State v. William Franklin Wolfe, 158 Idaho 55

Wolfe was convicted of first-degree murder in 1982 and is serving a fixed life sentence. Years later he claimed Idaho courts lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the offense occurred on tribal land and the victim was Native American.
In 2004 Wolfe filed a pro se I.C.R. 35 motion alleging the sentence was illegal for lack of jurisdiction; the district court summarily denied it as untimely. Wolfe filed a motion for reconsideration and an affidavit.
While reconsideration was pending, Wolfe filed a successive post-conviction petition alleging ineffective assistance for failing to raise the jurisdiction claim; the district court treated the matters together, requested briefing, and issued a 2006 memorandum addressing the jurisdiction question but dismissed claims on procedural grounds. Wolfe did not timely appeal that dismissal.
In 2011 Wolfe moved for a hearing on his 2004 motion (relying on State v. Lute) and separately filed a successive Rule 35 motion alleging lack of subject matter jurisdiction; the district court denied the hearing request and denied the successive Rule 35 motion as impermissible successor pleadings.
The Idaho Court of Appeals affirmed, holding Wolfe abandoned the hearing request and that res judicata barred relitigation of the jurisdiction issue; the Idaho Supreme Court granted review and affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Wolfe)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Whether district court erred by denying Wolfe a hearing on his 2004 motion for reconsideration	Lute allows correction of illegal sentences at any time; district court should have granted a hearing on jurisdiction	Wolfe had already had the issue before the court and failed to timely pursue appeal; court properly denied a late hearing	Denied — district court did not err; Wolfe’s failure to timely appeal or pursue the motion means court lacked jurisdiction to entertain a 2011 hearing request
Whether district court erred by denying Wolfe’s successive Rule 35 motion alleging an illegal sentence for lack of subject matter jurisdiction	Rule 35 can be used anytime to correct an illegal sentence and Lute supports relief even if additional factfinding is required	Rule 35 is limited to facial legal errors; subject matter jurisdiction claim requires factfinding and is barred by res judicata because previously litigated and decided procedurally	Denied — res judicata bars relitigation; Rule 35 cannot be used here because the jurisdictional claim depends on significant facts not evident on the face of the record

State v. Lute, 150 Idaho 837 (Idaho 2011) (Rule 35 may reach facial legal defects in sentence; court stressed narrow application)
State v. Clements, 148 Idaho 82 (Idaho 2009) (Rule 35 limited to legal questions apparent on face of record; not a vehicle for significant factual inquiries)
State v. Rhoades, 134 Idaho 862 (Idaho 2000) (res judicata can bar successive Rule 35 motions raising the same issues)
State v. Kavajecz, 139 Idaho 482 (Idaho 2003) (jurisdictional questions are fundamental and reviewed de novo)
Kelly v. State, 149 Idaho 517 (Idaho 2010) (standard for review from Court of Appeals to Idaho Supreme Court)
Stoll v. Gottlieb, 305 U.S. 165 (U.S. 1938) (subject matter jurisdiction actually litigated is precluded by res judicata)
Chicot County Drainage Dist. v. Baxter State Bank, 308 U.S. 371 (U.S. 1940) (res judicata applies to jurisdictional issues litigated or capable of litigation)
Durfee v. Duke, 375 U.S. 106 (U.S. 1963) (a judgment gets full faith and credit, including on jurisdictional questions, if fully and fairly litigated)