ÿWPC …# VUNa %¯ 0GµU:üw@6 4v Š ™ 0ª¡ 0DK U: BÉ 0J 0TU 0^© 0h 0ro 0|á 0†] 0ã 1us 0dèU>LU*ŠB)´DCÝ B  AM=àŠ D3jÑun 0@ãv~#vÓ¡ AOtÆÃ 0D‰ D/Í Bü˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 (ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX('\$¡¡Ô€XåÙXXMXÔ,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular À Á g îà Ä gÅ Æ DÇ UÈ Ó€Ò DÒ 3|xÒ (Z(2‘’$¤¤Ý ƒ'\!ÝÔ€X­ÌXXXÔÝ  ÝÔ€ô’×ôXX­ÌÔà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó`"Arial RegularC:\WPWIN60\TEMPLATE\STANDARD.WPT2 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)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d%%%%7Border 1dd d€-&Cþÿ << Gÿÿ ÖÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€#ÔÔ€$ÔÝ  ÝÔ€$ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€$XÔÌÌMarch€27,€1997ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó ó'''''ÿÿdxd ÇÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€#ÔÔ€$ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÔ€$ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝFlowers€asserts€that€because€an€Alabama€grand€jury€returned€a€no€true€bill€regarding€the€chargesÏbrought€against€him€for€the€murder€of€his€first€wife,€all€information€implicating€him€for€the€death€of€his€firstÏwife€should€be€expunged€from€his€records€with€the€Board.€Ì kÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€#ÔÔ€$ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÔ€$ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝFlowers€named€members€of€the€Board€of€Paroles€and€the€warden€of€the€Nashville€CommunityÏService€Center€as€Defendants.€€They€are€also€described€in€the€pleadings€as€Respondents.Ì("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  ÒPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€#ÔÔ€$ÔÝ  Ý›Ñ\R AØ'\ÑœÓ  ÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7€ ­Ì XXdædÈ7ÑÞ ÞÌà@ àò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àWESTERN€SECTION€AT€NASHVILLEÌÌÌMELVIN€J.€FLOWERS,à àà àà à)€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àó óPetitioner/Appellant,à àò ò)€€Davidson€Chancery€No.€95„3632„IÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌVS.à àà àà àà àà àà à)€€Appeal€No.€01A01„9609„CH„00392Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌCHARLES€TRAUGHBER,€et€al,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àó óRespondents/Appellees.à àò ò)ó óÌÌà@ àAPPEAL€FROM€THE€CHANCERY€COURT€OF€DAVIDSON€COUNTYÌà@ àAT€NASHVILLE,€TENNESSEEÌà@ àTHE€HONORABLE€IRVIN€H.€KILCREASE,€JR.,€CHANCELLORÌÌÙ€€ÙßR€()&A1-j|;ý(` ç `€€@ÿRßÌÌÌÌÌÌÌò òMELVIN€J.€FLOWERS,€pro€seÌó óNashville,€TennesseeÌÌÌò òCHARLES€W.€BURSONÌAttorney€General€&€ReporterÌPATRICIA€C.€KUSSMANNÌAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌó óNashville,€TennesseeÌAttorneys€for€AppelleesÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌò òAFFIRMEDÌÌÌÌÌÌÌó óà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò òALAN€E.€HIGHERS,€J.ÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌDAVID€R.€FARMER,€J.ÌÌHOLLY€KIRBY€LILLARD,€J.ÌÌÑ7€ ­Ì XXdæ XXdæ7Ñó óÓÓà àIn€this€action,€Melvin€Flowers€(ð ðFlowersðð)€filed€a€petition€for€writ€of€certiorari€or,Ïalternatively,€a€writ€of€habeas€corpus€in€the€chancery€court€seeking€judicial€review€ofÏthe€Parole€Boardððs€(ð ðBoardðð)€decision€to€postpone€his€parole€eligibility€hearing€until€heÏreceived€an€updated€psychological€evaluation.€€The€chancery€court€denied€FlowersððÏpetition€for€writ€of€certiorari€and€held€that€the€Board€did€not€act€arbitrarily,€capriciouslyÏor€in€excess€of€its€jurisdiction€in€making€its€decision€to€delay€Flowersðð€parole€eligibilityÏhearing.€€Flowers€has€appealed€the€judgment€of€the€chancery€court,€arguing€that€hisÏconstitutional€rights€were€violated€by€the€Boardððs€decision€to€defer€his€parole€hearing.€€ÏFor€the€reasons€stated€hereafter,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€chancery€court.ÌÌò òà@ àFACTSó óÌÌà àIn€1971,€Flowers€was€charged€with€the€murder€of€his€first€wife€in€Alabama.