State of Idaho v. Melissa Renee McAtee

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 51396

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: March 20, 2025
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
MELISSA RENEE MCATEE, ) 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.

Appeal from judgment of conviction and determinate sentence of 180 days in
county jail for introduction of major contraband into a correctional facility,
dismissed.

Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Jacob L. Westerfield, Deputy
Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

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

Before HUSKEY, Judge; LORELLO, Judge;
and TRIBE, Judge
________________________________________________
PER CURIAM
Melissa Renee McAtee pled guilty to introduction of major contraband into a correctional
facility. Idaho Code § 18-2510(3)(a). As part of the plea agreement, the State dismissed McAtee’s
four other separate pending cases, and the parties jointly recommended to the district court that
McAtee be sentenced to a term of one year and that the sentence be commuted to 180 days jail
with credit for time served. The district court followed the recommendation and sentenced McAtee
to a determinate term of one year and commuted the sentence to 180 days in the county jail with
credit for time served. McAtee appeals. Subsequently, while this appeal was pending, McAtee

1
completed her jail sentence. On appeal, McAtee argues that, mindful of the fact that she received
the sentence she requested and that her claim is now moot, her sentence was 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).
A case becomes moot when the issues presented are no longer live or the defendant lacks
a legally cognizable interest in the outcome. Murphy v. Hunt, 455 U.S. 478, 481 (1982); Bradshaw
v. State, 120 Idaho 429, 432, 816 P.2d 986, 989 (1991). Even where a question is moot, there are
three exceptions to the mootness doctrine: (1) when there is the possibility of collateral legal
consequences imposed on the person raising the issue; (2) when the challenged conduct is likely
to evade judicial review and thus is capable of repetition; and (3) when an otherwise moot issue
raises concerns of substantial public interest. State v. Barclay, 149 Idaho 6, 8, 232 P.3d 327, 329
(2010). McAtee received the sentence she requested; she has now waived any claim the sentence
was excessive. Additionally, the relief McAtee has requested on appeal cannot be granted because
she has served her sentence. Therefore, any judicial relief from this Court would have no effect
on either party. See id.
Therefore, McAtee’s appeal from her judgment of conviction and sentence is dismissed.

2