State of Idaho v. Ricky Lee Benjamin

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 50270

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: May 3, 2023
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
RICKY LEE BENJAMIN, ) 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. 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. Raúl 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 Alford1 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.
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

1
See North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970).

1
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.

2