€€AnÏAlabama€Grand€Jury€returned€a€no€true€bill€and€did€not€indict€Flowers€for€this€offense.€ÏIn€1988,€Flowers€was€charged€with€the€murder€of€his€second€wife€in€Tennessee.€OnÍSeptember€25,€1989,€Flowers€was€convicted€of€second€degree€murder€for€the€murderÏof€his€second€wife€and€sentenced€to€twelve€years€in€prison.€ÌÌà àWhen€Flowers€first€became€eligible€for€parole€in€September€1991,€AssistantÏDistrict€Attorney€Edward€Wilson,€wrote€a€letter€to€the€Board€protesting€the€early€releaseÏof€Flowers€on€parole.€€Mr.€Wilsonððs€letter€states€in€part€as€follows:ÌÓÓà àà8 àà8 àà àMr.›€Flowers€was€convicted€for€theÏoffense€of€second€degree€murder€out€of€theÏCriminal€Court€for€Sullivan€County€onÏSeptember€25,€1989.€€The€victim€in€this€caseÏwas€his€wife.€€Mr.€Flowersðð€first€wife€died€fromÏgunshot€wounds€under€mysteriousÏcircumstances€several€years€prior€to€theÏpresent€incident€for€which€he€is€serving€aÏsentence.€Ìà àœà8 àà8 àà àAt›€the€time€of€the€murder€of€his€secondÏwife,€he€and€his€wife€were€talking€to€theirÏCatholic€Priest€on€the€phone,€and€the€priestÏheard€what€he€described€as€being€gunshot(s)Ïover€the€phone,€and€the€phone€was€hung€up.€ÏThe€investigation€also€revealed€that€at€the€timeÏof€the€murdering€of€his€wife€the€coupleððs€smallÏchild€was€present€in€the€home.Ìà àœà8 àà8 àà àDue›€to€the€mysterious€circumstancesÏinvolved€at€the€death€of€Mr.€Flowersðð€first€wifeÏand€taking€into€consideration€the€events€andÏfacts€of€the€murder€of€his€second€wife,€theÏState€feels€that€a€confinement€period€ofÏapproximately€two€years€is€much€too€lenientÏwhen€you€consider€the€value€of€human€life.€ÏTherefore,€the€District€Attorney€is€stronglyÏopposed€to€the€granting€of€any€early€release€toÏMr.€Flowers.€ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àFlowers€was€denied€parole€in€September€1991€and€in€November€1993€due€toÍthe€seriousness€of€his€offense,€his€high€risk€to€society€and€his€need€to€participate€in€aÏmental€health€program.€œFlowers›€was€scheduled€to€come€before€the€Board€again€inÏNovember€œ1995,›€yet€the€Board€notified€Flowers€on€October€5,€1995€that€his€paroleÏhearing€would€be€continued€so€that€Flowers€could€first€undergo€a€psychologicalÏexamination.€ÌÌà àDue€to€the€Boardððs€continuance€of€his€parole€hearing,€Flowers€filed€a€petition€forÏwrit€of€certiorari€or,€alternatively,€for€a€writ€of€habeas€corpus€in€the€chancery€court€onÏNovember€17,€œ1995.›€In€his€petition,€Flowers€argued€that€his€due€process€and€equalÏprotection€rights€had€been€violated€by€the€Boardððs€decision€to€postpone€his€paroleÏhearing€and€by€the€Boardððs€alleged€reliance€upon€the€aforementioned€letter€from€theÏdistrict€attorneyððs€office€in€determining€Flowerððs€parole€eligibility.€€Flowers€contendsÏthat€the€Board€relied€upon€false€assertions€contained€in€the€letter€in€making€theirÏdecision€postpone€his€parole€œhearing.× ƒ+ ××  ×›€€Flowers€also€argued€that€the€delay€of€hisÏparole€eligibility€hearing€constitutes€cruel€and€unusual€œpunishment.›ÌÌà àFlowers€filed€a€motion€for€a€preliminary€injunction€and€for€a€permanent€or€Ïtemporary€restraining€order€seeking€an€order€from€the€chancery€court€directing€theÏBoard€and€the€Department€of€Correction€to€eliminate€all€information€in€their€filesÏimplicating€Flowers€for€the€murder€of€his€first€wife€and€directing€the€Board€to€scheduleÏa€parole€hearing€for€him.€€œFlowers›€then€filed€a€ð ðmotion€for€order€to€be€brought€to€courtððÍwherein€he€sought€a€court€order€requiring€his€presence€during€the€hearing€on€hisÏmotion€for€injunctive€relief.€ÌÌà àFlowers€thereafter€filed€a€petition€for€writ€of€supersedeas€and€again€petitionedÏthe€court€for€an€order€directing€the€Board€to€expunge€from€their€records€all€informationÏimplicating€Flowers€for€the€murder€of€his€first€wife€and€for€an€order€directing€the€BoardÏto€schedule€a€parole€hearing€for€œhim.›€ÌÌà àThe€Respondents€filed€a€motion€to€dismiss€Flowersðð€petition€for€failure€to€state€aÏclaim€upon€which€relief€can€be€granted.