WPC f5 L.̮`!@cnÂY WG-L1jfjcJӊ"vlCe ;{ Vߪ1-{S[KArxBE'0ю'Q2J~GOCKj.u]f"yg30@jh}2T$ۭ-JhġD񌒋0QێoO2YWIJ J :қnC.Ѹwх?guKm0;)IU/>XoY2HRlp(s*- aiS6;2NCƒ+ K^6ي+)]@ٲO=|ɢ]U"~rUޢ_^aI^łVb{:r5(ӗ׭kx7 ''B'LW< /̕@T!N?׳@Fܜ4D-@̭*MSa]# U/N! %o 0Yu^ w@4 . = m? 0V V - UN9 U<  N  0D 1 1mS 0c-#Pf| AQ ]# 0D 0D"U:ffUN[ 0D D/ B D3<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< BoHP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nLH(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularX(1y/$Gu FXX-袔& DDDDDDӀ%s&q3|xU((2,Z$ y/!GwGXX-    noGGw     0   HOBBSMCRCFWartburgWALKUPKUSSMANN BPRCordellMcWherter Crim CrumCAVITTN.W.C.C.TiptonvilleCavittKaylor L.EdRicci S.Ct TDOCReinholtzT.C.A. E.S.LynceMathis ##Xd#(hH  Z 6Times New Roman Regular\  `$Times NewRoman   $Gz1GXX- @ @GGz1     1    _ThatsectionisnowfoundatTenn.CodeAnn.4035501(k)(1998  Supp.)andhasremainedineffectsinceitspassageaspartoftheCriminalSentencingReformActof1982.(#$  0  (CEMU]emu}AutoList1(A)(A)(A)(A)(A)(A)(A)(A)#6e37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)(;$26e  0  .3  0   ##Xd# e  e    ,Z$GwGXX- @ @noGGw     1    _ԀThestatutoryprovisionsregardingparoleeligibilitydatesandtheir  modificationarenowfoundatTenn.CodeAnn.4035501(k)(1998Supp.)whichhasremainedineffectsinceitspassageaspartoftheCriminalSentencingReformActof1982.BothAppellantandtheDepartmentrelieduponTenn.CodeAnn.4030501(k)ascodifiedin1985.Thatprovisiondealswithpersonsconvictedoffelonies,butthemorespecificClassXfelonprovisioninTenn.CodeAnn.4028301shouldbeappliedinanalyzingMr.Cavittssituation.Thetwostatutesdonotdiffersubstantivelyinanywayrelevanttotheissuesraisedinthisappeal.$&C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5   $GFXX- @ @]yFG     2    _ԀTennCodeAnn.4035501(k),applyingtoallfelons,wasalsoin e effectatthetimeAppellantcommittedhisoffenseandwascodifiedthenasTenn.CodeAnn.4035501(h).(3$ !  (3$ !  ,cAZ"Arial Regular   $#G-FXX- @ @#TFG-     2    _ԀTennCodeAnn.4035501(k),applyingtoallfelons,wasalsoin e effectatthetimeAppellantcommittedhisoffenseandwascodifiedthenasTenn.CodeAnn.4035501(h).(9 Z6Times New Roman Regular($$   1   "   X XXX   X X   Ad FILED X X    April23,1999CecilCrowson,Jr.AppellateCourtClerkdAh ((' dxdP Pd\\\\'dxd d y/!GwGXX-  _  TR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'TnoGGwOr%)<,(j 8` `@E` 8ttxP,  r@& &  INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE@(ATNASHVILLEt%)>.*jx!R` `@E*` 8ttxPM R t FREDERICKWAYNECAVITT@.) < @.) Petitioner/Appellant,@.)  h @.)0  AppealNo.. ~T$T$ @.)0  01A019712CH00713D T$T$ VS.@.)0  Z T$T$ @.)0  DavidsonChanceryp T$T$ @.)0  No.972994III T$T$ TENNESSEEDEPARTMENTOF@.)   CORRECTION,@.)   @.) Respondent/Appellee.@.) . @  APPEALFROMTHECHANCERYCOURTOFDAVIDSON  Z @ COUNTYATNASHVILLE,TENNESSEE @/ / THEHONORABLEELLENHOBBSLYLEPRESIDINGFREDERICKWAYNECAVITT#108657N.W.C.C.3/B/202Route1,Box660Tiptonville,TN38079PROSE/PETITIONER/APPELLANTJOHNKNOXWALKUPAttorneyGeneralandReporterMICHAELE.MOORESolicitorGeneralPATRICIAC.KUSSMANN,BPR15506AssistantAttorneyGeneralCivilRightsandClaimsDivision425FifthAvenueNorthSecondFloor,CordellHullBuildingNashville,Tennessee372430488ATTORNEYSFORRESPONDENT/APPELLEE@$ AFFIRMEDANDREMANDED 50-    0     0 8 PATRICIAJ.COTTRELL,JUDGE72/8T$8T$ CONCUR:KOCH,J.7DfXXdGGd7  #Xd#  CAIN,J. :>62 7DfXXdGGd7   8d<XXdGGd8   @XX+#GwGno#YGGw OPINION#GwGY # l GGwԈ  #GwG  lH #noGGwY - Inthisappeal,astateprisonerchallengestheextensionofhisparole M eligibilitydatebytheDepartmentofCorrectionwhichresultedfromadisciplinaryproceedingforinfractionofdepartmentpolicies.Mr.Cavitt,theAppellant,contendsthe1991extensionincreasedhis1985sentenceexpostfacto.Thetrial  $  courtdismissedMr.Cavittscomplaintfordeclaratoryjudgmentforfailuretostateaclaimuponwhichreliefcouldbegranted.Weaffirm.