Full Opinion

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO Docket No. 52890 STATE OF IDAHO, ) ) Filed: October 29, 2026 Plaintiff-Respondent, ) ) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk v. ) ) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED SHEA ANNE REGAN, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT ) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY Defendant-Appellant.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. Patrick J. Miller, District Judge. Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of three years, with a minimum period of confinement of one year, for felony possession of a controlled substance, affirmed. Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Stacey M. Donohue, 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; LORELLO, Judge and FLEMING, Judge ________________________________________________ PER CURIAM Shea Anne Regan was found guilty of felony possession of a controlled substance, cocaine, Idaho Code § 37-2732(c).1 The district court sentenced Regan to a unified sentence of three years, with a minimum period of confinement of one year, suspended the sentence, and placed Regan on probation for a period of three years. Regan appeals, arguing that her sentence is excessive. 1 Regan was also found guilty of possession of drug paraphernalia, Idaho Code § 37-2734A, and driving under the influence, I.C. § 18-8004; those convictions are not at issue in this appeal. 1 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). Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion. Additionally, although Regan received the sentence she requested, Regan asserts the district court erred by imposing an excessive underlying sentence. Regan’s argument is without merit and barred by the doctrine of invited error. 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, Regan’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed. 2