for an evidentiary hearing. We affirm the district court's decisions denying Wolfe's motion for a hearing and his successive Rule 35 motion alleging an illegal sentence.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Wolfe is serving a fixed life sentence for first degree murder after a jury found him guilty in 1982. Years later, Wolfe learned the state district court may have lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the charged offense because it occurred on tribal grounds and there was evidence the victim was "Indian" as defined under federal law for purposes of determining federal jurisdiction.

On December 2, 2004, Wolfe filed a pro se Rule 35 motion to correct an illegal sentence, alleging that the Idaho courts lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the underlying criminal proceedings. Wolfe argued that the federal courts had exclusive jurisdiction over the proceedings because the crime occurred on tribal lands and because the victim was Native American. The district court summarily denied the motion as untimely on December 14, 2004. Within fourteen days of the denial, Wolfe filed a motion to reconsider the decision and an affidavit in support of that motion.

While the motion for reconsideration was pending, Wolfe filed a second successive petition for post-conviction relief on February 11, 2005.¹ In the second successive petition, Wolfe alleged a claim of ineffective assistance of prior post-conviction counsel based on counsel's failure to raise the claim of lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The district court found the subject matter jurisdiction issue had merit and requested further briefing on the matter. The court ordered the second successive petition for post-conviction relief to be filed as a separate civil case along with the Rule 35 pleadings and related court documents.

On October 26, 2006, after reviewing the parties' extensive briefing on the subject matter jurisdiction issue, the district court issued its Memorandum Decision and Order advising the parties that the court intended to dismiss Wolfe's claims as being untimely. In that Order, the district court stated that there was a genuine issue of whether the court had subject matter jurisdiction, but ultimately held that interest in finality of judgments trumped jurisdiction. The district court did not explicitly rule on the motion for reconsideration of the Rule 35 denial. On January 4, 2006, the district court entered its Order dismissing Wolfe's civil case based on the reasons it set forth in its October 26, 2006 Memorandum Decision and Order. Wolfe did not appeal this dismissal.

On April 25, 2011, relying on State v. Lute, 150 Idaho 837, 252 P.3d 1255 (2011), Wolfe moved the district court for a hearing on his motion for reconsideration of his 2004 Rule 35 motion (hereinafter "motion for a hearing"). Wolfe argued the district court erred when it denied his initial Rule 35 motion to correct an illegal sentence on the basis it was untimely because Lute made clear that the court can correct an illegal sentence at any time. On April 29, 2011, the district court denied Wolfe's motion for a hearing, finding Wolfe had already had a hearing on the issue.² Wolfe appealed this decision on June 5, 2011.

On June 17, 2011, Wolfe filed a successive Rule 35 motion to correct an illegal sentence, again asserting a lack of subject matter jurisdiction over the original charge. The district court denied the successive Rule 35 motion on June 22, 2011. The district court's only reason for the denial was that Wolfe was permitted to file only one Rule 35 motion alleging an illegal sentence. Wolfe then filed an amended notice of appeal on August 16, 2011, challenging both the denial of his motion for a hearing and the denial of his successive Rule 35 motion.

The Idaho Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decisions, noting that although Wolfe presented compelling evidence regarding the subject matter jurisdiction issue, the challenges to Idaho's subject matter jurisdiction were either untimely, abandoned, or barred by res judicata. As to the motion for a hearing, the Court of Appeals held that Wolfe abandoned the motion when he failed to pursue it for nearly five years. Consequently, the Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's order denying Wolfe's motion for a hearing. As to Wolfe's successive motion to correct an illegal sentence, the Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's denial, holding that res judicata barred Wolfe from re-litigating whether the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over his charged offense. Wolfe subsequently filed a petition for review, which this Court granted.

II. ISSUES ON APPEAL

1. Whether the district court erred when it denied Wolfe's motion for a hearing.

2. Whether the district court erred when it denied Wolfe's subsequent Rule 35 motion alleging an illegal sentence.

III. STANDARD OF REVIEW

When a case comes before this Court on a petition for review from a Court of Appeals decision, this Court gives serious consideration to the Court of Appeals' views, but directly reviews the lower court's decision. Kelly v. State, 149 Idaho 517, 521, 236 P.3d 1277, 1281 (2010).

"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. Kavajecz, 139 Idaho 482, 483, 80 P.3d 1083, 1084 (2003) (quoting H & V Eng'g, Inc. v. Idaho State Bd. of Prof'l Eng'rs and Land Surveyors, 113 Idaho 646, 648, 747 P.2d 55, 57 (1987) ). Whether a trial court had subject matter jurisdiction over a proceeding is an issue of law that this Court reviews de novo. State v. Lute, 150 Idaho 837, 839, 252 P.3d 1255, 1257 (2011).

IV. ANALYSIS

This case hinges on whether procedural bars apply to claims alleging a district court's lack of subject matter jurisdiction over criminal proceedings. As a preliminary matter, we must determine whether this Court has appellate jurisdiction over Wolfe's claims. Once it is established that we have appellate jurisdiction to consider Wolfe's claims, we must determine whether the district court erred when it dismissed Wolfe's motion for a hearing and his successive Rule 35 motion to correct an illegal sentence.

A. This Court has jurisdiction over Wolfe's subject matter jurisdiction claims.

The State argues that this Court lacks appellate jurisdiction to review the merits of the 2006 order denying Wolfe's claim of lack of jurisdiction because Wolfe did not timely appeal from that order. Specifically, the State contends that the only order Wolfe timely appealed from was the April 2011 order denying Wolfe a hearing on his Rule 35 motion. Therefore, the State contends this Court's review is limited to whether the district court erred in denying Wolfe's motion for a hearing: it cannot consider the merits of Wolfe's subject matter jurisdiction claim.

This Court must have appellate jurisdiction over a claim before it can reach the claim's merits. See Martin v. Soden, 80 Idaho 416, 419, 332 P.2d 482, 483 (1958) ("The filing of the notice of appeal ... [is] jurisdictional. In the absence of compliance with the provisions of the code, this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal."). Thus, the question of this Court's jurisdiction comes before all other questions, which includes the district court's subject matter jurisdiction. See Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env't, 523 U.S. 83, 94, 118 S.Ct. 1003, 1012, 140 L.Ed.2d 210, 227 (1998) ( "Without jurisdiction the court cannot proceed at all in any cause. Jurisdiction is power to declare the law, and when it ceases to exist, the only function remaining to the court is that of announcing the fact and dismissing the cause.").

Any appeal as a matter of right from the district court must be filed within forty-two days of the judgment. I.A.R. 14(a). A timely appeal is necessary to vest jurisdiction in this Court to review issues raised with respect to the district court's actions. Dunlap v. Cassia Mem'l Hosp. & Med. Ctr., 134 Idaho 233, 235, 999 P.2d 888, 890 (2000) (appeal timely from later order did not confer jurisdiction on a prior appealable order from which no timely appeal was taken).

Wolfe timely appealed from the district court's order denying his motion for a hearing. That timely notice of appeal conferred jurisdiction on this Court over that claim. However, we agree with the State that our review of that issue is limited to whether the district court erred when it denied Wolfe's motion for a hearing. Wolfe's timely notice of appeal was subsequently amended to include the denial of Wolfe's...