Lancaster v. Utah Bd. of Pardons, 930355
| Citation | 869 P.2d 945 |
| Decision Date | 28 February 1994 |
| Docket Number | No. 930355,930355 |
| Parties | Ronald Dean LANCASTER, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. UTAH BOARD OF PARDONS, Defendant and Appellee. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Utah |
Page 945
v.
UTAH BOARD OF PARDONS, Defendant and Appellee.
Page 946
Ronald Dean Lancaster, pro se.
Jan Graham, Atty. Gen., James H. Beadles, Asst. Atty. Gen., Salt Lake City, for defendant.
DURHAM, Justice:
Plaintiff Robert Dean Lancaster appeals the district court's summary dismissal of his petition for extraordinary relief brought pursuant to rule 65B of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure. Lancaster contends that the Utah Board of Pardons ("Board") violated his due process rights when it rescinded his parole date. We affirm.
In June 1978, Lancaster pleaded guilty to criminal homicide, murder in the second degree, a first degree felony under section 76-5-203 of the Utah Code. He received an indeterminate sentence of five years to life in the Utah State Prison. In May 1979, following his first parole hearing, the Board issued a written order denying Lancaster parole because of the nature of his offense. The Board also scheduled a rehearing for June 1984. At that time, the Board reheard Lancaster's case and set a parole date of June 8, 1993.
In March 1987, Lancaster was convicted of aggravated assault by a prisoner, a first degree felony under section 76-5-103.5 of the Utah Code. Lancaster received a second indeterminate sentence of five years to life, with this second prison term to start upon completion of his first sentence.
On May 22, 1987, the Board rescinded Lancaster's June 1993 parole date and ordered a rehearing for June 2003. The reason for the Board's decision was Lancaster's recent aggravated assault conviction. In light of this, the Board concluded that Lancaster posed a "risk to the community."
In late 1991, Lancaster requested that the Board reconsider his case. The Board denied his request for rehearing and affirmed his rehearing date of June 2003. Although the Board noted that Lancaster had been "disciplinary free" for six months, it decided that Lancaster needed to show "behavioral progress" for a "longer period."
On September 10, 1992, Lancaster filed in Third Judicial District Court a "Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus-Rule 65B Subs. (C) and (E). Extraordinary Relief." On October 15, 1992, the district court dismissed
Page 947
Lancaster's petition as "frivolous on its face." Lancaster appeals to this court.The sole issue on appeal is whether the trial court was correct in denying Lancaster's petition without holding a hearing or providing written findings of fact and conclusions of law. Resolution of this issue turns on the proper construction of subsections (c) and (e) of Utah Rule of Civil Procedure 65B. This determination presents a question of law, which we review for correctness. Accordingly, we grant " 'no deference to the lower court's conclusions.' " Parsons v. Barnes, 871 P.2d 516, 518 (1994) (quoting Gerrish v. Barnes, 844 P.2d 315, 318-19 (Utah 1992));...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Blanke v. Utah Bd. of Pardons & Parole, 20160766
...89, ¶ 23, 416 P.3d 663 ; Labrum v. Utah State Bd. of Pardons , 870 P.2d 902, 911 (Utah 1993) ; see also Lancaster v. Utah Bd. of Pardons , 869 P.2d 945, 947 (Utah 1994) (explaining that courts "review the fairness of the process by which the Board undertakes its sentencing function, but [th......
-
Monson v. Carver, 950199
...function, ... we do not sit as a panel of review on the result.' " Neel, 886 P.2d at 1100 (quoting Lancaster v. Utah Bd. of Pardons, 869 P.2d 945, 947 (Utah We first address Monson's claim that Utah's indeterminate sentencing scheme constitutes cruel and unusual punishment in violation of t......
-
Blanke v. Utah Bd. of Pardons & Parole, 20160766
...UT 89, ¶ 23, 416 P.3d 663; Labrum v. Utah State Bd. of Pardons, 870 P.2d 902, 911 (Utah 1993); see also Lancaster v. Utah Bd. of Pardons, 869 P.2d 945, 947 (Utah 1994) (explaining that courts "review the fairness of the process by which the Board undertakes its sentencing function, but [the......
-
Williams v. Dep't of Corr., 20140623–CA
...v. Galetka , 933 P.2d 987, 988 (Utah 1997) (stating that rule 12(b)(6) applies to rule 65B(a) petitions); Lancaster v. Board of Pardons , 869 P.2d 945, 948 (Utah 1994) (stating that “a petition of any nature which fails to state a claim may be dismissed”).¶15 Williams's contract-attorney cl......