State of Idaho v. David Samuel Byrd

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 51483

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: August 29, 2024
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
DAVID SAMUEL BYRD, ) 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. Derrick O’Neill, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of ten years, with a minimum period
of incarceration of two and one-half years, for felony domestic violence or battery,
affirmed.

Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Jenny C. Swinford, Deputy
Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Raúl R. Labrador, Attorney General; Kenneth K. Jorgensen, Deputy Attorney
General, Boise, for respondent.
________________________________________________

Before HUSKEY, Judge; LORELLO, Judge;
and TRIBE, Judge
________________________________________________

PER CURIAM
David Samuel Byrd pled guilty to felony domestic violence or battery, Idaho Code §§ 18-
918(2), 18-903(a), and two counts of misdemeanor violation of a no contact order, I.C. § 18-920.
As part of an agreement with the State, the State and Byrd made a joint sentencing recommendation
of ten years, with two and one-half years determinate, for the felony. The district court followed
the recommendations and imposed a unified sentence of ten years, with a minimum period of
incarceration of two and one-half years. The district court granted credit for time served for the

1
two misdemeanor convictions. Byrd appeals, mindful of the invited error doctrine, contending
that his felony sentence is excessive.
Although Byrd received the sentence he asked for, he now 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 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 Byrd received the sentence he requested, he may not complain that the
district court abused its discretion. Accordingly, Byrd’s judgment of conviction and sentence is
affirmed.

2