@-I. In1985,Mr.Cavitt_pleads_Ԁguiltytoseconddegreemurderandwassentencedto35yearsimprisonmentforanoffensecommittedMarch23,1985.Hewastobecomeeligibletobeconsideredforparoleafterserving30%ofthatsentence.Atthetimeofhisoffenseandhissentencing,Tenn.CodeAnn.4028301[enacted1979,repealedby1985Tenn.Pub.Acts(1stE.S.),ch57]wasin < effect. #  1      ׀Thatstatuteprovided: i!  L (3LY 8 80 ! !(h)(1)ThereleaseclassificationeligibilitydateprovidedforinthissectionshallbetheearliestdateapersonconvictedofaClassXfelonyshallbeeligibleforreleaseclassificationstatus,suchdatebeingconditionedontheprisonersgoodbehaviorwhileinprison.Foraviolationofanyoftherulesofthedepartmentofcorrectionortheinstitutioninwhichthepersonisincarceratedthecommissionerofcorrectionorhis_designees,_Ԁ_may,_ԀdeferthereleaseclassificationeligibilitydatesoastoincreasethetotalamountofOe  O e   timeapersonmustservebeforebecomingeligiblefor 6.)& Oe  Oe  O e   releaseclassificationstatus.Thisincreasemay,inthediscretionofthecommissioner,beinanyamountoftimenottoexceedthefullsentenceoriginallyimposedbythecourtandshallbeimposedpursuanttoregulationspromulgatedbythecommissionerofcorrection.[Acts1979,ch.31820]. 0 0  f ]y In1985,theDepartmentswrittenpolicyoutliningpunishmentswhicha  ~ disciplinarycommitteewasauthorizedtoimposeforviolationofDepartmentpoliciesdidnotincludeanyextensionofaprisonersparoleeligibilitydateotherthanthroughlossofsentencereductioncredits. AppellantstatesthatonFebruary15,1989,newDisciplinaryPunishmentGuidelineswereenacted.Inrelevantpart,Policy502.02ofthese1989policiesprovided:8 80 ! ! Inallcasesinwhichaninmateisfoundguiltyofadisciplinaryoffensethatresultedinphysicalinjurytoanemployee,volunteerorvisitor,inadditiontoanyotherpunishmentimposed,theoffendersparoleorreleaseeligibilitydateshallbeextendedbyaddingtheretoanadditionalthirty(30)percent(%)oftheoffendersoriginalmaximumsentence,orbyextendingtheinmatesparoleorreleaseeligibilitydatetothesentenceexpirationdate,whicheverisless. 0 0   OnMay16,1991,inanadministrativeproceedingbeforethedisciplinarycommittee,Mr.Cavittwasfoundguiltyofassaultwhichresultedininjurytoacorrectionalofficer.InrelianceonTDOCPolicy502.02,quotedabove,thedisciplinarycommitteerecommendedthatMr.Cavittberequiredtoserve60%ofhis___35year_Ԁsentence,ratherthanthe30%previouslyrequired,beforebecomingeligibleforreleaseonparole.ThatrecommendationwasapprovedbythecommissionerofcorrectiononMay21,1991. Mr.Cavittarguesthatbyextendinghisparoleeligibilitydate,theDepartmentimposedagreaterormoreseverepunishmentin1991thanwasprescribedbylawatthetimeofhisoriginaloffense,conviction,andsentencein1985.Thisaction,heasserts,violatestheexpostfactoclauseofArticleI, 953 Section10oftheU.S.ConstitutionandArticleI,Section11oftheTennesseeConstitution.Specifically,Mr.Cavittarguesthatthe1989Departmentpolicyauthorizingextensionofparoleeligibilityforspecifieddisciplinaryoffenseswasnotineffectatthetimeofhisoffense,convictionandsentencingand,therefore,cannotbeappliedtohimtoalterhispunishmenttohisdisadvantage. H! #]y f##GF]y #]yFGf ]y  `  