STATE v. JOHNSON (2019)

¶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 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.

PER CURIAM: