State of Idaho v. Jason Andre Rardin

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 52857

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: February 3, 2026
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
JASON ANDRE RARDIN, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT
) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Defendant-Appellant. )
)

Appeal from the District Court of the Seventh Judicial District, State of Idaho,
Bingham County. Hon. Darren B. Simpson, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and concurrent sentences of fifteen years with a minimum
period of confinement of three years for trafficking marijuana and two counts of
possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver, affirmed.

Waldron Legal, PLLC; Maya P. Waldron, Boise, for appellant.

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

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

PER CURIAM
Jason Andre Rardin entered Alford1 pleas to trafficking marijuana, possession of
methamphetamine with intent to deliver, and possession of heroin with intent to deliver, Idaho
Code §§ 37-2732B(a)(1)(A), 37-2732(a)(1)(A). In exchange for his guilty pleas, additional
charges were dismissed. The district court imposed concurrent sentences of fifteen years with
three years determinate on each count. Rardin appeals, contending that his sentences are excessive.

1
See North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970).

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. Therefore, Rardin’s judgment of conviction and sentences
are affirmed.

2