Padilla v. Board of Pardons and Parole, 380 P.3d 1

Padilla pleaded guilty in 2008 to two second-degree felony child-abuse offenses and was sentenced to concurrent terms of 1-to-15 years.
He was released on parole in September 2014; the Board initiated revocation proceedings in March 2015.
At an April 15, 2015 parole hearing Padilla, with counsel, acknowledged receipt of Board materials and admitted violating parole by failing to complete a halfway-house sex-offender program.
The Board revoked parole and declined to grant another parole opportunity, ordering Padilla to serve the full 15-year maximum, while stating it might reconsider if he entered and progressed in therapy or completed programming.
Padilla petitioned for extraordinary relief under Utah R. Civ. P. 65B(d), arguing the Board relied on dismissed/amended charges and abused its authority by requiring him to serve the full term; the district court granted summary judgment to the Board.
The appellate court considered the case on a sua sponte motion for summary disposition and affirmed the district court.

Issue	Padilla's Argument	Board's Argument	Held
Was revocation proper after Padilla's admission?	Admission inadequate to support revocation or waived issues; revocation was improper.	Admission establishes a parole violation entitling the Board to revoke parole.	Admission allowed revocation; Board properly revoked parole.
Could Board require completion of sex-offender program as a parole condition?	Board improperly required program completion and relied on dismissed/amended charges.	Parole conditions are within Board discretion; Padilla waived challenge by admitting violation.	Challenge waived by admission; condition within Board authority.
Did Board abuse discretion by ordering Padilla to serve full 15 years?	Board abused authority; decision effectively punished for unproven conduct.	Board has statutory discretion to deny parole and set release within indeterminate range.	No abuse; Board's decision within statutory authority and not subject to substantive judicial review.
Was it improper for Board to consider dismissed/amended charges?	Board relied on unprosecuted allegations to keep Padilla incarcerated.	Board may consider any known factors and give them weight as it sees fit.	Not reviewable on the merits; Board may rely on such information in exercising discretion.

Kelly v. Board of Pardons, 288 P.3d 39 (Utah Ct. App. 2012) (standard for judicial review of Board actions)
Preece v. House, 886 P.2d 508 (Utah 1994) (Board decision within indeterminate range is not arbitrary absent unusual circumstances)
Padilla v. Board of Pardons & Parole, 947 P.2d 664 (Utah 1997) (distinction between judicial sentencing and Board parole authority)
Lancaster v. Board of Pardons, 869 P.2d 945 (Utah 1994) (courts do not substitute review of Board results absent constitutional claim)
Northern v. Barnes, 825 P.2d 696 (Utah Ct. App. 1992) (Board may consider and weigh factors as it deems appropriate)