State of Idaho v. Sean Gabriel Davidson

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 53333

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: May 11, 2026
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
SEAN GABRIEL DAVIDSON, ) 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. Peter G. Barton, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and suspended, unified sentence of eight years, with a
minimum period of confinement of two years, for felony driving under the
influence, affirmed.

Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Abigael E. Schulz, 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
Sean Gabriel Davidson pled guilty to felony driving under the influence. I.C. §§ 18-8004
and 18-8005(6). In exchange for his guilty plea, additional charges were dismissed. The district
court sentenced Davidson to a unified term of eight years, with a minimum period of confinement
of two years, but suspended the sentence and placed him on probation. Davidson appeals, arguing
that his sentence is excessive.
Mindful that Davidson received the sentence he asked for, he asserts that the district court
erred in imposing an excessive sentence. The doctrine of invited error applies to estop a party

1
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 Davidson received the sentence he requested, he may not complain that
the district court abused its discretion. Accordingly, Davidson’s judgment of conviction and
sentence is affirmed

2