State v. Morrison

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 50643

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: May 28, 2024
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
KLEE LEE MORRISON, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT
) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Defendant-Appellant. )
)

Appeal from the District Court of the Fifth Judicial District, State of Idaho,
Minidoka County. Hon. Jonathan P. Brody, District Judge.

Order denying Idaho Criminal Rule 35(a) motion, affirmed.

Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Jacob L. Westerfield, Deputy
Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Raúl R. Labrador, Attorney General; Justin R. Porter, Deputy Attorney
General, Boise, for respondent.
________________________________________________

GRATTON, Chief Judge
Klee Lee Morrison appeals from the denial of his Idaho Criminal Rule 35(a) motion to
correct an illegal sentence. Morrison pled guilty to one felony count of aiding and abetting the
unlawful taking of protected wildlife. Morrison asserts the district court erred by denying his
motion because the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to sentence him as an adult since he
was a juvenile at the time of his conviction. We affirm.
I.
FACTURAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
In 2001, at sixteen years of age, Morrison pled guilty in district court to one felony count
of aiding and abetting the unlawful taking of protected wildlife. The district court suspended a
unified sentence of five years, with one year determinate, and placed Morrison on probation for

1
five years. In 2014, thirteen years after the entry of judgment, Morrison filed a petition for post-
conviction relief. Morrison claimed that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over
his case because he was a juvenile at the time he committed the offense. Morrison also asserted
that his post-conviction petition was not barred by the one-year statute of limitations for filing a
post-conviction petition because jurisdictional issues may be raised at any time, and therefore he
was entitled to equitable tolling. The district court concluded that Morrison’s failure to raise the
jurisdictional issue prior to entry of his guilty plea precluded him from raising the issue and
dismissed the petition as untimely.
On appeal from the dismissal of his post-conviction petition, this Court held that Morrison
waived the jurisdictional issue by not asserting it before entering his guilty plea, the difference
between juvenile and adult court is not a proper subject matter jurisdiction claim, and his petition
was untimely. See Morrison v. State, Docket No. 42918 (Ct. App. Nov. 10, 2015) (unpublished).
The district court’s order granting the State’s motion for summary dismissal was affirmed.
In February 2023, Morrison filed a pro se I.C.R. 35(a) motion, claiming his sentence is
illegal because the district court did not have subject matter jurisdiction over his case since he was
a juvenile at the time he was convicted. The district court denied the motion, stating: “Issue was
decided in CV-2015-507.1 Law of the case/claim preclusion bar relief.” Morrison appeals.
II.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The appellate courts exercise free review on an I.C.R. 35(a) motion to correct an illegal
sentence. State v. McKinney, 153 Idaho 837, 840, 291 P.3d 1036, 1039 (2013). The issue of
whether an action is barred by res judicata is a question of law over which we exercise free review.
State v. Rhoades, 134 Idaho 862, 863, 11 P.3d 481, 482 (2000).
III.
ANALYSIS
“Mindful” of the doctrine of res judicata, Morrison challenges the district court’s denial of
his I.C.R. 35(a) motion. The State argues that because Morrison failed to challenge the alternative
basis for denying his motion, i.e., application of the law of the case doctrine, this Court should

1
Docket No. CV-2015-507 was the prior post-conviction case.
2
affirm on that basis. Also, the State argues that, even if this Court addresses the doctrine of res
judicata, the district court must be affirmed.
The law of the case doctrine is well established in Idaho. Berrett v. Clark Cnty. School
Dist. No. 161, 165 Idaho 913, 921, 454 P.3d 555, 563 (2019). Under the law of the case doctrine,
judicial pronouncements must be adhered to throughout subsequent proceedings, both in the trial
court and upon subsequent appeal. State v. Garcia, 170 Idaho 708, 714, 516 P.3d 578, 584 (2022).
The underlying purpose of the doctrine is to maintain consistency and avoid reconsideration of
matters once decided during the course of a single, continuous lawsuit. Garcia, 170 Idaho at 714,
516 P.3d 584.
The related, but separate, doctrine of res judicata precludes re-litigation of issues that have
been previously decided in a final judgment or decision in an action between the same litigants.
State v. Wolfe, 158 Idaho 55, 63, 343 P.3d 497, 505 (2015). Res judicata consists of claim and
issue preclusion. State v. Shanahan, 165 Idaho 343, 352, 445 P.3d 152, 161 (2019). Res judicata
applies to subject matter jurisdiction claims. Wolfe, 158 Idaho at 63, 343 P.3d at 505.
The district court denied Morrison’s Rule 35(a) motion because the issue was decided in
CV-2015-507, and thus relief was barred by both the law of the case doctrine and the doctrine of
claim preclusion. However, on appeal, Morrison only argues the district court erred in the
application of res judicata. Where a lower court makes a ruling based on two alternative grounds
and only one of those grounds is challenged on appeal, the appellate court must affirm on the
uncontested basis. Rich v. State, 159 Idaho 553, 555, 364 P.3d 254, 256 (2015).
Even addressing the question of res judicata, the district court correctly determined the
doctrine of res judicata precludes re-litigation of the issue raised. Morrison maintains the same
position he took in the district court, that his sentence is illegal because the district court did not
have jurisdiction over his case since he was a juvenile at the time, and the juvenile jurisdiction
statute did not exclude felony fish and game violations. This is precisely the same argument
Morrison made in his post-conviction case. See Morrison, Docket No. 42918 at 1, 3. These
arguments were considered and rejected by the district court in its order summarily dismissing his
post-conviction petition, which this Court affirmed. Id. at 1-4. Therefore, the district court did
not err in denying Morrison’s I.C.R. 35(a) motion.

3
IV.
CONCLUSION
The district court did not err in denying Morrison’s I.C.R. 35(a) motion to correct an illegal
sentence. Therefore, the district court’s order denying Morrison’s I.C.R. 35(a) motion is affirmed.
Judge HUSKEY and Judge LORELLO CONCUR.

4