ÿWPCa …# VU:a %› 0(¡b Éw@Õ4 ) 8 @ b H 0JT 0Tž 0^ò 0hP 0r¸ 0|* 0†¦ 0, 1u¼ U,1 0d] U,Á U*í B)DC@ Bƒ AM  ív~øvÓv D3I 0@| AO¼Æ  0DÑ D/ BD˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 ,†r‰AZ‹"Arial RegularX($¡¡- ù - ãDäDåUæDçèéDêëÓ€õGav 3|xõ- ù -2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d####7Border 1dd d€-$Cþÿ << Gÿÿ Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€"ÔÝ  ÝÔ€"ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€"XÔÌÌMay€8,€1996ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Monaco ÒÒ  BA Op Monaco Ò%%%%'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€!!X„d&ÓÑ#€!!Xd#ÑÔ€"ÔÝ  ÝÒ € ÒÒ „ ÒÑ  ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ€ÑÑ7€GÎXXdædÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  Ñ›JIMMY€ARNOLD,à àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àPetitioner/Appellant,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àAppeal€No.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à à01„A„01„9508„CH„00375ÌœVS›.à àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àDavidson€ChanceryÌÙ€€ÙœßL€&'$;+'h|€` ç `€€Lß›à àà àà àà àà àà à)à àNo.€94„3223„IIÌTENNESSEE€BOARD€OF€PAROLES,à à)ÌET€AL.,à àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àDefendants/Appellees.à àà à)ÌÌÌà@ àCOURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àMIDDLE€SECTION€AT€NASHVILLEÌÌÌAPPEALED€FROM€THE€CHANCERY€COURT€OF€DAVIDSON€COUNTYÌAT€NASHVILLE,€TENNESSEEÌÌTHE€HONORABLE€C.€ALLEN€HIGH,€CHANCELLORÌÌÌÌÌJIMMY€ARNOLD,€#130097ÌœTurney›€Center€„€œ4B›/3ÌRoute€1ÌOnly,€Tennessee€37140„9709Ìà àPro€œSe›/Petitioner/AppellantÌÌCHARLES€W.€œBURSON›ÌAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌÌMICHELLE€L.€œLEHMANN›ÌAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌ450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌNashville,€Tennessee€37243„0493Ìà àAttorney€for€Respondent/AppelleeÌÌÌÌÌÌà@ àAFFIRMED€AND€REMANDEDÌÌÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àBEN€H.€CANTRELL,€JUDGEÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌTODD,€P.J.,€M.S.ÌKOCH,€J.ÌÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓà@ àò òòòÔ€"„ÔO€P€I€N€I€O€Nó óóóÔ€"XÔÌÌÑ€ ÑÑ7€GÎXXdæXXdæ7Ñà àà àThe€Chancery€Court€of€Davidson€County€dismissed€the€appellantððsÏœPetition€for€Writ€of€Certiorari›€to€review€the€Parole€Boardððs€denial€of€parole.€€WeÏaffirm€because€we€find€that€the€petition€in€the€lower€court€does€not€contain€anyÏallegations€œwhich€show›€that€the€Board€acted€illegally,€arbitrarily,€or€in€excess€of€itsÏjurisdiction.ÌÌà@ àò òI.ó óÌÌà àà àThe€œappellant,€in€the€custody€of€›€the€Department€of€œCorrection,€was›Ïgranted€a€parole€hearing€on€July€18,€1994.€€The€hearing€officer€recommended€toÏthe€Board€of€Paroles€that€parole€be€denied€because€of€the€seriousness€of€theÍoffense€for€which€the€appellant€was€being€held.€€The€form€used€to€record€theÏdecision€also€contained€another€reason:€ð ðcontinue€with€aftercareðð.€œThis€apparentlyÏrefers€to€a€sex€offender€treatment€€program€in€which€the€appellant€was€enrolled.€ÏThe›€hearing€officerððs€recommendation€was€adopted€by€the€Board€œwhen›€eachÏindividual€member€œinitialed›€the€form.€€The€last€member€to€approve€the€decisionÏindicated€his€concurrence€on€August€5,€1994.