Can district courts review Board of Pardons restitution orders after legislative changes? State v. Felts Explained

In State v. Felts, the Utah Supreme Court addressed whether legislative amendments removing the Board of Pardons and Parole’s authority to order restitution also granted district courts jurisdiction to review previously issued Board restitution orders.

Background and Facts

Michael Felts pled guilty in 2015 to assault against a police officer and failure to stop at police command. The district court referred restitution matters to the Board of Pardons and Parole, which ordered Felts to pay $9,415.28 in June 2021. After the Legislature amended Utah’s restitution scheme in July 2021, eliminating the Board’s authority to determine restitution and removing restitution from the list of non-reviewable Board decisions, Felts sought district court review of the Board’s order.

Key Legal Issues

The central question was whether the legislative amendments, which removed the Board’s restitution authority and eliminated the statutory prohibition on judicial review of Board restitution orders, simultaneously granted district courts jurisdiction to review previously issued Board restitution orders. Felts argued the amendments could be applied retroactively to permit such review.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Court applied principles of statutory interpretation, emphasizing that the Legislature’s intent must be determined from the plain language of the statute. The Court found that while the amendments removed the Board’s authority to order restitution and eliminated the prohibition on judicial review, they contained no express language granting district courts authority to review Board orders. The Court distinguished this case from T-Mobile USA, Inc. v. Utah State Tax Commission, noting that removing restitution from the non-reviewable list was done “merely for clarity and consistency” since the Board no longer had restitution authority.

Practice Implications

This decision clarifies that removing statutory prohibitions does not automatically create new jurisdiction. Practitioners seeking to challenge Board restitution orders must pursue relief through extraordinary writ under Utah Rule of Civil Procedure 65B rather than standard district court review. The Court explicitly noted that constitutional avoidance principles cannot be used to rewrite statutory text where only one plausible construction exists.