The Utah Court of Appeals has reversed a civil judgment against Damon Russell Gonzalez, who had been ordered to pay restitution as part of his 2001 sentencing for absconding while on parole. The court's decision, filed on October 1, 2026, affects Gonzalez's financial obligations and clarifies the legal standing of restitution orders issued by the Board of Pardons and Parole.
Gonzalez was sentenced to prison in 2001 and ordered to pay $5,500 in restitution. After paying $2,145, he did not pay the remaining balance of $3,355 by the time his sentence expired in 2006. In 2024, the district court entered a civil judgment against him for the unpaid amount, citing a clerical oversight. Gonzalez contested this judgment, leading to the Court of Appeals ruling.
Background
The case began in June 2001 when Damon Russell Gonzalez pled guilty to absconding while on parole, a third-degree felony. The district court sentenced him to a maximum of five years in prison and ordered him to pay restitution to the State of Utah. While on parole, Gonzalez made partial payments towards his restitution. However, after his sentence expired in June 2006, he had not completed the payments.
In April 2024, the Office of State Debt Collection levied Gonzalez's income tax return, claiming he owed a total of $9,857.53 in restitution. Gonzalez disputed this claim, arguing that no civil judgment had been entered against him. Following this dispute, the district court entered a judgment against him in June 2024, stating it was correcting a clerical error from 2004 when an unsigned order of restitution was allegedly submitted by the Board of Pardons and Parole.
The Ruling
The Court of Appeals, led by Judge Ryan M. Harris, ruled that the district court's reasoning for denying Gonzalez's motion for relief from the judgment was flawed. The court noted that the Board's unsigned order of restitution could not support the entry of a civil judgment. The judges concluded, "Because the court's articulated basis for denying Gonzalez's motion is infirm and because we decline the State's invitation to affirm on any of its proffered alternative grounds, we reverse the court's denial of Gonzalez's motion and remand this case to the district court with instructions to grant the motion."
The court's decision emphasized that the original restitution order was not properly executed, as it lacked the necessary signatures and did not meet the statutory requirements for enforcement. The ruling also clarified that the district court's actions in 2024 did not constitute a correction of a clerical error but rather an improper judgment.
Impact
This ruling has significant implications for Gonzalez, as it reverses the civil judgment that would have forced him to pay the outstanding restitution amount plus interest. The decision also sets a precedent regarding the validity of unsigned orders from the Board of Pardons and Parole, highlighting the importance of proper documentation in legal proceedings. It reinforces the notion that courts must adhere to statutory requirements when entering judgments, particularly regarding restitution orders.
The ruling may also affect other individuals in similar situations where restitution orders were not properly executed. It underscores the need for clear and enforceable judgments to protect the rights of defendants and ensure fair treatment within the legal system.
What's Next
The case has been remanded to the district court, which is instructed to grant Gonzalez's motion for relief from the judgment. It remains to be seen whether the State will pursue further legal action or if there are related cases pending that could impact this ruling.