ÌÌà àà àThe€appellant€requested€an€appeal€hearing,€which€œthe›€œBoardÏprovides€›€œif›€there€œis›€significant€new€evidence€that€was€not€available€at€the€firstÏhearing,€if€the€hearing€officer€engaged€in€misconduct,€or€if€the€hearing€officerÏcommitted€significant€procedural€errors.€€See€œTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„28„105(d).€›€ÏOn€September€6,€1994€the€Board€denied€the€appeal€hearing.ÌÌà àà àOn€October€24,€1994€the€appellant€filed€a€petition€in€the€ChanceryÏCourt€of€Davidson€County€seeking€the€common€law€writ€of€certiorari€to€review€theÏBoardððs€action.€€The€petition€alleges€that€the€Board€erred€in€not€granting€him€anÏappeal€œ€hearing›€because€he€œhad€come€into€possession€of€new›€information€thatÏwas€not€available€at€the€earlier€hearing.€€In€addition,€the€petition€containsÏallegations€that€the€Board€acted€illegally€in€(1)€declining€parole€because€of€theÏseriousness€of€the€offense,€(2)€declining€parole€because€the€appellant€needed€toÏcontinue€the€aftercare€program,€(3)€œholding›€a€meeting€in€violation€of€the€OpenÏMeetings€Act,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€8„44„102(a),€and€(4)€acting€in€violation€of€theÍcontested€case€provisions€of€the€Uniform€Administrative€Procedures€Act,€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€œ4„5„301,€et€seq.Ì›Ìà àà àThe€Board€moved€to€dismiss€the€petition€œon€the€ground€that€it›€failedÏto€œstate€a€claim›€upon€which€relief€could€be€granted.€€See€Rule€œ12.02(6),›€Tenn.€R.ÏœCiv›.€Pro.€€The€court€granted€the€motion.ÌÌà@ àò òII.ó óÌÌà àà àUnder€the€common€law€writ€of€certiorari,€the€actions€of€the€BoardÏmay€be€examined€to€determine€whether€it€exceeded€its€jurisdiction,€or€actedÏillegally,€fraudulently€or€arbitrarily.€€See€òòPowell€v.€Parole€Eligibility€Review€Boardóó,Ï879€S.W.2d€871€(Tenn.€App.€1994);€òòœYokley›€v.€Stateóó,€632€S.W.2d€123€(Tenn.€App.Ï1981).€€The€writ€has€never€been€employed€to€review€the€correctness€of€theÏjudgment€rendered€by€the€inferior€tribunal.€€òòState€ex€rel€œMcMorrow›€v.€Huntóó,€137ÏTenn.€243,€192€œS.W.›€931€(1917).ÌÌà àà àWith€respect€to€the€allegation€that€the€Board€acted€illegally€in€notÏgranting€the€appellant€an€appeal€hearing,€the€new€information€alleged€by€theÏappellant€was€a€stipulation€entered€in€the€federal€case€of€òòDean€v.€œMcWherter›óó,€No.Ï1„90„0027€(M.D.€Tenn.)€in€which€the€state€agreed€œto›€apply€the€provisions€of€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€41„21„235(b)€œonly€to›€œsex€offenders€commited€to€the€custody€of€theÍDepartment€of€Correction€after€the€sex€abuse€treatment€program€authorized€byÏthe€statute€is€instituted.›€€The€cited€code€section€requires€sex€offenders€toÏsuccessfully€complete€a€sexual€abuse€treatment€program€in€order€to€be€eligibleÏfor€œparole.€The€appellant€argues€that€in€light€of€the€stipulation,€it€was€improper€forÏthe€board€to€use€the€need€to€continue€with€the€aftercare€program€as€a€reason€forÏnot€granting€him€parole.€€›ÌÌà àà àPassing€over€the€question€of€whether€the€Board€has€absoluteÏdiscretion€in€deciding€what€new€evidence€will€entitle€a€prisoner€to€an€appealÏhearing,€œwe€think€the›€appellantððs€reliance€on€this€issue€is€misplaced.€€TheÏstipulation€also€recites€that€each€sex€offender€coming€before€the€Board€will€beÏjudged€on€his€or€her€own€œmerits,€and€that€the€Board€could€continue€to€òòrecommendóóÏthat€sex€offenders€receive€treatment.