ÿWPCï …# VU>a %Ÿ 0(¥4Íáðw@ø 0l8 0D¤ 0Jè 0T2 0^† 0hä 0rL 0|¾ 0†: 0À 1uP U,Å 0dñ U,UU 6B)·DCà AM# BpU* D3·"ê­  0@¹v~ùvÓw AOJÆ™ 0D_ D/£ BÒ˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 <èÀ( 9Z &Courier RegularX($¡¡DÒ x°°3|xæ ÔDÕIÖ×DØÙÚDÛIÜÓ€æ((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(Courier New% Line 7 d%%%%7Border 1dd€-&Cþÿ << Gÿÿ d< Œ 9p`(Arial(((('ÿÿdxd Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€$ÔÝ  ÝÔ€)ÔÔ€)ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€)XÔÌÌJune€26,€1996ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó ó £Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€$ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€$ÔPrior€to€the€30€November€order,€petitioner€filed€a€motion€for€summary€judgment.€€OnÏ17€January€1996,€the€chancery€court€entered€a€judgment€which€stated:€€ÌÌà8 àThe€petitioner€has€filed€a€complaint€against€the€Commissioner€of€the€TennesseeÏDepartment€of€Corrections€complaining€about€the€calculation€of€his€sentence.€ÏAfter€reviewing€materials€submitted€in€connection€with€the€defendant's€motionÏfor€summary€judgment,€the€court€concludes€that€the€plaintiff's€sentence€hasÏbeen€correctly€calculated.€€The€case€is,€therefore,€dismissed€at€theÏplaintiff's€cost.ÌÔ€$XÔÌÔ€$ÔThis€order,€however,€was€a€nullity.€€To€explain,€the€30€November€order€was€a€final€judgmentÏbecause€it€disposed€of€all€the€parties'€issues€and€dismissed€the€case€in€its€entirety.€ÏNeither€the€court€nor€petitioner€acted€pursuant€to€Rule€59€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€CivilÏProcedure.€€Thus,€the€court€did€not€have€jurisdiction€more€than€thirty€days€after€the€entryÏof€the€30€November€judgment.€Ì("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  ÒPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$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€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€##X„d&ÓÑ#€##Xd#ÑÔ€$ÔÝ  ÝÓ ` Ü‚Xœ ’X ÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7€XdÈdÈ7ÑÑ  Ñ›JAMES€M.€BLANKENSHIP,à à)Ìà àà à)ÌÓ#` Ü‚Xœôx‘X#Óà àPetitioner/Appellant,à à)à àAppeal€No.Ìà àà à)à à01„A„01„9603„CH„00099Ìv.à àà à)Ìà àà à)à àDavidson€Chanceryà àÌDONAL€CAMPBELL,€Commissioner,à à)à àNo.€95„2608„IIIÌÙ€€ÙœßL€'+&;+'h|Gl` ç `€€Lß›Department€of€Correction,à à)Ìet€al,à à)Ìà àà à)à àà àÌà àRespondents/Appellees.à à)ÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓÔ€$¼ÔCOURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌMIDDLE€SECTION€AT€NASHVILLEÌÌÌAPPEAL€FROM€THE€CHANCERY€COURT€FOR€DAVIDSON€COUNTYÌÌAT€NASHVILLE,€TENNESSEEÌÌÌTHE€HONORABLE€ROBERT€S.€BRANDT,€CHANCELLORÌÓ ` Ü‚XœÈ“X ÓÌÌÓ  ÓÌÌÔ€$XÔJAMES€M.€BLANKENSHIP,€Pro€SeÌS.T.S.R.C.F.ÌRoute€#4,€P.€O.€Box€600ÌPikeville,€Tennessee€€37367ÌÌÌÌCHARLES€W.€BURSONÌAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌÌPATRICIA€C.€KUSSMANNÌAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌCivil€Rights€and€Claims€DivisionÌ404€James€Robertson€Parkway,€Suite€2000ÌNashville,€Tennessee€€37243Ìà àATTORNEYS€FOR€RESPONDENTS/APPELLEESÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓAFFIRMED€AND€REMANDEDÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓÔ€$¼ÔÌSAMUEL€L.€LEWIS,€JUDGEÌÓ  ÓÓÓòòÔ€$°ÔOÔ€$¼Ô€P€I€N€I€O€NÌÓ  ÓÓ#` Ü` / œÈ“X#Óà àÔ€$XÔóóThis€is€an€appeal€by€petitioner,€James€M.€Blankenship,Ïfrom€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€dismissing€his€petition€forÏdeclaratory€judgment€filed€pursuant€to€Tennessee€Code€AnnotatedÏsection€4„5„224.ÌÌà àPetitioner€filed€a€petition€for€a€declaratory€order€in€theÏDepartment€of€Correction€pursuant€to€Tennessee€Code€AnnotatedÏsection€4„5„223.