WPC  # VUNa % 0Nb 0 w@ 4$ 8 G mI ` 0Dz  D 0JL 0T 0^ 0hH 0r 0|" 0 0$ 1uU,) 0dU BU,U >B)@ D3iDC AM 0@,U*lF.v~ v AO[ 0Dp D/ BHP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPT0 '"  Z 6Times New Roman Regular(&y$   - -((2I$ y!     X/X   `   0   9;D<=D>?@A eBӀLD ^N3|xLUHixson(#$  0  Cole v. Board of Paroles - Concurring Opinion  ; ' IB011C20IB011C2 .    2 0Indent123  2" 0Indent20 23  2, 0Indent30 0 23  26 0Indent40 0 0 23  2@ 0Indent50 0 0 0 23  2J 0Indent60 0 0 0 0 23  2T 0Indent70 0 0 0 0 0 23  2^ 0Indent80 0 0 0 0 0 0 23   ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)<  9p`(ModernP 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X d<  9p`(Monaco<  9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d$$$$'dxd))))7Border 1dd-+C << G("$    <  9p`(Arial < !  #d#((   ..   YYY FILED.XSeptember6,1996CecilW.CrowsonAppellateCourtClerk   $ !  #d#((   $    (X         Thetrialcourtsexerciseoftheirdiscretionshouldbeguidedbyconsideringwhetherconversionofthemotionwilllikelyfacilitatethedispositionofthematter.5ACharlesA.Wright&ArthurR.Miller,FederalPracticeandProcedure1366,at493(2ded.1990).PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'@Styl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Monaco   BA Op Monaco  BA Op Monaco -C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd ! . &''Xd&#''Xd#((   ݛ        \RA'\\RA'\7ldd7    ќ(ԛ@ INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE@ MIDDLESECTIONATNASHVILLE (ALLENB.COLE,    )       ) Plaintiff/Appellant,   )       ) DavidsonChancery       ) No.953498IIIVS.       )       ) AppealNo.       ) 01A019605CH00216̜L,/+;+'h|+.`  `LߛTENNESSEEBOARDOFPAROLES, )       ) Defendant/Appellee.   )(@ CONCURRINGOPINION ( EventhoughIconcurcompletelywithJudgeLewissopinion,Ihavepreparedthisseparateopiniontoelaboratefurtherontheprocedurewherebyamotiontodismissforfailuretostateaclaimuponwhichreliefcanbegrantedisconvertedtoamotionforsummaryjudgment.Tenn.R.Civ.P.12.02(6)requiresthisconversionwhenever mattersoutsidethepleadingarepresentedtoandnotexcludedbythe[trial]court. DefendantstodayfrequentlysupporttheirTenn.R.Civ.P.12.02(6)motionswithfactualmattersnotincludedinthepleadings.Trialcourtshavethediscretioneithertoconsiderortodisregardthesematters, 0   ףbutiftheydecidetoconsiderthem,theymusttreatthemotionasoneseekingasummaryjudgment.Hixsonv.Stickley,493S.W.2d471,473(Tenn.1973);PacificEasternCorp.v.GulfLifeHoldingCo.,902S.W.2d946,952(Tenn.Ct.App.1995).Onceconversiontakesplace,theconsiderationofthemotionmustcomplywithalltheproceduralrequirementsofTenn.R.Civ.P.56. Becauseofthesignificantdifferencesbetweentheconsiderationofmotionstodismissandmotionsforsummaryjudgment,itisimportantfortrialcourtstogivethepartiesnoticeofthechangedstatusofthemotionandareasonableopportunitytopresentthematerialmadepertinenttomotionsforsummaryjudgmentbyTenn.R.Civ.P.56.2AJamesW.Moore,MooresFederalPractice12.09[3](2ded.1995);5AWright&Miller,supranote1,1366,at501.Adequatenoticeoftheconversionisparticularlyimportantwhenproselitigantsareinvolvedinthecase.Nealv.Kelly,963F.2d453,456(D.C.Cir.1992). Formalnoticeofthetrialcourtsdecisioneithertoconsiderortoexcludeextraneousfactualmatterseliminatesthepossibilityofconfusionandmisunderstandingconcerningthepostureoftheproceedings.Thus,itispreferablefortrialcourtstostateexpresslywhethertheyhavedecidedtoconsiderortoexcludetheextraneousmatters.Failuretogivetimelyformalnoticeisnotreversibleerror,however,iftheopposingpartyhadactualnoticeoftheconversionorwasnototherwiseprejudicedbythelackofformalnotice.NuclearTransp.&Storage,Inc.v.UnitedStates,890F.2d1348,1351(6thCir.1989),cert.denied,494U.S.1079(1990);2AMoore,supra,at12.09[3];5AWright&Miller,supranote1,1366,at506. Wemustlooktothetrialcourtsdecisionandtherecordtodeterminewhatthetrialcourtdidwhenitfailstostateexpresslywhetherfactualmaterialsoutsidethepleadingswereconsideredordisregarded.LikeJudgeLewis,IhavereviewedtheJanuary17,1996orderdismissingMr.ColespetitionandhavedeterminedthatthetrialcourtdidnotconsiderthemattersoutsidethepleadingssubmittedbytheBoardofParolesandthusdisposedofthemotioninaccordancewithTenn.R.Civ.P.12.02(6)ratherthanTenn.R.Civ.P.56. Mr.ColeassertsthattheBoardofParolesactedillegallybyrelyingontheseriousnessofhisoffensetodenyhisapplicationforparole.Hearguesthatthe seriousnessoftheoffensegroundisunconstitutionalbecauseitlacksobjectivecriteria.Ratherthansimplyattackingtheintrinsiccorrectnessoftheboardsdecision,thepetitionchallengestheconstitutionalsufficiencyoftheboardsprocedures.Thisisaquestionoflawthatshouldhavebeenconsideredonthemeritsbythetrialcourt.      ____________________________      WILLIAMC.KOCH,JR.,JUDGE