€€We€do€not€think€that€the€new€evidence€citedÏby€the€appellant€required€the€Board€to€grant€him€an€appeal€hearing€as€a€matter€ofÏlaw.›€œÌ›Ìà àà@ àò òIII.ó óÌÌà àà àThe€appellant€also€asserts€that€the€seriousness€of€the€offenseÏcannot€be€used€as€a€reason€to€deny€parole€since€it€has€already€been€used€onceÏto€enhance€the€initial€sentence.€€As€authority€for€this€proposition€the€appellantÏcites€òòœAddonizio›€v.€U.S.óó,€573€F.œ2d›€147€(œ3rd›€Cir.€1978).€€As€we€read€that€decision,Íhowever,€œ€it›€deals€mainly€with€the€authority€of€a€federal€district€judge€to€reduce€aÏsentence€when€the€parole€board€œrefuses›€parole€on€the€single€ground€of€theÏseriousness€of€the€offense.€€While€the€court€does€severely€criticize€the€practice€ofÏusing€that€ground€for€denying€parole,€the€court€does€not€go€so€far€as€to€pronounceÏthe€practice€œunconstitutional.€€In€Tennessee€the€Board€is€statutorily€authorized€toÏdeny€parole€if€release€would€depreciate€the€seriousness€of€the€offense.€€SeeÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„503(b)(2).›ÌÌà àà àœWe›€do€not€œthink,›€œtherefore,€that€the›€œappellant€states€a€cause€of€actionÏby€alleging€the€Board›€œacted›€illegally€or€arbitrarily€or€in€excess€of€its€jurisdiction€œby›Ïrefusing€the€appellant€parole€œbecause€of€the›€seriousness€of€the€offense.ÌÌœà@ àò òIV.ó ó›ÌÌà àà àThe€appellant€œalso€argues›€œthat›€the€trial€court€erred€in€denying€hisÏdiscovery€motion.€€We€think€the€argument€reflects€a€fundamentalÏmisunderstanding€of€the€proceedings€in€the€trial€court.€€The€trial€judge€dismissedÏthe€case€because€the€appellant€failed€to€òòstateóó€a€cause€of€action.€€Discovery€isÏallowed€to€help€òòproveóó€the€facts€stated.€€The€appellant€did€not€have€to€proveÏanything€to€avoid€the€motion€to€dismiss;€he€merely€had€to€state€sufficient€facts.ÌÌà@ àò òV.ó óÌÌà àà àFinally,€the€appellant€argues€that€the€Board€violated€œtheÏAdministrative€Procedures€Act,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€4„5„101€et€seq,€and€the€Open›ÏMeetings€Act,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€œ8„44„101,›€et€œseq.›€€The€œappellantððs€firstÏcontention€requires€very€little€discussion€because€the€legislature›€œhas›€specificallyÏexempted€the€Board€of€Paroles€from€the€contested€case€provisions€of€theÏAdministrative€Procedures€Act,€see€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€œ4„5„106(c).€€Thus,€anyÏjudicial€review€of€the€correctness€of€the€Boardððs€parole€determinations€isÏprecluded,€as€opposed€to€the€more€limited€review,€under€the€Writ€of€Certiorari,€ofÏthe€process€by€which€that€determination€is€made.ÌÌà àà àThe€Open€Meetings€Act€€presents€a€more€complex€question,Ïbecause€by€its€terms,€it€applies€to€all€ð ðgoverning€bodiesðð€with€no€exemption€for€theÏBoard€of€Paroles.€The€appellant€has€directed€our€attention€to€an€opinion€of€theÏAttorney„General€indicating€that€the€Parole€Board›€œcomes›€within€the€definition€of€aÏð ðgoverning€œbodyðð€›€œfound€in›€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€œ8„44„102(b)(1),€and€is€thus€subjectÏto€the€Open€Meetings€Act.€See€Opinion€No€95„010,€March€3,€1995.€€Though€theÏAttorney„Generalððs€Opinion€is€not€binding€on€this€court,€we€can€find€no€fault€withÏits€reasoning.