€€Petitioner€claimed€that€œthe›€œDepartment€ofÏCorrection€violated€the€ex€post€facto€prohibitions€of€theÏTennessee€Constitution€and€the€United€States€Constitution€when€itÏapplied€Disciplinary€Policy€Number€502.02€to€petitioner.€€UnderÏthis€policy,€the€Department€may€increase€the€parole€eligibilityÏdate€of€a€prisoner€who€has€attempted€an€escape€by€twenty€percent.ÌÌà àWhen€the€Department€failed€to€respond€to€the€petition,Ïpetitioner€filed€a€petition€for€declaratory€judgment€in€theÍchancery€court€pursuant€to€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€4„5„224.€€Thereafter,€respondents€moved€to€dismiss€the€petition€on€theÏground€that€petitioner€failed€to€state€a€claim€upon€which€reliefÏcould€be€granted.€€The€court€granted€respondents'€motion€on€30ÏNovember€1995.€€The€judgment€stated€as€follows:€€"From€a€review€ofÏthe€evidence€submitted€in€support€of€the€respondents'€motion€toÏdismiss,€it€appears€that€the€plaintiff's€sentence€has€beenÏcorrectly€calculated€accordingly,€this€case€is€dismissed€at€theÏplaintiff's€costs."€€Petitioner€filed€a€timely€notice€of€appeal€asÏto€this€judgment.× ƒ, ××  ×ÌÌà àPetitioner€presents€two€issues:€1)€"Did€the€Chancery€CourtÏerr€by€not€reducing€it's€[sic]€finding€of€fact€and€conclusions€ofÏlaw€to€writing€when€dismissing€the€appellant's€petition?"€and€2)Ï"Does€the€application€of€Tennessee€Department€of€Correction€PolicyÏ#€502.02€to€the€terms€of€the€appellant's€sentence€violate€the€exÏpost€facto€prohibition€of€the€Constitutions€of€the€State€ofÏTennessee€and€the€United€States?"ÌÌà àRule€52.01€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Civil€ProcedureÏrequires€trial€courts€to€make€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€ofÏlaw€when€requested€to€do€so€by€a€party.€€Tennessee€Code€AnnotatedÏsection€4„5„322€provides€that€a€trial€court€shall€reduce€itsÏfindings€and€conclusions€to€writing€when€reviewing€a€final€agencyÏdecision.€€The€purpose€of€requiring€findings€and€conclusions€in€aÏtrial€court€judgment€is€to€"'promote[]€a€just€and€speedyÏdetermination€of€the€issues'€and€facilitate€appellate€review€byÏthe€courts€and€appellate€case€preparation€by€the€parties."€€ò òòòBruceÏv.€Bruceó óóó,€801€S.W.2d€102,€104€(Tenn.€App.€1990)(citationÏomitted).€€Nevertheless,€neither€the€code€nor€the€rules€of€civilÏprocedure€require€the€court€to€make€particular€findings€of€facts.€Ïò òòòId.€ó óóóat€105.ÌÌà àIn€this€case,€the€trial€court€made€findings€andÏconclusions€in€its€judgment.€€Specifically,€the€court€found€thatÏthe€Department€correctly€calculated€petitioner's€sentence.€€InÏother€words,€it€found€that€the€Department€did€not€act€illegallyÏwhen€it€applied€Policy€Number€502.02€to€petitioner's€paroleÏeligibility€date.€€The€chancellor€concluded€from€this€finding€thatÏpetitioner€failed€to€state€a€claim€upon€which€relief€could€beÏgranted€and€entered€judgment€in€the€respondents'€favor.ÌÌà àThe€trial€court€determined€the€issues€in€the€case€andÏstated€its€reasons€for€doing€so.€€The€fact€that€the€court€did€notÏaddress€petitioner's€particular€legal€theory€does€not€render€itsÍdecision€erroneous.€€Thus,€petitioner's€contention€that€theÏchancery€court€violated€his€right€to€due€process€because€it€didÏnot€specifically€address€his€ex€post€facto€argument€is€withoutÏmerit.€€ÌÌà àWe€next€discuss€whether€the€trial€court€correctlyÏdismissed€the€petition€despite€petitioner's€claims€that€extendingÏan€inmate's€parole€eligibility€date€for€a€disciplinary€infractionÏis€an€ex€post€facto€law.€€The€United€States€Constitution€providesÏthat€"[n]o€state€shall€.€.€.€pass€any€.€.€.€ex€post€facto€law..."€ÏU.S.€Const.,€art.€1,€ðð€10,€cl.€1.