accurately characterize Mr. Allen’s documents filed with the court as a — alternatively, a motion for withdrawal of the plea or a motion for post-conviction relief, because some of his — some of his allegations seem to be really more in the nature of post-conviction, but I wanted to cover all the bases. The district court denied the motion, and Allen now appeals. II. ANALYSIS Although the State did not object to Allen’s motion as untimely in the district court proceedings, and the district court did not address the timeliness, on appeal Allen acknowledges that, if treated as a motion brought under Idaho Criminal Rule 33(e), the motion was untimely and the district court lacked jurisdiction to grant the requested relief. See State v. Jakoski, 139 Idaho 352, 355, 79 P.3d 711, 714 (2003) (<HOLDING>). Allen argues, however, that the district
holding that a judgment of conviction becomes final when the time expires for filing a petition for certiorari contesting the appellate courts affirmation of the conviction holding that for purposes of  2255 motions a federal criminal judgment becomes final when the time for filing a direct appeal expires holding that this court has jurisdiction when the appellant has filed a docketing statement indicating an intent to appeal a particular order within the time for filing an appeal holding that jurisdiction to entertain a motion to withdraw a guilty plea pursuant to icr 33c expires when the judgment of conviction becomes final ie when an appeal is concluded or in the absence of an appeal when the time for appeal has expired holding that an appeal is perfected when the appeal bond is filed