œ× ƒ, ××  ×›€€€In€response,€Flowers€filed€a€ð ðmotion€to€grantÏwrit€of€certiorari€and€deny€respondent€motion€to€dismissðð€€and€a€ð ðmotion€to€be€broughtÏto€courtðð€wherein€€he€sought€a€court€order€requiring€his€presence€during€the€hearing€onÏthe€Respondentsðð€motion€to€dismiss.€ÌÌà àThe€chancery€court€denied€Flowersðð€request€for€a€temporary€restraining€order€orÏpreliminary€injunction€holding€that€Flowers€failed€to€show€that€he€would€sufferÏirreparable€harm€prior€to€a€decision€on€the€merits€of€his€case.€€œThe›€chancery€court€alsoÏdenied€Flowersðð€petition€for€a€writ€of€supersedeas€holding€that€a€writ€of€supersedeasÏwas€an€inappropriate€remedy€for€the€type€of€relief€that€Flowers€requested.€€œThe›Ïchancery€court€thereafter€granted€the€Respondentsðð€motion€to€dismiss€and€held€thatÏthe€Board€did€not€act€arbitrarily,€capriciously€or€in€excess€of€its€jurisdiction€when€itÍpostponed€Flowersðð€parole€eligibility€hearing€until€he€received€an€updatedÏpsychological€evaluation.€ÌÌ€à àAfter€the€Board€once€again€denied€Flowers€release€on€parole€on€February€6,Ï1996,€Flowers€filed€a€ð ðmotion€to€reconsider€dismissal€of€his€writ€of€certiorari€due€to€aÏsupplemental€issueðð€and€argued€that€the€Boardððs€decision€to€deny€him€parole€violatedÏhis€equal€protection€and€due€process€rights€under€the€constitution.€€œThe›€chancery€courtÏdenied€Flowersðð€motion€for€reconsideration.€ÌÌà à€Flowers€thereafter€filed€a€petition€for€ð ðwrit€of€certiorari€on€supplemental€issues,ððÏseeking€review€of€the€Boardððs€decision€to€decline€to€release€him€on€parole.€€FlowersÏnext€filed€a€motion€for€summary€judgment,€seeking€a€court€order€directing€the€Board€toÏrelease€him€on€parole.€œFlowers›€then€filed€a€second€motion€for€a€preliminary€injunctionÏand€temporary€restraining€order€and€again€sought€an€order€from€the€chancery€courtÏdirecting€the€Board€to€release€him€on€parole.€€ÌÌà àAfter€filing€the€foregoing€motions,€Flowers€filed€a€motion€for€appointment€ofÏcounsel€and€requested€that€the€court€appoint€an€attorney€to€represent€him€during€theÏhearings€on€these€motions.€œFlowers›€subsequently€filed€a€motion€requesting€the€courtÏto€order€discovery.€€€Ìà àBecause€the€chancery€court€had€previously€dismissed€Flowersðð€action€and€hadÏpreviously€denied€Flowersðð€motion€to€reconsider,€the€chancery€court€denied€FlowersððÏmotion€for€a€preliminary€injunction€and€temporary€restraining€order,€motion€to€compelÍdiscovery€and€motion€for€summary€judgment€and€held€that€Flowersðð€no€longer€had€anÏaction€pending€before€the€court.€ÌÌà àFlowers€appealed€the€judgment€of€the€chancery€court€and€filed€a€noticeÏdesignating€his€issues€on€appeal.€€œThe›€Respondents€then€objected€to€two€of€the€issuesÏthat€Flowers€designated€on€appeal:€class€certification€and€prison€œovercrowding.€The›Ïchancery€court€thereupon€issued€an€order€denying€Flowers€request€to€supplement€theÏrecord€to€include€these€two€additional€issues€that€were€not€properly€raised€in€theÏchancery€court.€€Ìœ›Ìà@ ààHìì*ìààH  )ìàò òLAWó óÌÌà àThe€issues€before€this€Court€are€as€follows:Ìà à1)€Whether€the€chancery€court€erred€in€holding€that€the€Boardððs€decision€toÏpostpone€Flowersðð€parole€eligibility€hearing€until€he€received€an€updatedÏpsychological€examination€did€not€deny€Flowers€his€constitutional€right€to€due€process;Ìà à2)€€Whether€the€chancery€court€erred€in€holding€that€the€Boardððs€decision€toÏpostpone€Flowersðð€parole€eligibility€hearing€until€he€received€an€updatedÏpsychological€examination€did€not€deny€Flowers€his€constitutional€right€to€equalÏprotection;Ìà à3)€Whether€the€chancery€court€erred€in€holding€that€the€Boardððs€application€ofÏamended€Board€policy€rules,€which€became€effective€over€two€years€after€FlowersððÏconviction,€did€not€violate€the€prohibitions€under€the€òòEx€Post€Facto€óóClause;Ìà à4)€Whether€the€chancery€court€œerred›€in€denying€Flowersðð€motion€to€expungeÏfrom€his€record€with€the€Board€all€information€implicating€him€for€the€death€of€his€firstÏwife?