State v. William Dean Whitmore

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket Nos. 44180 | 44181

STATE OF IDAHO, 2017 Unpublished Opinion No.38l

Plaintiff-Respondent, Filed: February27,2017

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

WILLIAM DEAN WHITMORE, THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
OPINION AND SHALL NOT
Defendant-Appellant. BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Seventh Judicial District, State of ldaho,
Bonneville County. Hon. Joel E. Tingey, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of ten years, with a minimum period of
confinement of three years, for delivery of a controlled substance, and judgment of
conviction and unified sentence of ten years, with a minimum period of confinement of
three years, for possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver, with the
sentences to run concurrently, affirmed.

Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Jenny C. Swinford,
Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney
General, Boise, for respondent.

Before GRATTON, Chief Judge; GUTIERREZ, Judge;
and HUSK-EY, Judge

PERCURIAM
William Dean Whitmore was found guilty of delivery of a controlled substance,
methamphetamine, Idaho Code $ 37 -2732(aX l XA). Following a plea agreement, the district
court imposed a unified ten-year sentence, with three years determinate. In a separate case,
Whitmore pleaded guilty to possession with intent to deliver, methamphetamine, I.C. g 37-
2732(c)(l). Following the same plea agreement, the district court imposed a unified ten-year
sentence, with three years determinate. The sentences were ordered to run concunently.
Whitmore appeals, contending that his sentences are excessive.
Mindful that Whitmore received the sentences he requested, Whitmore asserts that the
district court ened in imposing excessive sentences. The doctrine of invited error applies to
estop a party from asserting an error when his or her own conduct induces the commission ofthe
error. StaIe v. Atkinson, l24Idaho 816, 819, 864 P.2d 654,657 (Ct. App. 1993). One may not
complain of errors one has consented to or acquiesced ir.. state v. Cauditl,l0g 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, s8, g21 p.2d
754,758 (Ct. App. 1996). This doctrine applies to sentencing decisions as well as rulings made
duringtrial. Statev.Grffith,l10Idaho6t3,614,716p.2d 1395, 1386(Ct.App. 1986).
Therefore, because whitmore received the sentences he requested, he may not complain
that the district court abused its discretion. Accordingly, Whitmore's judgnents of conviction
and sentences are affirmed.