Court Opinion

ID: 9952668
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-20 15:04:48.16439+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:42:29.234537
License: Public Domain

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

                                         Docket No. 50241

 STATE OF IDAHO,                                   )
                                                   )        Filed: March 20, 2024
        Plaintiff-Respondent,                      )
                                                   )        Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
 v.                                                )
                                                   )        THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
 ZACARY WARREN HOFFMAN,                            )        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. Samuel Hoagland, District Judge.

       Order of restitution, affirmed.

       Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Jenny C. Swinford, Deputy
       Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

       Hon. Raúl R. Labrador, Attorney General; Justin R. Porter, Deputy Attorney
       General, Boise, for respondent.
                 ________________________________________________

HUSKEY, Judge
       Zacary Warren Hoffman appeals from the district court’s order of restitution. Hoffman
asserts the district court abused its discretion by ordering $171.64 in restitution. Because Hoffman
agreed to pay the restitution amount, he has waived any claim the district court erred in ordering
restitution. We affirm the order of restitution.
                                                       I.
                     FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
       Hoffman was charged with felony possession of a controlled substance, Idaho Code § 37-
2732(c), and felony concealment of evidence, I.C. § 18-2603. Hoffman pleaded not guilty. The
State filed an information part II to include a sentence enhancement under I.C. § 37-2739. A jury
trial was held, and Hoffman was found guilty on both counts. Hoffman then pleaded guilty to the
persistent violator enhancement. At the sentencing hearing, the district court informed counsel of

                                                       1
the anticipated restitution amounts and asked if there were any objections. Hoffman responded
there was no objection.
       The district court entered a judgment of conviction and, thereafter, an order of restitution
in the amount of $171.64. Hoffman timely appealed only from the restitution order.
                                                  II.
                                    STANDARD OF REVIEW
       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).
                                                  III.
                                             ANALYSIS
       Hoffman contends the district court abused its discretion by assessing restitution because
the district court was not required to do so and did not exercise reason in reaching its decision to
order restitution. The State argues the district court did not abuse its discretion and that any error
was invited by Hoffman, as he expressly stated he did not object to the restitution amount
requested, and even if it is not invited error, the district court did not abuse its discretion because
it acted within its statutory authority in awarding restitution.
       The district court explicitly asked Hoffman, “I think I saw an order for $194 for restitution.
[Defense counsel], can I send that order without objection?” and defense counsel replied, “Yeah.
I don’t have an objection to that.” By agreeing to the amount of restitution, Hoffman is now
precluded from asserting on appeal that the district court erred in ordering restitution. Hoffman
acknowledges his claim is barred by the invited error doctrine but nonetheless asks this Court to
review his claim. We decline to do so. Hoffman has waived any claim of error in the district
court’s restitution order and, thus, we affirm the district court.

                                                   2
                                                 IV.
                                          CONCLUSION
       Because Hoffman agreed to pay the amount of restitution, he has waived any claim on
appeal that the district court erred in ordering restitution. The district court’s order of restitution
is affirmed.
       Chief Judge GRATTON and Judge LORELLO CONCUR.

                                                  3