State of Idaho v. Colby Reid Heaton

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 53187

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: May 5, 2026
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
COLBY REID HEATON, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT
) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Defendant-Appellant. )
)

Appeal from the District Court of the Seventh Judicial District, State of Idaho,
Bonneville County. Hon. Michael J. Whyte, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and aggregate sentence of ten years, with minimum periods
of confinement of five years, for domestic violence with traumatic injury,
possession of a controlled substance, and destruction of evidence, 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
Colby Reid Heaton pled guilty to domestic violence with traumatic injury, I.C. § 18-918(2);
possession of a controlled substance, I.C.§ 37-2732(c)(1); and destruction, alteration, or
concealment of evidence, I.C.§ 18-2603. In exchange for his guilty pleas, additional charges were
dismissed. Pursuant to the binding I.C.R. 11 plea agreement and the parties’ sentencing
recommendations, the district court sentenced Heaton to a unified term of ten years, with a
minimum period of confinement of five years, for domestic battery with traumatic injury; a
concurrent unified term of seven years, with a minimum period of confinement of five years, for

1
possession of a controlled substance; and a concurrent determinate term of five years for
destruction, alteration, or concealment of evidence. Heaton appeals, arguing that his sentences are
excessive.
“Mindful” that Heaton received the sentences he asked for, he asserts that the district court
erred in imposing excessive sentences. 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 Heaton received the sentences he requested, he may not complain that
the district court abused its discretion. Accordingly, Heaton’s judgment of conviction and
sentences are affirmed.

2