Ìà à5)€Whether€the€chancery€court€œerred›€in€denying€Flowersðð€motion€for€appointmentÏof€counsel;Ìà à6)€Whether€the€chancery€court€œerred›€in€denying€Flowers€the€opportunity€to€beÏpresent€in€court;Ìà à7)€Whether€the€chancery€court€œerred›€in€denying€Flowersðð€request€to€supplementÏthe€record€to€include€two€additional€issues€not€properly€raised€in€the€chancery€court;ÏandÌà à8)€Whether€the€chancery€court€œerred›€in€dismissing€Flowersðð€petition€for€writ€ofÏcertiorari€holding€that€the€Board€did€not€act€arbitrarily,€capriciously€or€in€excess€of€itsÏjurisdiction€in€making€its€decision€to€delay€Flowersðð€parole€eligibility€hearing.ÌÌà àThe€scope€of€review€under€a€common€law€writ€of€certiorari€is€very€narrow.€ÏòòPowell€v.€Parole€Eligibility€Review€Bd.óó,€879€S.W.2d€871,€873€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1994).€€ItÏcovers€only€an€inquiry€into€whether€the€Board€has€exceeded€its€jurisdiction€or€is€actingÏillegally,€fraudulently€or€arbitrarily.€€òòFoster€v.€First€National€Bankóó,€430€S.W.2d€450,€451Ï(Tenn.€1968);€òòHoover€Motor€Exp.€Co.,€Inc.€v.€Railroad.€&€Pub.€Util.€Commððnóó,€261ÏS.W.2d€233,€238€(Tenn.€1953);€òòFite€v.€Stateóó,€925€S.W.2d€543,€544€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.Ï1996);€€òòPowellóó,€879€S.W.2d€at€873;€òòYokley€v.€Stateóó,€632€S.W.2d€123,€126€(Tenn.€Ct.ÏApp.€1981).€€It€is€not€the€correctness€of€the€decision€that€is€subject€to€judicial€review;Ïrather,€it€is€the€manner€in€which€the€decision€is€reached.€€òòState€ex€rel€McMorrough€v.ÍHuntóó,€192€S.W.€931€(Tenn.€1917);€€òòPowellóó,€879€S.W.2d€at€873;€òòYokleyóó,€632€S.W.2d€atÏ126.€€If€the€Board€reached€its€decision€in€a€constitutional€or€lawful€manner,€then€theÏdecision€will€not€be€subject€to€judicial€review.€€òòIdóó.ÌÌà àFlowers€argues€that€he€was€denied€due€process€by€the€Boardððs€decision€toÏpostpone€his€parole€eligibility€hearing€until€he€received€an€updated€psychologicalÏexamination.€€In€determining€whether€a€due€process€violation€has€occurred,€theÏexistence€of€a€protected€right€must€be€the€threshold€determination.€€òòHoward€v.€Grinageóó,Ï82€F.3d€1343,€1349„50€(6th€Cir.€1996).€€In€the€absence€of€a€protected€right,€a€plaintiffÏfails€to€state€a€due€process€claim.€€òòIdóó.ÌÌà àT.€C€A.€ðð€40„35„503(b)(1996€Supp.)€provides€as€follows:ÌÓÓà8 à(b)€ò òRelease€on€parole€is€a€privilege€and€not€a€rightó ó,€and€noÏinmate€convicted€shall€be€granted€parole€if€the€board€finds€that:Ìà8 à(1)€There€is€a€substantial€risk€that€the€defendant€will€not€conform€to€theÏconditions€of€the€release€program;Ìà8 à(2)€The€release€from€custody€at€the€time€would€depreciate€theÏseriousness€of€the€crime€of€which€the€defendant€stands€convicted€orÏpromote€disrespect€for€the€law;Ìà8 à(3)€The€release€from€custody€at€the€time€would€have€a€substantiallyÏadverse€effect€on€institutional€discipline;€€orÌà8 à(4)€The€defendant's€continued€correctional€treatment,€medical€care€orÏvocational€or€other€training€in€the€institution€will€substantially€enhance€theÏdefendant's€capacity€to€lead€a€law„abiding€life€when€given€release€statusÏat€a€later€time.ÌÌÓÓThe€legislative€grant€of€probation€is€therefore€a€privilege€and€cannot€be€demanded€asÏa€right.€€òòState€v.€Correllóó,€626€S.W.2d€699,€701€(Tenn.€1982);€òòHooper€v.€Stateóó,€297ÏS.W.2d€78,€81€(Tenn.€1956);€òòKaylor€v.€Bradleyóó,€912€S.W.2d€728,€733€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.Ï1995)€.€€Ì€€Ìà àThe€Supreme€Court€in€òòGreenholtz€v.€Inmates€of€Nebraska€Penal€andÏCorrectional€Complexóó,€442€U.S.€1,€7(1979),€stated€that€there€is€no€inherent€right€of€aÏconvicted€individual€to€be€conditionally€released€before€the€expiration€of€a€validÏsentence.€€ð ð[G]iven€a€valid€conviction,€the€criminal€defendant€has€been€constitutionallyÏdeprived€of€his€liberty.ðð€€òòIdóó.,€quoting€òòMeachum€v.€Fanoóó,€427€U.S.€215,€224€(1976).€ÏFurthermore,€there€is€no€constitutional€guarantee€that€the€administrative€decisions€of€aÏparole€board€will€result€in€error„free€determinations.