Utah Court of Appeals
Can courts review the substance of parole board decisions? May v. Bigelow Explained
Summary
Ronald May appealed the district court’s dismissal of his petition for extraordinary relief seeking immediate parole or a new hearing from the Board of Pardons and Parole. The Board had revoked May’s parole based on his admitted heroin use and set his next hearing for 2022.
Analysis
In May v. Bigelow, the Utah Court of Appeals reaffirmed the limited scope of judicial review available for decisions by the Board of Pardons and Parole, emphasizing that courts cannot second-guess the Board’s substantive determinations.
Background and Facts
Ronald May was serving two indeterminate life sentences when the Board of Pardons and Parole revoked his parole based on his admitted heroin use. The Board set his next parole hearing for 2022. May filed a petition for extraordinary relief, arguing that the Board violated his due process rights by failing to obtain and disclose a toxicology report from his DUI arrest, and that the Board abused its discretion in setting the 2022 hearing date. This was May’s fifth parole revocation.
Key Legal Issues
The case presented questions about the scope of judicial review for Board decisions, whether the Board had a duty to obtain toxicology reports, and the preservation requirements for ineffective assistance of counsel claims in parole proceedings.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The court of appeals applied the correctness standard in reviewing the district court’s dismissal. The court emphasized that judicial review of Board decisions is “limited only to ‘the fairness of the process by which the Board undertakes its sentencing function’ and does not include review of the result.” The toxicology report was immaterial because May’s admitted heroin use alone supported the parole revocation. The court also found that May failed to adequately preserve his ineffective assistance claim and his statutory arguments regarding the 2022 hearing date.
Practice Implications
This decision underscores the extremely limited nature of judicial review for parole decisions in Utah. Practitioners must focus on procedural due process violations rather than challenging the substantive wisdom of Board decisions. The case also highlights the critical importance of proper preservation of error in extraordinary relief proceedings—arguments not raised in the district court will not be considered on appeal.
Case Details
Case Name
May v. Bigelow
Citation
2018 UT App 61
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
No. 20170322-CA
Date Decided
April 12, 2018
Outcome
Affirmed
Holding
Judicial review of Board of Pardons and Parole decisions is limited to examining the fairness of the process, not the substantive result, and the Board’s parole revocation was properly supported by the parolee’s admitted heroin use regardless of toxicology report issues.
Standard of Review
Correctness for conclusions of law in reviewing dismissal of petition for extraordinary relief
Practice Tip
When challenging Board of Pardons and Parole decisions, focus arguments on procedural due process violations rather than the substantive reasonableness of the Board’s decision, as courts lack authority to review the merits of parole determinations.
Need Appellate Counsel?
Lotus Appellate Law handles appeals before the Utah Court of Appeals, Utah Supreme Court, California Court of Appeal, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Related Court Opinions
About these Decision Summaries
Lotus Appellate Law publishes these summaries to keep practitioners informed — not as legal advice. Each case turns on its own facts. If a decision here is relevant to your matter, we’re happy to discuss it.