State v. Miller

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket Nos. 52509 & 52510

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: March 19, 2026
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
CHRISTOPHER BRANSON MILLER, ) 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. Nancy Baskin, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of seven years, with a minimum
period of incarceration of two years, for felony possession of a controlled substance
with intent to deliver in Docket No. 53509, affirmed; judgment of conviction and
concurrent unified sentence of five years, with a minimum period of incarceration
of one year, for burglary in Docket No. 53510, affirmed.

Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Justin M. Curtis, 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; GRATTON, Judge;
and HUSKEY, Judge
________________________________________________

PER CURIAM
This appeal involves two consolidated cases. In Docket No. 52509, Christopher Branson
Miller pleaded guilty to felony possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver, Idaho
Code § 37-2732(a).1 In Docket No. 52510, Miller pleaded guilty to burglary, I.C. § 18-1401. In

1
In Docket No. 52509, the judgment of conviction contains a clerical error as it indicates
Miller is convicted of and sentenced for possession of a controlled substance, Idaho Code § 37-
2732(c). As noted above, Miller pleaded guilty to possession of a controlled substance with intent
to deliver, I.C. § 37-2732(a). Miller also pleaded guilty to possession of drug paraphernalia,
1
exchange for his guilty plea, additional charges were dismissed. At the sentencing hearing, Miller
requested that the district court place him on a term of probation with an underlying sentence of
seven years with two years determinate. The district court imposed a unified sentence of seven
years, with a minimum period of incarceration of two years, in Docket No. 52509 and a concurrent
unified sentence of five years, with a minimum period of incarceration of one year, in
Docket No. 52510. The district court suspended the sentences and placed Miller on a term of
probation. Mindful of the fact that he received the sentences he requested, Miller appeals,
contending that his sentences are excessive.
Although Miller received the sentences he asked for, Miller asserts that his underlying
sentences are excessive. The doctrine of invited error applies to estop a party from asserting an
error when that party’s conduct induces the commission of the error. State v. Atkinson, 124 Idaho
816, 819, 864 P.2d 654, 657 (Ct. App. 1993). The purpose is to prevent a party who caused or
played an important role in prompting the trial court to take action from later challenging that
decision on appeal. State v. Barr, 166 Idaho 783, 786, 463 P.3d 1286, 1289 (2020). In short,
invited errors are not reversible. State v. Gittins, 129 Idaho 54, 58, 921 P.2d 754, 758 (Ct. App.
1996).
Therefore, because Miller received the sentences he requested, he may not complain that
the district court abused its discretion. Accordingly, Miller’s judgments of conviction and
sentences are affirmed.

I.C. § 37-2734A, and was sentenced to credit for time served; Miller does not challenge this
sentence on appeal.
2