Brown v. State, 363 P.3d 337

Brown was charged in Ada County with forcible sexual penetration by use of a foreign object; on Oct 23, 2012, the State amended the charge to felony domestic battery and Brown pled guilty to that charge.
On Dec 27, 2012, the district court sentenced Brown and retained jurisdiction for 365 days.
On Sept 3, 2013, the court relinquished jurisdiction, resulting in a prison term of 15 to 20 years with credit for 483 days served.
Brown moved for reconsideration; the court reduced the mandatory portion of the sentence from 15 years to 11 years.
On June 27, 2014, Brown filed this post-conviction action alleging ineffective assistance of counsel in the Criminal Case.
The district court dismissed the post-conviction petition, finding no deviation from the plea agreement; Brown appealed challenging the Criminal Case’s subject-matter jurisdiction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
May Brown raise lack of jurisdiction on appeal?	Brown asserts lack of subject-matter jurisdiction in the Criminal Case.	State contends issues raised in this civil post-conviction action cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.	Not permitted; subject-matter jurisdiction issue in the Criminal Case not reviewable here.
Did the Criminal Court have subject-matter jurisdiction over the domestic-battery charge?	Brown argues the court lacked jurisdiction due to the information filing instead of indictment amendment, and lack of magistrate commitment.	State maintains information conferred jurisdiction and the article 1, section 8 commitment requirement is not jurisdictional.	Affirmed that the district court had subject-matter jurisdiction; challenge rejected.
Do Flegel and Lute permit raising lack of jurisdiction on appeal in a separate post-conviction action?	Brown relies on Flegel and Lute to support raising jurisdiction issues on appeal.	State argues those cases do not allow cross-case jurisdiction challenges to be raised in a post-conviction action.	Not allowable; those cases do not authorize raising this issue in the post-conviction proceeding.

State v. Flegel, 151 Idaho 525 (2011) (reaffirmed when subject-matter jurisdiction raised on direct appeal; not grounds to raise in another action)
State v. Lute, 150 Idaho 837 (2011) (subject-matter jurisdiction raised in direct appeal; not cross-case review in post-conviction)
State v. Jakoski, 139 Idaho 352 (2003) (post-conviction action is a separate proceeding; not a vehicle to relitigate criminal judgment)
State v. Rogers, 140 Idaho 223 (2004) (information confers subject-matter jurisdiction; magistrate commitment not required to confer jurisdiction)