State of Idaho v. Terry Angelo DeLonnie

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket Nos. 52849, 52850, & 52851

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: May 13, 2026
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
TERRY ANGELO DELONNIE, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT
) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Defendant-Appellant. )
)

Appeal from the District Court of the Third Judicial District, State of Idaho, Canyon
County. Hon. Randall S. Grove, District Judge.

Orders revoking probation and execution of suspended sentences, affirmed;
judgment of conviction and determinate sentence of fifteen years for failure to
register as a sexual offender and being a persistent violator, affirmed.

Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Kiley A. Heffner, 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; HUSKEY, Judge;
and LORELLO, Judge
________________________________________________
PER CURIAM
In Docket No. 52849, Angelo Delonnie pled guilty to sexual abuse of a minor under sixteen
years of age. I.C. § 18-1506. In Docket No. 52850, Delonnie pled guilty to two counts of
possession of sexually exploitative material. I.C. § 18-15057(2)(a). In exchange for his guilty
pleas, additional charges were dismissed. The district court sentenced Delonnie to a unified term
of twenty-five years, with a minimum period of confinement of four years, for sexual abuse of a
minor under sixteen years, and to concurrent unified terms of ten years, with minimum periods of
confinement of six years, for the two counts of possession of sexually exploitative material. The

1
district court ordered that Delonnie’s sentences in both of these cases be served concurrently. The
district court retained jurisdiction and sent Delonnie to participate in the rider program. Following
completion of his rider, the district court suspended the sentences and placed Delonnie on
probation.
In Docket No. 52851, Delonnie was charged with and later pled guilty to failure to register
as a sexual offender, I.C. § 18-8309, and admitted to being a persistent violator, I.C. § 19-2514.
In exchange for his guilty plea, additional charges were dismissed. The State filed petitions for
probation violation in Docket Nos. 52849 and 52850, to which Delonnie admitted. At the
sentencing/probation disposition hearing, Delonnie requested that the district court revoke his
probation, but reduce his sentence in Docket No. 52849. Delonnie also requested that the district
court revoke his probation and order execution of his sentences in Docket No. 52850. The district
court revoked Delonnie’s probation and ordered execution of his original sentences without
modification. With regard to Delonnie’s sentence in Docket No. 52851, the district court
sentenced him to a determinate term of fifteen years, to be served consecutively to his other two
sentences. Delonnie appeals and makes the following arguments.
In Docket No. 52849, Delonnie does not challenge the district court’s decision to revoke
probation but argues that the district court should have reduced his sentence upon revocation of
probation. In Docket No. 52851, Delonnie argues that his sentence is excessive.
Sentencing is a matter for the trial court’s discretion. Both our standard of review and the
factors to be considered in evaluating the reasonableness of the sentence are well established and
need not be repeated here. See State v. Hernandez, 121 Idaho 114, 117-18, 822 P.2d 1011, 1014-
15 (Ct. App. 1991); State v. Lopez, 106 Idaho 447, 449-51, 680 P.2d 869, 871-73 (Ct. App. 1984);
State v. Toohill, 103 Idaho 565, 568, 650 P.2d 707, 710 (Ct. App. 1982). When reviewing the
length of a sentence, we consider the defendant’s entire sentence. State v. Oliver, 144 Idaho 722,
726, 170 P.3d 387, 391 (2007). Our role is limited to determining whether reasonable minds could
reach the same conclusion as the district court. State v. Biggs, 168 Idaho 112, 116, 480 P.3d 150,
154 (Ct. App. 2020).
When we review a sentence that is ordered into execution following a period of probation,
we will examine the entire record encompassing events before and after the original judgment.
State v. Hanington, 148 Idaho 26, 29, 218 P.3d 5, 8 (Ct. App. 2009). We base our review upon

2
the facts existing when the sentence was imposed as well as events occurring between the original
sentencing and the revocation of probation. Id. Thus, this Court will consider the elements of the
record before the trial court that are properly made part of the record on appeal and are relevant to
the defendant’s contention that the trial court should have reduced the sentence sua sponte upon
revocation of probation. State v. Morgan, 153 Idaho 618, 621, 288 P.3d 835, 838 (Ct. App. 2012).
Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record in this case, we cannot say that the
district court abused its discretion.
Regarding Docket No. 52850, Delonnie also argues that the district court should have
reduced his sentences upon revocation of his probation. However, Delonnie acknowledges that he
makes this argument mindful of the invited error doctrine because he requested the district court
revoke his probation and execute his sentences. 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 Delonnie
received the sentences he requested, he may not complain that the district court abused its
discretion.
Therefore, the orders revoking probation and directing execution of Delonnie’s previously
suspended sentences in Docket Nos. 52849 and 52850 and his judgment of conviction and sentence
in Docket No. 52851 are affirmed.

3