391 P.3d 373
Utah Ct. App.2017Background
- Joan and Frank Steed were convicted of multiple counts related to failure to file tax returns and a pattern-of-unlawful-activity charge; sentences were stayed and they received probation, fines, restitution (including tax, penalties, and interest), jail terms, and probation costs.
- The Steeds’ convictions were reversed by the Utah Supreme Court and judgment of acquittal entered on remand.
- After acquittal the Steeds sought refunds of (1) tax penalties and interest assessed as part of criminal restitution, (2) payments made under a private contract with Wasatch County to serve incarceration, and (3) probation supervision fees paid to Adult Probation and Parole.
- The district court refunded the pattern-of-unlawful-activity fines but denied refunds for the tax penalties/interest, the Wasatch County incarceration payments, and probation fees; the Steeds appealed.
- The appeals court considered ripeness/mandate arguments from the State but allowed challenge to the post-acquittal restitution and related refunds.
Issues
| Issue | Steed's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Refund of tax penalties & interest assessed as part of criminal restitution | Reversal of convictions voids the sentence and restitution; due process requires return of penalties/interest | Tax Commission has independent civil authority to assess penalties/interest; Steeds accepted Commission’s figures | Reversed in part: restitution-ordered penalties and interest are void after acquittal; Steeds entitled to refund (civil tax process would require separate proceedings) |
| Refund of payments to Wasatch County under private incarceration contract | Payments were coerced by convictions and thus should be returned | Steeds voluntarily entered a civil contract to serve time in Wasatch County and assumed costs | Affirmed: district court correctly refused refund (Steeds did not challenge the contract rationale below) |
| Refund of probation supervision fees paid to Adult Probation & Parole | Probation was punitive given their circumstances; fees should be returned after acquittal | Probation fees are rehabilitative; Steeds received supervision services so no refund | Affirmed: fees are not refundable; Parker and related authority support denial despite uneasy intuition |
| Ripeness / scope of remand (whether Steeds could litigate refunds after acquittal) | Challenge was proper after acquittal because issue of vacating parts of restitution was unripe earlier | Relief would exceed the supreme court’s mandate on remand | Court: Steeds may challenge post-acquittal restitution and refunds; cited distinctions from cases the State relied on (Ivers, Pochynok) |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Steed, 325 P.3d 87 (Utah 2014) (supreme court reversed convictions and guided remand)
- Salt Lake City Corp. v. Jordan River Restoration Network, 299 P.3d 990 (Utah 2012) (standard of review for legal conclusions)
- Utah Dep't of Transp. v. Ivers, 218 P.3d 583 (Utah 2009) (limits on changing claims or exceeding remand scope)
- J. Pochynok Co. v. Smedsrud, 157 P.3d 822 (Utah Ct. App. 2007) (remand scope and what issues are properly before trial court)
- Bodell Constr. Co. v. Robbins, 215 P.3d 933 (Utah 2009) (ripeness doctrine)
- State v. Parker, 872 P.2d 1041 (Utah Ct. App. 1994) (probation fees are rehabilitative; fees not refunded after vacatur)