State of Idaho v. Sean Gabriel Davidson

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO Docket No. 53333 STATE OF IDAHO, ) ) Filed: May 11, 2026 Plaintiff-Respondent, ) ) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk v. ) ) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED SEAN GABRIEL DAVIDSON, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT ) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY Defendant-Appellant. ) ) Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada County. Hon. Peter G. Barton, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and suspended, unified sentence of eight years, with a minimum period of confinement of two years, for felony driving under the influence, affirmed.

Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Abigael E. Schulz, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Raúl R. Labrador, Attorney General; Kacey L. Jones, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent. ________________________________________________ Before TRIBE, Chief Judge; HUSKEY, Judge; and LORELLO, Judge ________________________________________________ PER CURIAM Sean Gabriel Davidson pled guilty to felony driving under the influence. I.C. §§ 18-8004 and 18-8005(6). In exchange for his guilty plea, additional charges were dismissed. The district court sentenced Davidson to a unified term of eight years, with a minimum period of confinement of two years, but suspended the sentence and placed him on probation. Davidson appeals, arguing that his sentence is excessive.

Mindful that Davidson received the sentence he asked for, he 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 Davidson received the sentence he requested, he may not complain that the district court abused its discretion. Accordingly, Davidson’s judgment of conviction and sentence is affirmed