€€An€ex€post€facto€law€"'imposesÏa€punishment€for€an€act€which€was€not€punishable€at€the€time€itÏwas€committed;€or€imposes€additional€punishment€to€that€thenÏprescribed.'"€€ò òòòWeaver€v.€Grahamó óóó,€450€U.S.€24,€28,€101€S.€Ct.Ï960,€964,€67€L.€Ed.€2d€17,€22€(1991).€€There€are€certain€factorsÏfor€courts€to€consider€when€determining€whether€a€criminal€orÏpenal€law€violates€the€prohibitions€against€ex€post€facto€laws.€ÏThey€include:€1)€whether€the€statute€is€retrospective€in€that€itÏapplies€to€events€occurring€before€the€law's€enactment€and€2)Ïwhether€the€application€of€the€statute€causes€a€disadvantage€toÏthe€offender.€ò òòòId.ó óóó€at€29.ÌÌà àWhen€petitioner€was€incarcerated,€Tennessee€Code€AnnotatedÏsection€40„35„501€provided€in€pertinent€part:ÌÓÓà8 à(h)€The€release€eligibility€date€provided€for€inÏthis€section€shall€be€the€earliest€date€aÏdefendant€convicted€of€a€felony€shall€be€eligibleÍfor€release€status;€such€date€shall€be€conditionedÏon€the€defendant's€good€behavior€while€in€prison.€ÏFor€violation€of€any€of€the€rules€of€theÏDepartment€of€Correction€or€the€institution€inÏwhich€the€defendant€is€incarcerated,€or€while€onÏany€release€program€other€than€parole,€theÏcommissioner€of€correction€or€his€designees,€mayÏdefer€the€release€eligibility€date€so€as€toÏincrease€the€total€of€time€a€defendant€must€serve€Ïbefore€becoming€eligible€for€release€status.€€ThisÏincrease,€in€the€discretion€of€the€commissioner,Ïbe€in€any€amount€of€time€not€to€exceed€the€fullÏsentence€originally€imposed€by€the€court€.€.€.€.ÌÌÓÓThus,€at€the€time€of€petitioner's€sentencing,€Tennessee€CodeÏAnnotated€section€40„35„501(h)€authorized€the€Department€toÏincrease€petitioner's€release€eligibility€date€as€punishment€for€aÏdisciplinary€infraction€such€as€escape.€€Petitioner's€sentenceÏremains€unchanged€since€his€original€conviction.€€The€statuteÏsimply€allows€the€Department€to€extend€the€period€of€time€beforeÏwhich€petitioner€is€eligible€for€parole€consideration.ÌÌà àIn€ò òòòRowland€v.€Bradleyó óóó,€899€S.W.2d€614€(Tenn.€App.Ï1994),€an€inmate,€who€was€incarcerated€in€1986,€sought€aÏdeclaratory€judgment.€€He€argued€that€the€Department's€policy€ofÏextending€his€parole€eligibility€date€as€punishment€for€his€escapeÏin€1988€›violated€the€ex€post€facto€clause€of€the€United€States€ÏConstitution.€€This€court€affirmed€the€trial€court's€dismissal€ofÏthe€complaint€noting€that€the€Criminal€Sentencing€Reform€Act,Ïwhich€included€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€40„35„501,€hadÏbeen€in€effect€since€1982.€€The€court€concluded€œthe›€act€providedÏthat€"individuals€sentenced€under€its€provisions€could€be€made€toÏwait€longer€before€being€eligible€for€parole€consideration€if€theyÍhave€violated€the€rules€of€the€Department€of€Correction."€€ò òòòId.ó óóó€atÏ616.ÌÌà àHere,€œthe€law›€did€not€retroactively€inflict€a€greaterÏpunishment€on€petitioner.€€His€original€sentence€is€unchanged.€ÏTennessee€Code€Annotated€section€œ40„35„501›€was€in€effect€at€theÏtime€petitioner€was€œsentenced,€and€it€simply›€requires€him€to€serveÏa€greater€percentage€of€his€sentence.€€There€is€no€merit€toÏpetitioner's€ex€post€facto€claim.€€œÌÌà àTherefore,€it€results€that€the€judgment€of€the€trial€courtÏis€affirmed,€and€the€cause€is€remanded€to€the€trial€court€forÏfurther€necessary€proceedings.€€Costs€are€taxed€to€the€peti„Ïtioner/appellant,€James€M.€Blankenship.ÌÌÓÓà àà à__________________________________Ìà àà àSAMUEL€L.€LEWIS,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ_________________________________ÌBEN€H.€CANTRELL,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌ_________________________________ÌWILLIAM€C.€KOCH,€JR.,€JUDGEÌ