WPCs # VU>a % 0(4w@ 0L8 0l 0D 4 U :< 0Jv 0T 0^ 0hr 0r 0|L 0 0N 1u U,S 0d 0NU,1B)] BDC D3 AMU*f 0@&v~}v AO 0D D/' BVHP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPT0 <( 9Z &Courier RegularX($D Q x3|x IUIӀ> $Small Circle0 ((3$ !      0  (#$  0  <6X9`("Courier NewTT2 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>$"Small Circle"0  <  9p`(Monaco% Line 7 d d''''7Border 1dd(((('dxd-)C << G<  9p`(Arial("$      !  #d#  ,,   YYY FILED,XSeptember6,1996CecilW.CrowsonAppellateCourtClerk   } !#d#   $       CourtofAppealsRule10(b):8 TheCourt,withtheconcurrenceofalljudgesparticipatinginthecase,mayaffirm,reverseormodifytheactionsofthetrialcourtbymemorandumopinionwhenaformalopinionwouldhavenoprecedentialvalue.Whenacaseisdecidedbymemorandumopinionitshallbedesignated"MEMORANDUMOPINION,"shallnotbepublished,andshallnotbecitedorreliedonforanyreasoninasubsequentunrelatedcase.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#  \RA'\ ` X X \RA'\7~ Xdd7  ћALLENB.COLE, )  )#` XxX# Petitioner/Appellant, ) AppealNo.  ) 01A019605CH00216v.  )  ) DavidsonChanceryTENNESSEEBOARDOFPAROLES, ) No.953498III̜L+.);+'h|(`  `Lߛ  ) Respondent/Appellee. )  COURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEEMIDDLESECTIONATNASHVILLEAPPEALFROMTHECHANCERYCOURTFORDAVIDSONCOUNTYATNASHVILLE,TENNESSEETHEHONORABLEROBERTS.BRANDT,CHANCELLOR ` XX   XALLENB.COLE,ProSeN.C.S.C.7466CentennialBoulevardNashville,Tennessee372091052CHARLESW.BURSONAttorneyGeneralandReporterABIGAILTURNERAssistantAttorneyGeneralCivilRightsandClaimsDivision404JamesRobertsonParkwaySuite2000ParkwayTowersNashville,Tennessee37243 ATTORNEYSFORRESPONDENT/APPELLEE  ӜREVERSEDANDREMANDED  SAMUELL.LEWIS,JUDGE  MEMORANDUMOPINION /     #` ` X#X Thisisanappealbypetitioner,AllenB.Cole,fromthejudgmentoftheChanceryCourtofDavidsonCountygrantingthemotiontodismissofrespondent,theTennesseeBoardofParolesϜ("theBoard"). Pursuanttoapleaagreement,petitionerpleadguiltytoseconddegreemurderandreceivedasentenceoffifteenyears.InSeptember1995,theBoardheldahearingtodeterminewhethertoreleasepetitioneronparole.Thereafter,theBoardinformedpetitionerthattheyhaddecidedtodenyhimparolebecauseoftheseriousnessofhisoffense.Oneboardmemberevennotedthefactthatpetitionerhadbeatenhisvictimtodeath. PetitionerthenfiledapetitionforwritofcertiorariseekingareviewoftheBoard'sdecision.PetitionerarguedthattheBoard'sdenialwasarbitraryandcapriciousandviolatedhisrighttodueprocessandequalprotection.Specifically,petitionerclaimedtheBoarderredwhenitreliedsolelyontheseriousnessofhisoffenseasitsbasisfordenyinghimparole.HeexplainedthattheBoardusestheterm"seriousnessoftheϜoffense"withsuchfrequencythatthetermlacksanydefinitionorlimitation.Moreover,petitionerclaimeditwasnecessaryfortheBoardtoprovidehimwithamoredetailedstatementofthereasonsfortheirdenial. Inresponsetothepetition,theBoardfiledamotiontodismisspursuanttoTennesseeRuleofCivilProcedure12.02(6),failuretostateaclaimuponwhichreliefcanbegranted.Inadditiontothemotion,theBoardfiledamemorandumoflawandanaffidavit.Insupportofitsmotion,theboardclaimedthatthepetitionsoughttochallengetheintrinsiccorrectnessoftheBoard'sdecisionandthatreviewofsuchaquestionwasbeyondthetrialcourt'sscopeofreview. On17January1996,thechancellorenteredajudgmentonthemotiontodismiss.Thejudgmentstatedinitsentiretyasfollows:8 ThepetitionerhasfiledapetitionforcommonlawcertiorariinwhichhechallengesthecorrectnessofadecisionoftheTennesseeBoardofParolesnottogranthimparole.TheintrinsiccorrectnessofdecisionsoftheTennesseeBoardofParolesisnotsubjecttojudicialreviewbyapetitionforwritofcommonlawcertiorari.Accordingly,thecaseisdismissedatthepetitioner'scost.Thereafter,petitionerfiledanoticeofappealtothiscourt.TheissuepresentedforourreviewiswhetherthetrialcourterredwhenitgrantedthemotiontodismissintheBoard'sfavor.Itistheopinionofthiscourtthatitdid. ItiswellsettledinTennesseethatacommonlawwritofcertiorarimaynotchallengetheintrinsiccorrectnessofanadministrativebody'sdecision.Justtwoyearsago,thiscourtstated:8 