Representing Appellant: Guillermo Eduardo Gomez, Pro se.
Representing Appellee: Peter K. Michael, Chief Deputy Attorney General; David L. Delicath, Deputy Attorney General; Jeffrey S. Pope, Assistant Attorney General; Brian J. Fuller, Student Intern.
Before KITE, C.J., and HILL, VOIGT, BURKE, and DAVIS, JJ.
[¶ 1] The appellant pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to deliver methamphetamine and the district court imposed a sentence of fifteen to twenty years imprisonment. The district court also found the appellant to be a " qualified offender" under the Addicted Offender Accountability Act (AOAA), recommending the appellant complete intensive treatment for substance abuse. This Court affirmed the judgment and sentence. See Gomez v. State, 2010 WY 140, 241 P.3d 502 (Wyo.2010). Soon thereafter, the appellant timely filed his first motion for a sentence reduction, which was denied by the district court and no appeal was taken. Two years after affirmance of his conviction, the appellant filed a second motion, pro se, seeking to modify his sentence. The district court denied the motion, finding it untimely, and the appellant now seeks relief from this Court. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the motion seeking to modify and reduce the appellant's sentence was not filed within the required one-year time period prescribed in W.R.Cr.P. 35(b).
[¶ 2] The threshold issue is one that concerns jurisdiction; accordingly, we restate the controlling issue as follows:
Did the district court have jurisdiction over appellant's motion seeking to modify and reduce his sentence? 
[¶ 3] In December 2009, the appellant pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to deliver methamphetamine. The district court entered its judgment and sentence on March 17, 2010, imposing a sentence of fifteen to twenty years imprisonment, to be served consecutively with a sentence in a separate case. The district court also found
the appellant to be a " qualified offender" under the AOAA and recommended the appellant complete intensive treatment for substance abuse. The appellant took a direct appeal. However, appointed appellate counsel was permitted to withdraw pursuant to the Anders procedure. We affirmed the judgment and sentence on October 27, 2010. See Gomez, 2010 WY 140, 241 P.3d at 502. In October 2011, the appellant timely filed a motion for sentence reduction, which was denied by the district court and no appeal was taken.
[¶ 4] Two years after affirmance of his conviction, the appellant filed a second motion seeking modification or partial suspension of his sentence. The appellant contends that, since he was found to be a qualified offender and has completed intensive treatment, the AOAA allows the district court to now modify and partially suspend his sentence. The ...