ÌÌÌà àà àWe€note€that€the€appellant€does€not€allege€that€his€initial€paroleÏhearing€was€not€open€to€the€public,€but€rather€that€the€Open€Meetings€ActÏrequired€that€the€Board€hold€an€open€meeting€to€consider€whether€to€adopt€theÏhearing€officerððs€recommendation.€€However,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„28„105(d)Ïprovides:ÌÌÒ 0 ÒÒ  ÒÓÓð ðA€majority€of€members€of€the€board€shall€constitute€aÏquorum€for€official€administrative€business.€€The€chairmanÏof€the€board€may€designate€individual€parole€boardÏmembers€and€appoint€hearing€officers€who€shall€beÏauthorized€to€conduct€hearings,€take€testimony€and€makeÏproposed€findings€of€fact€and€recommendations€to€theÏboard€regarding€a€grant,€denial,€revocation€or€rescissionÏof€parole.€€Such€findings€and€recommendations€shall€beÏreduced€to€writing€and€reviewed€by€board€members€whoÏshall€adopt,€modify€or€reject€the€recommendations.€€NoÏperson€shall€be€paroled€nor€shall€the€parole€of€any€personÏbe€denied,€revoked€or€rescinded€without€the€concurrenceÏof€three€(3)€board€members€.€.€.€.€Inmates€whose€paroleÏhas€been€revoked€or€rescinded,€or€who€have€been€deniedÏparole,€or€whose€grant€of€parole€has€been€rescinded,€mayÏrequest€an€appellate€review€by€the€board.€€The€board€shallÏestablish€a€reasonable€time€limit€for€the€filing€of€such€aÏrequest.€€If€the€time€limit€is€not€met,€the€request€for€anÏappellate€review€will€be€denied.€€An€appellate€request€willÏbe€screened€by€a€board€member€or€designee€and€aÏreview€will€be€conducted€if€there€is€new€evidence€orÏinformation€that€was€not€available€at€the€time€of€theÏhearing,€or€if€there€are€allegations€of€misconduct€by€theÏhearing€official€that€are€substantiated€by€the€record€or€ifÏthere€were€significant€procedural€errors€by€the€hearingÏofficial.€€The€appellate€review€will€be€conducted€from€theÏrecord€of€the€first€hearing€and€the€appearance€of€theÏinmate€will€not€be€necessary.€€If€a€board€member€decidesÏthat€an€appearance€hearing€is€necessary,€it€will€beÍscheduled€before€a€board€member€or€hearing€officer€whoÏdid€not€conduct€the€hearing€that€is€the€subject€of€theÏappeal.€€A€summary€of€the€appellate€hearing€will€beÏprepared€and€the€board€will€vote€after€a€review€of€theÏsummary€and€the€record€of€the€first€hearing.€€The€decisionÏafter€an€appellate€review€will€require€the€concurrence€ofÏthree€(3)€board€members.€€The€decision€rendered€after€anÏappellate€review€will€be€final.ððÌÌÒ € ÒÒ „ ÒÓÓÌà àà àAs€the€excerpt€from€the€statute€shows€the€initial€hearing€may€be€heldÏby€a€hearing€officer€whose€recommendation€will€be€reduced€to€writing€andÏsubmitted€to€the€Board€members.€€The€individual€members€may€consider€theÏrecommendation€and€sign€without€a€meeting.€€The€request€for€an€appellate€reviewÏmay€be€handled€in€the€same€fashion.€€Thus,€the€Board€is€not€required€to€hold€anÏopen€meeting€to€consider€the€preliminary€recommendations€of€the€hearing€officer.ÌÌà@ àò òVIó ó.ÌÌà àà àThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.€€The€cause€is€remanded€toÏthe€Chancery€Court€of€Davidson€County€for€any€further€proceedings€necessary.€ÏTax€the€costs€on€appeal€to€the€appellant.ÌÌÌÓÓ›à àà àà àà àà àà à________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àBEN€H.€CANTRELL,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌœÌCONCUR:›ÌÌÌÌÌ_______________________________ÌHENRY€F.€TODD,€PRESIDING€JUDGEÌMIDDLE€SECTIONÌÌÌÌÌ_______________________________ÌWILLIAM€C.€KOCH,€JR.,€JUDGEÌÌÇÑ  Ñœ