Mr.CavittfiledapetitionfordeclaratoryjudgmentintheChanceryCourtforDavidsonCountypursuanttotheAdministrativeProceduresAct,havingrequestedadeclaratoryorderfromtheDepartmentofCorrectionandhavingbeendeniedreliefbytheDepartment.SeeTenn.CodeAnn.45224(1998). % TheDepartmentfiledamotiontodismisspursuanttoTenn.R.Civ.P.12.02(6),whichthetrialcourtgranted.Thetrialcourtheldthatthepolicyauthorizingextensionofparoleeligibilityisnotanexpostfactolawsinceitdoesnot m increasethequantumofpunishment.ThecourtfurtherheldthattheextensionofMr.CavittsparoleeligibilitydatewastheresultofhisviolationofDepartmentpolicies,afternoticethatsuchextensionwasapotentialpunishmentforsuchviolation,andnotanenhancementofthepunishmentforhisunderlyingconviction.@-II. TheUnitedStatesConstitution,Article_I,_ԀSection10forbidsthestatesfrompassinganyexpostfactolaws.TheConstitutionofTennessee#]y f#f ]y#G F f#f  FG ,Article_I,__._ -,'& Section11containsasimilarprohibition.Mr.Cavitthasbroughtclaimsunderboth.#]y f"#f ]yTheinterpretationsbytheUnitedStatesSupremeCourtofthefederal ]0+* constitutionalprovisionandthoseoftheTennesseeSupremeCourtofthestateconstitutionalprovisionarecomplementaryandconsistent.Kaylorv.Bradley, 4(0. 912S.W.2d728,731(Tenn.App.1995).#]y f*$#f ]y 6@20  Theexpostfactoprohibitionis aimedatlawsthat`retroactivelyalterthe 8X42 definitionofcrimesorincreasethepunishmentforcriminalacts.California e DepartmentofCorrectionsv.Morales,514U.S.499,504,115S.Ct.1597,1601, } 131L.Ed.2d588(1995).Anexpostfactolaw changesthepunishment,and 0 inflictsagreaterpunishmentthanthelawannexedtothecrimewhencommitted.Weaverv.Graham,450U.S.24,101S.Ct.960,67L.Ed.2d17  ` (1981).ThecriticalquestioninanexpostfactoclaimsuchasMr.Cavittsis x   whetherthelawchangesthepunishmenttothedefendantsdisadvantage,orinflictsagreaterpunishmentthanthelawallowedwhentheoffenseoccurred.Statev.Pearson,858S.W.2d879,883(Tenn.1993). %  Underbothstateandfederalconstitutionsandcasesinterpretingthem,twofactorsmustbepresenttoestablishaviolationoftheexpostfactoprohibition: U (1)thelawmustapplyretrospectivelytoeventsoccurringbeforeitsenactment,and(2)itmustdisadvantagetheoffenderaffectedbyit.Statev.Ricci,914   S.W.2d475,480(Tenn.1996);Kaylorv.Bradley,912S.W.2d728,732(Tenn. 8 App.1995);Statev.Pearson858S.W.2d879,882(Tenn.1993)(quotingMiller !P v.Florida,482U.S.423,430,107S.Ct.2446,2451,96L.Ed.2d351(1987). #h @XX,III. Actionswhichextendparoleeligibilitycanimplicatetheexpostfacto '#" clause. TheStatecannot,andindeeddoesnot,arguethatretroactivealterationsofthecriteriaforparoleeligibilitycannotimplicateexpostfactoconcerns. -,'& Eligibilityforparoleconsiderationispartofthelawannexedtothecrimewhencommitted.Kaylorv.Bradley,912S.W.2dat732,citingWeaverv.Graham, ]0+* 450U.S.at3233,101S.Ct.at966(othercitationsomitted.).AstheU.S.SupremeCourtrecentlystated:8 80 ! !AswerecognizedinWeaver,retroactivealterationof 6@20 paroleorearlyreleaseprovisions,liketheretroactiveapplicationofprovisionsthatgoverninitialsentencing,implicatestheExPostFactoClause 9d53 becausesuchcreditsare onedeterminantofpetitionersprisonterm_Ԁ..._Ԁand_Ԁ_..._Ԁ_Ԁ[thepetitioners]effectivesentenceisalteredoncethisdeterminantischanged.Ibid.WeexplainedinWeaverthatthe $ removalofsuchprovisionscanconstituteanincreaseinpunishment,becausea prisonerseligibilityforreducedimprisonmentisasignificantfactorenteringintoboththedefendantsdecisiontopleabargainandthejudgescalculationofthesentencetobeimposed. 0 0  Lyncev.Mathis,519U.S.433,117S.Ct.891,137L.Ed.2d63(1997). x   Intheinstantcase,theanalysisofanyexpostfactoimplicationofMr.   