Todd v. Board of Pardons and Parole
2016 UT App 236
| Utah Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Shayne E. Todd petitioned for extraordinary relief challenging the Board of Pardons and Parole’s decision to delay his next parole hearing until 2029; the district court granted the Board’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed his petition.
- Todd previously raised similar arguments in a motion to correct an illegal sentence in his criminal case.
- His claims challenged: the constitutionality of Utah’s indeterminate sentencing scheme, whether Sentencing Guidelines created a liberty interest, the adequacy of the Board’s rationale sheet, and certain Board internal procedures affecting due process.
- The appeal asks the court to review the fairness of the Board’s process, not the substantive parole result; judicial review of the Board is limited to procedural fairness.
- The district court rejected each of Todd’s arguments and the appellate court reviewed legal conclusions for correctness and affirmed dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Constitutionality of indeterminate sentencing | Utah’s indeterminate sentencing scheme is unconstitutional on multiple grounds | Scheme has been previously upheld as constitutional; precedent controls | Rejected — scheme is constitutional |
| Sentencing Guidelines create a liberty interest | Guidelines created an expectation of release; Board’s 2029 scheduling deprived Todd of that interest | Guidelines are nonbinding estimates and create no liberty interest; Board has full discretion | Rejected — no protected liberty interest from guidelines |
| Adequacy of Board’s rationale sheet | Preprinted checklist rationale sheet is too cursory to satisfy due process | Rationale sheet meets Board’s written-explanation requirement and due process | Rejected — rationale sheet is adequate |
| Preservation of claims about Board procedures | Board’s internal procedures violated due process | Issues were not raised below and thus not preserved for appeal | Not considered — claim not preserved |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Telford, 48 P.3d 228 (Utah 2002) (rejecting challenge to indeterminate sentencing and following precedent)
- Padilla v. Board of Pardons, 947 P.2d 664 (Utah 1997) (holding sentencing scheme does not violate due process or separation of powers)
- Monson v. Carver, 928 P.2d 1017 (Utah 1996) (no liberty interest from guidelines; rationale sheets satisfy due process)
- Labrum v. Board of Pardons, 870 P.2d 902 (Utah 1993) (Board retains discretion to set terms individually)
- Lancaster v. Board of Pardons, 869 P.2d 945 (Utah 1994) (judicial review limited to procedural fairness of Board decisions)
- State v. Todd, 312 P.3d 936 (Utah Ct. App. 2013) (prior related litigation raising similar arguments)