€òòGreenholtzóó,€442€U.S.€at€7.€€€ÌÌà àSimilarly,€our€Court€has€recently€stated€that€the€ð ðmere€possibility€of€parole€is€notÏa€constitutionally€protected€liberty€interest.ð ð€€òòKayloróó,€912€S.W.2d€at€732,€citingÏòòGreenholtzóó,€442€U.S.€at€7;€òòSee€alsoóó,€òòWright€v.€Trammellóó,€810€F.2d€589,€591€(6th€Cir.Ï1987)€(holding€that€under€the€rules€of€the€Tennessee€Board€of€Parole,€inmates€do€notÏhave€a€constitutionally€protected€liberty€interest€in€the€expectancy€of€release€uponÏparole€and€due€process€is€not€required€in€connection€with€the€Parole€BoardððsÏdetermination€of€whether€to€grant€parole€to€an€inmate).€€Therefore,€because€FlowersÏdoes€not€have€a€statutory€or€constitutionally€protected€right€to€release€on€parole€beforeÏthe€expiration€of€his€twelve€year€sentence,€Flowersðð€due€process€€rights€were€notÏviolated€by€the€Boardððs€decision€to€delay€Flowersðð€parole€hearing€until€he€received€anÏupdated€psychological€examination.€€ÌÌà àFlowers€also€claims€that€his€equal€protection€rights€were€violated€by€the€BoardððsÏdecision€to€delay€his€parole€eligibility€hearing€until€he€received€an€updatedÍpsychological€evaluation.€œThe›€concept€of€equal€protection€espoused€by€the€federalÏand€state€constitutions€guarantees€that€all€persons€similarly€situated€shall€be€treatedÏalike.€€òòState€v.€Testeróó,€879€S.W.2d€823,€828€(Tenn.€1994);€òòTennessee€Small€SchoolÏSystems€v.€McWherteróó,€851€S.W.2d€139,€153€(Tenn.€1993).€€Equal€protection€analysisÏrequires€strict€scrutiny€of€a€legislative€classification€when€the€classification€interferesÏwith€the€exercise€of€a€ð ðfundamental€rightðð€(e.g.,€right€to€marry,€right€to€vote€or€right€ofÏprivacy)€or€when€the€classification€operates€to€the€peculiar€disadvantage€of€a€ð ðsuspectÏclassðð€(e.g.,€alienage€or€race).€€òòState€v.€Testeróó,€879€S.W.2d€at€828;€òòHarrison€v.ÏSchraderóó,€569€S.W.2d€822,€825€(Tenn.€1978);€òòSan€Antonio€Independent€School€Dist.Ïv.€Rodriguezóó,€411€U.S.€1,€16(1973);€òòBaker€v.€Carróó,€369€U.S.€186€(1962)€(right€to€vote);ÏòòGriswold€v.€Connecticutóó,€381€U.S.€479€(1965)€(right€to€privacy);€òòShapiro€v.€Thompsonóó,Ï394€U.S.€618€(1969)€(right€to€interstate€travel).€€The€right€to€parole,€however,€is€not€aÏfundamental€right.€€Although€the€right€to€personal€liberty€is€fundamental,€that€right€is€notÏimplicated€after€a€person€is€convicted€of€a€crime€and€the€only€issue€is€the€manner€ofÏservice€of€the€sentence€imposed.€€òòTesteróó,€879€S.W.2d€at€828;€òòSee€alsoóó,€òòState€ex€rel.ÏStewart€v.€McWherteróó,€857€S.W.2d€875,€877€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992).€€Furthermore,Ïthe€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€has€previously€held€that€the€right€to€probation€is€aÏprivilege€and€not€a€right.€€òòTesteróó,€879€S.W.2d€at€828;€òòState€v.€Correllóó,€626€S.W.2d€699,Ï701€(Tenn.€1982);€òòSee€alsoóó,€òòHooper€v.€Stateóó,€297€S.W.2d€78,€81€(Tenn.€1956).€€ÌÌà àWhere€the€right€infringed€upon€is€not€a€fundamental€right,€a€reduced€level€ofÏscrutiny€applies.€òòTesteróó,€879€S.W.2d€at€828„30.€€Accordingly,€we€will€apply€the€rationalÏbasis€test€in€analyzing€Flowersðð€equal€protection€challenge.€€Under€this€standard,€anÍequal€protection€challenge€must€fail€if€some€reasonable€basis€can€be€found€for€theÏclassification,€or€if€any€state€of€facts€may€reasonably€be€conceived€to€justify€theÏclassification.€€òòTesteróó,€879€S.W.2d€at€828;€òòTennessee€Small€School€Systems€v.ÏMcWherteróó,€851€S.W.2d€at€153;€òòHarrison€v.€Schraderóó,€569€S.W.2d€at€825.€€€òòÌóóÌà àOur€legislature€has€given€the€Board€the€discretion€in€determining€when€andÏunder€what€conditions€prisoners€serving€felony€sentences€of€more€than€two€years€mayÏbe€released€on€parole.€€òòSeeóó€T.C.A.€ðð€40„28„118(a)(1990);€T.C.A.€ðð€40„35„504(a)(1990).€€òòSee€alsoóó,€T.C.A.€ðð€40„22„109(1990).