*1 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.