and the one at issue in this case is that the truth-in-sentencing provision is not even arguably ameliorative; no competent person would ever opt to be required to serve 85% of his prison term if he had the option of having to serve less time. 2 . The trial was ultimately continued until after July 1, 1994, although obviously not for the purpose of bringing West’s proceeding within the purview of the statute. 3 . Moreover, West waived his ex post facto claims in the very act of requesting that the amendment be applied to him, as well as the act of submitting several jury instructions to the court which invited the jury to return a sentence of life without parole, since a defendant cannot ordinarily appeal any error that he introduced. See, e.g., Carr v. State, 655 So.2d 824 (Miss.1995) (<HOLDING>). 4 . The state’s assertion of the pertinence
holding that parties waived any choice of law objection by not raising an objection holding that although the defendant had preserved his objection to the constitutionality of a mental state requirement he had not preserved another constitutional objection holding that party waived an objection to choice of law holding that appellant had waived any objection to an instruction that he had himself introduced and which was amended by the state without objection from appellant holding that appellant who properly filed an objection in accordance with the notice he received from the trial court had standing to appeal