Opinion
50270
05-03-2023
STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. RICKY LEE BENJAMIN, Defendant-Appellant.
Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Elizabeth A. Allred, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. Hon. Raul R. Labrador, Attorney General; Justin R. Porter, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Appeal from the District Court of the Seventh Judicial District, State of Idaho, Bonneville County. Hon. Dane H. Watkins, Jr., District Judge.
Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of ten years with five years determinate for drug-trafficking in heroin, affirmed.
Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Elizabeth A. Allred, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.
Hon. Raul R. Labrador, Attorney General; Justin R. Porter, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.
Before LORELLO, Chief Judge; HUSKEY, Judge; and BRAILSFORD, Judge
PER CURIAM
Ricky Lee Benjamin entered an Alford plea to drug-trafficking in heroin, Idaho Code § 37-2732B(a)(6)(A). The district court imposed a unified sentence of ten years with five years determinate. Benjamin appeals, contending that his sentence is excessive.
See North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970).
Although Benjamin agreed with the State's recommendation at the time of sentencing and received the sentence he requested, Benjamin asserts that the district court erred in imposing an excessive sentence. The doctrine of invited error applies to estop a party from asserting an error when his or her own conduct induces the commission of the error. State v. Atkinson, 124 Idaho 816, 819, 864 P.2d 654, 657 (Ct. App. 1993). One may not complain of errors one has consented to or acquiesced in. State v. Caudill, 109 Idaho 222, 226, 706 P.2d 456, 460 (1985); State v. Lee, 131 Idaho 600, 605, 961 P.2d 1203, 1208 (Ct. App. 1998). In short, invited errors are not reversible. State v. Gittins, 129 Idaho 54, 58, 921 P.2d 754, 758 (Ct. App. 1996). This doctrine applies to sentencing decisions as well as rulings made during trial. State v. Griffith, 110 Idaho 613, 614, 716 P.2d 1385, 1386 (Ct. App. 1986).
Therefore, because Benjamin received the sentence he requested, he may not complain that the district court abused its discretion. Accordingly, Benjamin's judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.