€€Because€it€is€reasonable€for€ourÏlegislature€to€clothe€the€Board€with€the€authority€to€determine€which€prisoners€servingÏvalid€sentences€will€be€released€on€parole,€we€conclude€that€Flowersðð€equal€protectionÏchallenge€is€without€merit.€€Ìà àFlowers€next€asserts€that€the€Board€breached€the€prohibitions€under€the€òòEx€PostÏFactoóó€Clause€by€applying€Board€policy€rules,€which€became€effective€over€two€yearsÏafter€Flowersðð€conviction,€to€determine€the€scheduling€of€Flowersðð€parole€eligibilityÏhearings.€€Flowers€contends€that€because€the€Board€could€decrease€the€frequency€ofÏhis€parole€eligibility€hearings€under€the€more€recent€Board€policy€rules,€his€rightsÏunder€the€òòEx€Post€Factoóó€Clause€have€been€violated.ÌÌà àBoth€the€state€and€federal€constitutions€contain€prohibitions€against€òòex€postÏfactoóó€laws.€€U.S.€Const.€Art.€I,€ðð€10,€cl.€1;€Tenn.€Const.€Art.€I,€ðð€11.€€The€United€StatesÏSupreme€Court€and€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€have€adopted€complementaryÏconstructions€of€these€provisions.€€òòKayloróó,€€912€S.W.2d€at€731.€€€The€United€StatesÍSupreme€Court€has€recently€stated€that€the€òòEx€Post€Factoóó€Clause€is€ð ðaimed€at€laws€thatÏððretroactively€alter€the€definition€of€crimes€or€increase€the€punishment€for€criminalÏacts.ððððòò€Idóó.,€quoting€òòCalifornia€Depððt€of€Corrections€v.€Moralesóó,€115€S.Ct.€1597,€1601Ï(1995).€€The€Tennessee€Supreme€has€likewise€stated€that€the€critical€question€in€anòò€exÏpost€factoóó€analysis€is€ð ðwhether€the€law€changes€the€punishment€to€the€defendantððsÏdisadvantage,€or€inflicts€a€greater€punishment€than€the€law€allowed€when€the€offenseÏoccurred.ðð€€òòState€v.€Pearsonóó,€858€S.W.2d€879,€883€(Tenn.€1993).€€ÌÌà àBoth€the€federal€and€state€precedents€establish€that€two€elements€must€beÏpresent€in€order€for€a€criminal€or€penal€law€to€run€afoul€of€the€òòEx€Post€Factoóó€Clause.€ÏFirst,€the€law€must€apply€retrospectively€to€events€occurring€before€its€enactment.€ÏòòKayloróó,€912€S.W.2d€€at€732;€òò€Weaver€v.€Grahamóó,€450€U.S.€24,€28€(1980);€òòLindsey€v.ÏWashingtonóó,€301€U.S.€397,€401€(1937).€€Second,€the€law€must€disadvantage€theÏoffender€affected€by€it.€€òòIdóó.€€The€courts,€however,€have€resisted€devising€a€bright€lineÏtest€for€analyzing€òòex€post€factoóó€claims.€€òòMoralesóó,€115€S.Ct.€at€1603.€€Determinations€ofÏthese€claims€are€based€on€a€case„by„case€basis.€€òòKayloróó,€912€S.W.2d€€at€732.€€TheÏoutcome€depends€on€the€significance€of€the€right€involved€and€the€significance€of€theÏimpairment.€€òòIdóó.€€€ÌÌà àIn€òòDobbert€v.€Floridaóó,€432€U.S.€282,€293€(1977),€the€Supreme€Court€held€thatÏthe€prohibition€of€òòex€post€factoóó€laws€does€not€extend€to€every€change€of€law€that€ð ðmayÏwork€to€the€disadvantage€of€a€defendant.ðð€€Instead,€it€is€intended€to€secure€ð ðsubstantiveÏpersonal€rightsðð€from€retroactive€deprivation€and€does€not€ð ðlimit€the€legislative€controlÍof€remedies€and€modes€of€procedure€which€do€not€affect€matters€of€substance.ðð€òò€Idóó.€€ÌÌà àThe€Court€in€òòPortley€v.€Grossmanóó,€444€U.S.€1311€(1980),€was€faced€with€anÏissue€€similar€to€the€one€in€the€present€case.€€In€òòPortleyóó,€the€appellant€contended€thatÏthe€parole€commission€violated€the€constitutional€prohibition€against€òòex€post€factoóó€lawsÏby€utilizing€administrative€guidelines,€which€had€changed€from€those€in€effect€at€theÏtime€the€appellant€was€sentenced,€in€determining€the€appellantððs€eligibility€for€parole.€Ï444€U.S.€at€1312.€€In€holding€that€the€parole€commission€did€not€violate€the€prohibitionÏagainstòò€ex€post€factoóó€laws,€the€Court€stated€as€follows:ÌÓÓà8 àœà8 à[t]he›€guidelines€operate€only€to€provide€a€framework€for€theÏCommissionððs€exercise€of€its€statutory€discretion.€€The€termsÏof€the€sentence€originally€imposed€have€in€no€way€beenÏaltered.€.€.€.€The€guidelines,€therefore,€neither€depriveÏapplicant€of€any€pre„existing€right€nor€enhance€theÏpunishment€imposed.€€The€change€in€guidelines€assistingÏthe€Commission€in€the€exercise€of€its€discretion€is€in€theÏnature€of€a€procedural€change€found€permissible€in€ÏòòDobbert,€supraóó.