Search This Blog

Friday, September 2, 2016

The Board of Pardons and Parole Always Wins

In Padilla v. Board of Pardons and Parole, 2016 UT App 150, Padilla appealed the District Court's grant of summary judgment to the BOP, denying his petition for extraordinary relief pursuant to Utah Code of Civil Procedure Rule 65(B)(d).

Padilla was originally sentenced to two concurrent sentences of 1-15 years for crimes he pleaded guilty to. He was released on parole in September 2014. The BOP initiated a parole revocation hearing in March 2015. With the assistance of counsel, and after being advised of his rights, Padilla admitted to violating his parole conditions. The BOP then permanently revoked parole for Padilla to serve his full 15 year sentence.

Padilla claimed the BOP abused its authority for imposing the full sentence of incarceration. The BOP has stautory authority to grant release on parole. The trial court determined the sentence. As long as the period of incarceration falls in the applicable, indeterminate range, then the BOP's decision will not be deemed arbitrary and capricious.  BOP decisions are also final and not subject to judicial review (see Utah Code §77-27-5(3)). Because Padilla admitted he violated the terms of his release, the BOP was legally entitled to revoke his parole and impose part or all of his sentence.

Padilla also claimed the BOP improperly considered information from dismissed and/or amended charges in making their decision. However, as previously indicated, judicial review is not available to consider the BOP's substantive decision. In addition, the BOP is entitled to rely on information known to it in making a parole decision.

Padilla's appeal was denied in a sua sponte motion for summary disposition.


No comments:

Post a Comment