State of Idaho v. Heidi M. Canchola

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 51982

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: June 27, 2025
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
HEIDI M. CANCHOLA, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT
) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Defendant-Appellant. )
)

Appeal from the District Court of the Second Judicial District, State of Idaho, Nez
Perce County. Hon. Mark Monson, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and suspended, unified sentence of four years, with a
minimum period of confinement of two years, for possession of a controlled
substance, affirmed.

Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Stacey M. Donohue, Deputy
Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Raúl R. Labrador, Attorney General; Kacey L. Jones, Deputy Attorney
General, Boise, for respondent.
________________________________________________

Before GRATTON, Chief Judge; HUSKEY, Judge;
and LORELLO, Judge
________________________________________________
PER CURIAM
Heidi M. Canchola pled guilty to possession of a controlled substance. I.C. § 37-
2732(c)(1). In exchange for her guilty plea, an additional charge was dismissed. Pursuant to the
plea agreement, the parties recommended probation with a suspended unified sentence of four
years, with a minimum period of confinement of two years. The district court sentenced Canchola
to the requested unified term of four years, with a minimum period of confinement of two years.
The district court suspended the sentence and placed Canchola on probation. Canchola appeals,
arguing that her sentence is excessive.

1
Mindful that Canchola received the sentence she asked for, she 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 Canchola received the sentence she requested, she may not complain
that the district court abused its discretion. Accordingly, Canchola’s judgment of conviction and
sentence is affirmed.

2