Nicolds v. Utah Bd. of Pardons and Parole
277 P.3d 652
Utah Ct. App.2012Background
- Nicolds filed a petition for extraordinary relief under Rule 65B(d) challenging a 2006 parole hearing decision.
- District court applied PCRA §78B-9-107's one-year filing deadline, concluding petition must be filed by October 3, 2007 and dismissed as untimely.
- District court also relied on Renn v. Board of Pardons to apply laches due to a four-year delay.
- Renn held 65B(d) petitions lack a fixed filing deadline but must be filed within a reasonable time after the challenged act.
- On appeal, court held PCRA deadline does not govern 65B(d) petitions and that laches analysis required more fact-finding.
- Case remanded for merits review after proper service on the Board.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether PCRA deadline applies to 65B(d) petitions | Nicolds argues no fixed deadline; statute not controlling | Board adheres to PCRA timing rules | PCR A deadline does not control 65B(d) petitions |
| Whether laches bars the petition | Delay relied on contract-attorney guidance; no prejudice shown | District court found delay unreasonable and prejudicial | District court erred; laches not established based on record; remand for merits |
Key Cases Cited
- Renn v. Board of Pardons, 904 P.2d 677 (Utah 1995) (no fixed deadline; reasonable time standard for 65B(d))
- Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. Hon. Lindberg, 2010 UT 51 (Utah) (laches requires both lack of diligence and resulting injury)
- Borland v. Chandler, 733 P.2d 144 (Utah 1987) (to prevail on laches, must show prejudice from delay)
- Johnson v. Johnson, 2012 UT App 22 (Utah App. 2012) (mixed questions of law and fact in laches; review for correctness)
- Anderson v. Doms, 984 P.2d 392 (Utah) (reversing laches where prejudice not shown)