ÌÌòòPortley€v.€Grossmanóó,€444€U.S.€at€1312„1313.€€ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àIn€addition,€the€Supreme€Court€has€recently€addressed€this€same€issue€inÏòòCalifornia€Depððt€of€Corrections€v.€Moralesóó,€115€S.Ct.€1597€(1995).€€In€1981,€the€State€ofÏCalifornia€amended€its€parole€procedures€to€allow€the€Board€of€Prison€Terms€toÏdecrease€the€frequency€of€parole€suitability€hearings€under€certain€circumstances.€€InÏòòMoralesóó,€the€Court€was€faced€with€the€question€of€whether€the€application€of€thisÏamendment€to€prisoners€who€committed€their€crimes€before€it€was€enacted€violated€theÏòòEx€Post€Facto€óóClause.€€115€S.Ct€€at€1599.€€In€holding€that€the€amendmentððs€applicationÍto€prisoners€who€committed€their€crimes€before€it€was€enacted€did€not€violate€the€òòExÏPost€Facto€óóClause,€the€Court€stated€as€follows:ÌÓÓà8 àœà8 à[t]he›€amendment€did€not€increase€the€ð ðpunishmentððÏattached€to€respondentððs€crime.€€It€left€untouched€hisÏindeterminate€sentence€and€the€substantive€formula€forÏsecuring€any€reductions€to€the€sentencing€range.€€ByÏintroducing€the€possibility€that€the€board€would€not€have€toÏhold€another€parole€hearing€in€the€year€or€two€after€theÏinitial€hearing,€the€amendment€simply€alters€the€method€toÏbe€followed€in€fixing€a€parole€release€date€under€identicalÏsubstantive€standards.Ìà àœà8 à.›€.€.€.Ìà8 àœà8 àUnder›€respondentððs€expansive€view,€the€Clause€wouldÏforbid€any€legislative€change€that€has€any€conceivable€riskÏof€affecting€a€prisonerððs€punishment.Ìà àœà8 à.›€.€.€.Ìà8 àœà8 àRespondentððs›€approach€would€require€that€we€invalidateÏany€of€a€number€of€minor€(and€perhaps€inevitable)Ïmechanical€changes€that€might€produce€some€remote€riskÏof€impact€on€a€prisonerððs€expected€term€of€confinement.€ÏUnder€respondentððs€approach,€the€judiciary€would€beÏcharged€with€the€micromanagement€of€an€endless€array€ofÏlegislative€adjustments€to€parole€and€sentencingÏprocedures,€including€such€innocuous€adjustments€asÏchanges€to€the€membership€of€the€Board€of€Prison€Terms,Ïrestrictions€on€the€hours€that€prisoners€may€use€the€prisonÏlaw€library,€reductions€in€the€duration€of€the€parole€hearing,Ïrestrictions€on€the€time€allotted€for€a€convicted€defendantððsÏright€of€allocution€before€a€sentencing€judge,€and€pageÏlimitations€on€a€defendantððs€objections€to€presentenceÏreports€or€on€documents€seeking€a€pardon€from€theÏgovernor.€€These€and€countless€other€changes€might€createÏsome€speculative,€attenuated€risk€of€affecting€a€prisonerððsÏactual€term€of€confinement€by€making€it€more€difficult€for€himÏto€make€a€persuasive€case€for€early€release,€but€that€factÏalone€cannot€end€the€matter€for€òòex€post€facto€óópurposes.ÌÌòòMoralesóó,€115€S.Ct.€at€1598„1599,€1602„1603.€ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àBecause€application€of€the€amended€Board€policy€rules€to€determine€theÍscheduling€of€Flowersðð€parole€eligibility€hearings€creates€only€the€most€speculativeÏand€attenuated€possibility€of€producing€the€prohibited€effect€of€increasing€the€measureÏof€Flowersðð€punishment,€we€conclude€that€the€Boardððs€use€of€the€amended€policy€rulesÏto€determine€the€scheduling€of€Flowersðð€parole€hearings€does€not€violate€theÏprohibitions€under€the€òòEx€Post€Factoóó€Clause.à àÌÌà àFlowers€further€contends€that€the€chancery€court€erred€in€not€ordering€the€BoardÏto€expunge€from€their€records€all€information€implicating€Flowers€for€the€murder€of€hisÏfirst€wife.€€€Because€Flowers€was€formally€charged€with€the€crime€of€killing€his€first€wifeÏbut€was€not€indicted€for€this€offense,€Flowers€argues€that€such€information€should€beÏeliminated€from€the€Boardððs€files.€€In€support€of€his€argument,€Flowers€relies€uponÏT.C.A.€ðð€40„32„101(1996€Supp.).€€Although€T.C.A.