CavittsclaimsmustbeginwithTenn.CodeAnn.4028301(h)(1),quotedabove,whichwaspartof thelawannexedtothecrimewhichMr.Cavittcommittedin1985." #  2      ׀Byitsplainwords,thatstatuteputoffendersonnoticethat = theirreleaseclassificationorparoleconsiderationeligibilitydatewas conditionedontheprisonersgoodbehaviorwhileinprisonandthatthecommissionerofcorrectioncoulddeferaninmatesreleaseeligibilitydateforaviolationofdepartmentrules soastoincreasethetotalamountoftimeapersonmustservebeforebecomingeligibleforreleaseclassificationstatus.Tenn.CodeAnn.4028301. Thus,atthetimeofMr.Cavittsoffense,thelawclearlyalloweddeferralofparoleeligibilityonthebasisofaninmatesconductwhileincarcerated.TheDepartmentsadoptionofPolicy502.02didnotretroactivelyincreasethepunishmentforoffensescommittedaftertheadoptionofTenn.CodeAnn.4028301in1979.Fromthemomenthewassentencedin1985,Mr.Cavittsreleaseeligibilitywascontingentuponhisgoodbehaviorinprison. 4(0. @55,IV.#]y f%#f ]y Theprincipleonwhichexpostfactoprohibitionsarebasedisoneof } fairness.Individualshavearighttofairwarningoftheconductwhichwillgiverisetocriminalpenalties.Marksv.UnitedStates,430U.S.188,87S.Ct.990,  H 51L.Ed.2d260(1977).Thisincludestherighttofairwarningofthenatureandseverityofthepossiblepenaltiesinvolved.AstheU.S.SupremeCourthasnoted:8 80 ! !CriticaltoreliefundertheExPostFactoClauseisnot   anindividualsrighttolesspunishment,butthelackoffairnoticeandgovernmentalrestraintwhenthelegislatureincreasespunishmentbeyondwhatwasprescribedwhenthecrimewasconsummated. 0 0  Weaverv.Graham,450U.S.at3031,101S.Ct.At965,67L.Ed.2d17. U  Mr.Cavittsparoleeligibilitydatewasdeferredbecausehewasfoundtohaveassaultedacorrectionalofficer,causinghiminjuries.Thus,theextensionofhisparoleeligibilitydatewasnottheresultofalegislativeoradministrativeenactmentwhichincreasedhispunishmentforhisoriginal1985criminaloffense.Rather,itwastheresultofhis1991conductwhileincarcerated.Atthetimehecommittedhisassault,TDOCPolicy502.02hadbeenineffectfortwoyears.Mr.Cavittclearlyhadfairwarningoftheconsequencesofanassaultbeforehecommittedtheassault. InReinholtzv.Bradley,945S.W.2d727(Tenn.App.1996),aninmate -,'& challengedtheextensionofhisreleaseeligibilitydatebaseduponanotherprovisionofPolicy502.02whichauthorizedsuchextensionwhenaninmateisfoundguiltyofthedisciplinaryoffenseofescape.ThisCourtupheldtheextensionofhisreleaseeligibilitydateagainstanexpostfactochallenge.This 4(0. opinionisconsistentwithReinholtz. 6@20  WeholdthattheextensionofAppellantsparoleeligibilitydateonthe 8X42 basisofhis1991injuriousassaultonacorrectionalofficerasauthorizedbypolicy502.02didnotviolatetheexpostfactoprohibitionoffederalandstate } constitutionsbecause:_Ԁ1)T.C.A.4028301(h)(1)waspartofthelawannexedtothecrimehecommittedin1985andclearlynotifiedoffendersthattheirparoleeligibilitycouldbenegativelyimpactedbytheirconductwhileincarcerated;2)Policy502.02waseffectivepriortotheassault,therebygivingAppellantfairwarningofthepotentialconsequencesofhisactions;and3)theextensionwastheresultofAppellants1991conductandnottheresultofaretrospectiveapplicationofincreasedpunishmenttohis1985criminaloffense.#T f9#f T@yy-V. =  TheorderofthetrialcourtdismissingAppellantsactionisaffirmed.ThismatterisremandedtotheChanceryCourtofDavidsonCountyforanyfurtherproceedingsconsistentwiththisopinion.CostsofthisappealaretaxedtoAppellant. 0  8    0      8   _______________________________  0      8   PATRICIAJ.COTTRELL,JUDGECONCUR:#T fD#f T____________________________ !+&% WILLIAMC.KOCH,JUDGE#T f1G#f T____________________________ o0 ,* #T fG#f TWILLIAMB.CAIN,JUDGE#T f1H##G-FT##