State v. Johnson , 2019 UT App 180 ( 2019 )


Menu:
  •                          
    2019 UT App 180
    THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS
    STATE OF UTAH,
    Appellee,
    v.
    JOSEPH SHAWN JOHNSON,
    Appellant.
    Per Curiam Opinion
    No. 20180892-CA
    Filed November 7, 2019
    Fourth District Court, Provo Department
    The Honorable Derek P. Pullan
    No. 161402568
    Douglas J. Thompson, Attorney for Appellant
    Sean D. Reyes and Marian Decker, Attorneys
    for Appellee
    Before JUDGES DAVID N. MORTENSEN, JILL M. POHLMAN, and
    DIANA HAGEN.
    PER CURIAM:
    ¶1      Joseph Shawn Johnson appeals his sentences after
    pleading no contest to two counts of child sexual abuse. We
    affirm.
    ¶2      Johnson argues that the district court abused its discretion
    by not granting Johnson credit for the time he served while
    wearing a GPS monitor during the pre-trial proceedings.
    However, “it is . . . the Board of Pardons [and Parole], and not
    the trial court, which has authority to grant defendant credit for
    the time he served prior to conviction.” State v. Alvillar, 
    748 P.2d 207
    , 209 (Utah Ct. App. 1988); see also Rawlings v. Holden, 
    869 P.2d 958
    , 960–61 (Utah Ct. App. 1994) (“Under Utah’s sentencing
    scheme, ‘the trial judge has no discretion in fixing the term of
    State v. Johnson
    imprisonment. He or she simply imposes the statutorily
    prescribed range of years, and the Board of Pardons determines
    exactly how long the prisoner is to be confined.”). “In other
    words, the Board, not the district court, ‘determines the actual
    number of years a defendant is to serve,’ . . . because the Board
    ‘functions as a sentencing entity and decides the term of
    incarceration.’” State v. Cuttler, 
    2018 UT App 171
    , ¶ 17, 
    436 P.3d 278
     (quotation simplified). For this reason, the Utah Supreme
    Court has concluded that a trial court lacks jurisdiction to grant
    credit for time served during the course of pretrial detention. See
    State v. Schreuder, 
    712 P.2d 264
    , 277 (Utah 1985). Therefore,
    because jurisdiction over the length of an indeterminate sentence
    lies exclusively with the Board of Pardons and Parole, the issue
    raised by Johnson would be ripe for consideration only if the
    Board of Pardons and Parole ultimately decides not to grant
    Johnson credit for time served before sentencing.
    ¶3    Affirmed.
    20180892-CA                     2               
    2019 UT App 180
                                

Document Info

Docket Number: 20180892-CA

Citation Numbers: 2019 UT App 180

Filed Date: 11/7/2019

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 12/21/2021