Stack v. Board of Pardons and Parole
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS ----ooOoo---Brian K. Stack, Petitioner and Appellant, v. Board of Pardons and Parole, Respondent and Appellee. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not For Official Publication) Case No. 20090761-CA F I L E D (December 24, 2009) 2009 UT App 394 ----Third District, Salt Lake Department, 090901670 The Honorable Sandra N. Peuler Attorneys: Brian K. Stack, Draper, Appellant Pro Se ----- Before Judges Greenwood, Davis, and Thorne. PER CURIAM: Brian K. Stack appeals the trial court's dismissal of his petition for extraordinary relief. This matter is before the court on its own motion for summary disposition based on the lack of a substantial question for review. In his petition below and on appeal, Stack raises issues that are matters of well-settled law. He asserts that the Board of Pardons and Parole (the Board) violates principles of separation of powers because the Board exercises sentencing functions. In setting the actual length of time a defendant will serve, however, "the Board merely exercises its constitutional authority to commute or terminate an indeterminate sentence that, but for the Board's discretion, would run until the maximum period is reached." Padilla v. Board of Pardons & Parole, 947 P.2d 664, 669 (Utah 1997). Accordingly, the Board does not violate the separation of powers in setting parole dates. See id. Stack also asserts that the Board's decisions are subject to judicial review. The extent of judicial review, however, "is limited to the 'process by which the Board undertakes its sentencing function.'" Preece v. House, 886 P.2d 508, 512 (Utah 1994) (quoting Lancaster v. Board of Pardons, 869 P.2d 945, 947 (Utah 1994)). The Board's ultimate decisions are not subject to judicial review. See id. Accordingly, Stack's challenge to the Board's decision is beyond the scope of judicial review.1 Affirmed. ______________________________ Pamela T. Greenwood, Presiding Judge ______________________________ James Z. Davis, Judge ______________________________ William A. Thorne Jr., Judge 1 To the extent that Stack raises other issues, we have reviewed them and found them to be without merit. We do not address them further. See Beehive Brick Co. v. Robinson Brick Co., 780 P.2d 827, 833 (Utah Ct. App. 1989) (noting the principle that the court "need not analyze and address in writing each and every argument"). 20090761-CA 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