Thescopeofreviewunderthecommonlawwrit,however,isverynarrow.ItcoversonlyaninquiryintowhethertheBoardhasexceededitsjurisdictionorisactingillegally,fraudulently,orarbitrarily.ConclusorytermssuchasϜ"arbitraryandcapricious"willnotentitleapetitionertothewrit.Attheriskofoversimplification,onemaysaythatitisnotthecorrectnessofthedecisionthatissubjecttojudicialreview,butthemannerinwhichthedecisionisreached.Iftheagencyorboardhasreacheditsdecisioninaconstitutionalorlawfulmanner,thenthedecisionwouldnotbesubjecttojudicialreview. Powellv.ParoleEligibilityReviewBd. ,879S.W.2d871,873(Tenn.App.1994)(citationsomitted).Thus,theissueinthiscaseboilsdowntowhetherthepetitioner'sallegationschallengetheBoard'smethodsoritsconclusions. Attheoutset,wemustdiscusstheaffectoftheBoard'saffidavit.Rule12.02oftheTennesseeRulesofCivilProcedurestates,inpertinentpart,asfollows:8 [T]hefollowingdefensesmayattheoptionofthepleaderbemadebymotioninwriting:...(6)failuretostateaclaimuponwhichreliefcanbegranted....If,onamotionassertingthedefensenumbered(6)todismissforfailuretostateaclaimuponwhichreliefcanbegranted,mattersoutsidethepleadingarepresentedtoandnotexcludedbythecourt,themotionshallbetreatedasoneforsummaryjudgmentanddisposedofasprovidedinRule56,andallpartiesshallbegivenreasonableopportunitytopresentallmaterialmadepertinenttosuchamotionbyRule56.Tenn.R.Civ.P.12.02(Supp.1995).Nevertheless,acourtcanϜ"preventaconversionfromtakingplacebydecliningtoconsiderextraneousmatters." PacificE.Corp.v.GulfLifeHoldingCo. ,902S.W.2d946,952(Tenn.App.1995).Thus,wemustdetermineifthetrialcourtconsidered"mattersoutsidetheϜpleading." Amatteroutsidethepleadingis"'anywrittenororalevidenceinsupportorinoppositiontoapleadingthatprovidessomesubstantiationforanddoesnotmerelyreiteratewhatissaidinthepleadings.'" Kosloffv.StateAuto.Mut.Ins.Co. ,Ch.App.No.89152II,1989WL144006,at*2(TennApp.1Dec.1989)(quoting5C.Wright&A.Miller,FederalPracticeandProcedure1366,at68182(1969)).Inthiscase,theBoardfiledanaffidavitwiththreeexhibits.Theaffidavitandtheexhibitsprovidedinformationthatpetitionerhadnotincludedinhispetition.Specifically,itprovidedadditionaldetailsofpetitioner'scrimeandhispreviousparolehearings.Becausetheaffidavitconstituted"mattersoutsidethepleading,"theonlyremainingquestioniswhetherthecourtconsideredtheaffidavit. Asquotedearlier,Rule12.02providesthatthecourtshalltreata12.02(6)motiontodismissasamotionforsummaryjudgmentifthecourtfailstoexcludetheadditionalevidence.Inthiscase,thecourtdidnotexplicitlyexcludetheaffidavit,butthecourt'sorderimpliedthatitdidnotconsidertheaffidavit.First,thecourtclearlybaseditsjudgmentonRule12.02(6)grounds,i.e.,thepetitionstatedaclaimforwhichthecourtcouldnotgrantrelief.Second,thecourtdidnotaddressanyofthesubjectsassociatedwithsummaryjudgmentsuchasthedegreeoffactualdispute. Giventhesefacts,weareoftheopinionthatthetrialcourtdidnotconvertthemotionintooneforsummaryjudgment.Becausetherewasnoconversion,wereviewthiscaseasamotiontodismiss.Whenreviewingthedenialofamotiontodismiss"weobviouslyarelimitedtotheallegationsinthecomplaint,andwemustconstruethecomplaintliberallyinfavoroftheplaintiff,takingalloftheallegationsoffactthereinastrue." Randolphv.DominionBankofMiddleTenn. ,826S.W.2d477,478(Tenn.App.1991)(citing Huckebyv.Spangler ,521S.W.2d568,571(Tenn.1975)). Thisbringsusbacktotheinitialissueofwhetherpetitioner'sclaimchallengedthecorrectnessoftheboard'sdecision.PetitionerclaimsthebasisoftheBoard'sdecision,seriousnessoftheoffense,lacksobjectivecriteriaand,therefore,reliancesolelyonthisbasisviolatesdueprocessandequalprotection.Itispetitioner'scontentionthattheBoardmustprovideamoredetailedexplanationofthebasisforitsdenialandnotrelyonanundefinedphrase.ThisclaimchallengesthemeansusedbytheBoardinmakingitsdecision.PetitionerdoesnotaskthecourttoreversethedecisionoftheBoard.Instead,heasksthecourttoholdthattheBoardactedillegallyinthatitviolatedpetitioner'srightstoproceduraldueprocessandequalprotection.Uponmakingsuchafinding,thecourtwouldbecorrectinawardinganewhearing,notinreversingtheinitialdecision.BecausepetitionerdoesnotchallengetheintrinsiccorrectnessoftheBoard'sdecision,thetrialcourterredindismissingthewrit. Therefore,thedecisionofthetrialcourtisreversed,andϜthecauseisremandedforanyfurthernecessaryproceedings.Costonappealaretaxedtorespondent/appellee,theTennesseeBoardofϜParoles.          ________________________________  SAMUELL.LEWIS,JUDGECONCUR:___________________________BENH.CANTRELL,JUDGEWILLIAMC.KOCH,JR.,JUDGECONCURRINGINSEPARATEOPINION̛