Board of Pardons Outcomes

Board of Pardons and Parole

Department Leadership:

Curtis L. Garner, Chairman
Clark A. Harms, Vice Chairman
Robert S. Yeates, Board Member
Keith N. Hamilton, Board Member
Jesse Gallegos, Board Member

Mission Statement:

The Mission of the Board of Pardons and Parole is to further public safety by rendering just decisions regarding the length of incarceration, parole supervision, termination of sentence, communication of sentence and pardons.

Performance Reports

(Click report below; view to right)
  • Overview
  • Goals, Objectives, Accomplishments
  • Number of Decisions
  • Expand all reports on one (1)

More Department Performance:

Emerging Issues and Strategies for BOPP
External Link Learn more at the Department website

Overview

The Board of Pardons and Parole is a constitutionally created (Utah Const. Article VII, Sec. 12) state agency having full parole, pardon, and commutation authority over all offenders sentenced to the custody of the Utah Department of Corrections for confinement. As the state's prison release authority, the Board screens appropriate candidates for release from prison, sets conditions of parole supervision, orders restitution, and may remit fines, subject to regulations as provided by statute. The Board's authority is outlined, and its duties and responsibilities are mandated, in the Utah Constitution, Article VII, Section 12 and Utah Code Annotated, section 77-27 et. seq. The Board's execution of its mandated duties and responsibilities is vital to the functioning of Utah's criminal justice system in general and specifically to the public safety of Utah's residents. The primary way the Board carries out it mandates is through conducting statutorily required public parole hearings with all relevant case material being provided to the offender in advance of the hearing, to enable fair, equitable, and timely decisions to be made. As the Board is not staffed or funded as an investigatory agency, it is dependent on other agencies to provide the vast majority of the information it considers in reaching a decision. The completeness, accuracy, quality, and timeliness of this information will have a direct impact on the Board. Moreover, as the final player in Utah's criminal justice system, the Board is inevitably and constantly impacted by the growing numbers faced by those also dealing with offenders and victims in law enforcement, the courts and corrections.

Goals, Objectives, Accomplishments

Major Goals and Objectives

1. Provide optimum protection of the public and safeguard the rights, privileges, and interests of victims and offenders.

2. Meet all constitutional and legislative requirements with regard to due process and timeliness.

3. Make consistent, rational, and careful decisions, without regard to race, color, religion, gender, political affiliations, or national origin, on the merits of each case, taking into account aggravating and mitigating circumstances.

4. Provide service in the most cost effective and efficient manner, including responding to all inquiries in a timely fashion and working with other agencies to find solutions to problems.

Recent Accomplishments

* The Board has reorganized the agency to maximize use of resources, staff talents and skills and has improved coordination with other state and federal criminal justice agencies.

* Renegotiation of attorney contract to meet all Scorecard goals.

* The Board has met its goal of processing hearing results within 30 days of when the hearing was conducted. 

Year-by-Year Annual Total Decisions

Data Source: Board of Pardons and Parole
(note: a pdf with more information is available here)

Why this is important:

During calendar year 2008, the Board processed a record number of offender decisions (12,023) and conducted 4,438 personal appearance hearings. During 2007, the Board of Pardons made 11,833 decisions and conducted 4,844 personal appearance hearings; 2006, 11,267 decisions and 4,646 personal appearance hearings, and during 2005, 11,190 decisions and 4,018 personal appearance hearings. After 2005, the decision counts begin to reflect the addition of the Drug Board, which did not exist in prior years).