State of Idaho v. Ricardo Joseph Rubio, Jr

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 51387

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: August 8, 2025
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
RICARDO JOSEPH RUBIO, JR., ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT
) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Defendant-Appellant. )
)

Appeal from the District Court of the First Judicial District, State of Idaho,
Kootenai County. Hon. Cynthia K.C. Meyer, District Judge.

Order granting (in part) I.C.R. 35 motion for credit for time served, affirmed.

Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Andrea W. Reynolds, Deputy
Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Raúl R. Labrador, Attorney General; Mark W. Olson, Deputy Attorney
General, Boise, for respondent.
________________________________________________

Before HUSKEY, Judge; LORELLO, Judge;
and TRIBE, Judge
________________________________________________
PER CURIAM
Ricardo Joseph Rubio, Jr. pled guilty to passing fictitious bills, notes, and checks. Idaho
Code § 18-3606. In exchange for his guilty plea, additional charges were dismissed including an
allegation that he is a persistent violator. The district court sentenced Rubio to a unified term of
five years, with a minimum period of confinement of two years and retained jurisdiction. After
the period of retained jurisdiction, the district court suspended the sentence and placed Rubio on
probation for two years. Subsequently, Rubio admitted to violating the terms of probation, and
the district court consequently revoked probation and ordered execution of the original sentence.
Rubio filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion for credit for time served, which the district court
granted in part. Rubio appeals, arguing the district court erred when it awarded credit for time
served in the amount of 567 days instead of 638 days.

1
Mindful that he conceded to the district court that the record correctly reflected he was only
entitled to 567 days credit for time served, Rubio asserts that the district court erred by only
partially granting his Rule 35 motion for credit for time served. 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).
Because Rubio conceded to the district court that the record correctly reflected the days of
credit for time served, he may not complain that the district court abused its discretion. Therefore,
the district court’s order granting (in-part) Rubio’s Rule 35 motion for credit for time served is
affirmed.

2