State of Idaho v. Jason Tyrone Hughes

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 52253

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: September 2, 2025
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
JASON TYRONE HUGHES, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT
) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Defendant-Appellant. )
)

Appeal from the District Court of the Sixth Judicial District, State of Idaho,
Bannock County. Hon. Javier Gabiola, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of twenty-five years with a minimum
period of confinement of fifteen years for child sexual abuse by soliciting a minor
under sixteen years of age to participate in a sexual act, affirmed.

Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Elizabeth A. Allred, Deputy
Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Raúl R. Labrador, Attorney General; Kacey L. Jones, Deputy Attorney
General, Boise, for respondent.
________________________________________________

Before GRATTON, Chief Judge; HUSKEY, Judge;
and LORELLO, Judge
________________________________________________

PER CURIAM
Jason Tyrone Hughes pled guilty to child sexual abuse by soliciting a minor under sixteen
years of age to participate in a sexual act, Idaho Code § 18-1506(1)(a). In exchange for his guilty
plea, an additional charge was dismissed including an allegation that he is a persistent violator.
The district court imposed a unified term of twenty-five years with fifteen years determinate.
Hughes appeals, contending that his sentence is excessive.
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

1
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. Therefore, Hughes’ judgment of conviction and sentence
are affirmed.

2