€ðð€40„32„101€provides€for€theÏdestruction€of€all€ð ðpublic€recordsðð€of€a€person€who€was€charged€with€a€crime€but€whoseÏcharges€were€later€dismissed,€it€specifically€excludes€from€the€definition€of€publicÏrecords€the€following:ÌÓÓà8 àœà8 àarrest›€histories,€investigative€reports,€intelligenceÏinformation€of€law€enforcement€agencies,€or€files€of€districtÏattorneys€general€that€are€maintained€as€confidentialÏrecords€for€law€enforcement€purposes€and€are€not€open€forÏinspection€by€members€of€the€public.ÌÌT.C.A.€ðð€40„32„101(b)(1996€Supp.).€€ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àThe€statute,€therefore,€expressly€permits€law€enforcement€agencies€to€maintainÏinformation€in€their€files€regarding€individuals€who€have€been€charged€with€specificÏcrimes.€Thus,€the€chancery€court€did€not€err€in€denying€Flowersðð€request€to€order€theÍBoard€to€expunge€from€their€records€all€information€implicating€Flowers€for€the€murderÏof€his€first€wife.ÌÌà àNext,€Flowers€argues€that€the€chancery€court€erred€in€not€appointing€an€attorneyÏto€represent€him.€€The€Unites€States€Supreme€Court€in€òòDouglas€v.€People€of€State€ofÏCaliforniaóó,€372€U.S.€353€(1963),€held€that€the€Fourteenth€Amendment€guarantees€theÏright€to€counsel€to€an€indigent€defendant€through€the€first€appeal€as€of€right.€€Once€theÏprocess€goes€beyond€the€trial€and€the€direct€appeal€as€of€right€stage,€the€state€has€noÏduty€to€provide€an€attorney€for€the€indigent€defendant.€€òòRoss€v.€Moffittóó,€417€U.S.€600,Ï616€(1974);€òòPennsylvania€v.€Finleyóó,€481€U.S.€551,€555€(1987);€òòDankert€v.€Whartonóó,Ï733€F.2d€1537,€1538€(11th€Cir.€1984).€€Accordingly,€the€federal€constitution€does€notÏrequire€that€the€states€provide€an€attorney€to€an€indigent€post„conviction€petitioner,Ïeven€in€capital€cases.€€òòMurray€v.€Giarratanoóó,€492€U.S.€1€(1989);€òòPennsylvania€v.€Finleyóó,Ï481€U.S.€at€554„555;€òòRoss€v.€Moffittóó,€417€U.S.€at€616;€òòSee€alsoóó€òòColeman€v.€Thompsonóó,Ï501€U.S.€722,€752€(1991).€€Furthermore,€it€is€a€well„settled€in€Tennessee€that€theÏscope€of€the€right€to€counsel€is€limited€and€applies€only€through€the€first€appeal€as€ofÏright.€€òòHouse€v.€Stateóó,€911€S.W.2d€705€(Tenn.€1995).€€It€does€not€apply€to€post„conviction€proceedings.òò€Idóó;€òòDavis€v.€Stateóó,€912€S.W.2d€689,€696€(Tenn.€1995);€òòState€v.ÏOatesóó,€698€S.W.2d€79,€80„81€(Tenn.€Cr.€App.€1985);€òòState€v.€Wilsonóó,€667€S.W.2d€113,Ï114€(Tenn.€Cr.€App.€1983).€ÌÌà àBecause€there€is€no€right€to€counsel€under€either€€the€federal€or€the€stateÏconstitution€beyond€a€criminal€defendantððs€first€appeal€as€of€right,€the€chancery€courtÍdid€not€err€in€failing€to€appoint€an€attorney€for€Flowers€in€his€post„conviction€action€inÏchancery€court.ÌÌà àFlowers€further€contends€that€the€chancery€court€erred€in€denying€his€motion€toÏbe€present€in€court€during€the€hearing€of€his€case.€€We€note,€however,€that€anÏindividualððs€Sixth€Amendment€right€to€be€present€at€all€stages€of€the€trial€does€notÏextend€to€post„€conviction€proceedings.€€òòTurner€v.€Stateóó,€580€S.W.2d€797,€799€(Tenn.ÏCrim€App.€1979).€€A€post„conviction€proceeding€is€not€a€trial€nor€an€extension€of€it;Ïrather,€a€post„conviction€action€is€a€wholly€collateral€lawsuit.€€òòIdóó.€€Flowers€presence,Ïtherefore,€would€have€made€no€difference€to€the€outcome€of€this€action.€€Thus,€theÏchancery€court€did€not€err€in€denying€Flowersðð€motion€to€be€present€in€court€during€theÏhearing€of€his€case.€€ÌÌà àFlowers€also€argues€that€the€chancery€court€erred€in€denying€Flowersðð€requestÏto€supplement€the€record€to€include€two€additional€issues€which€were€not€properlyÏraised€in€the€chancery€court.€€It€has€long€been€the€rule€that€an€issue€not€raised€orÏlitigated€in€the€trial€court€is€waived.€€òòLawrence€v.€Stanfordóó,€655€S.W.2d€927,€929€(Tenn.Ï1983);€T.R.A.P.€36(a).€€€A€party€may€not€raise€an€issue€for€the€first€time€on€appeal.€€òòIdóó;ÏòòState€v.€Turneróó,€919€S.W.2d€346,€356„57€(Tenn.€Cr.€App.€1995);€òòJones€v.€Stateóó,€915ÏS.W.2d€1,€2„3€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).€€Thus,€the€chancery€court€did€not€err€in€denyingÏFlowersðð€request€to€supplement€the€record€to€include€additional€issues€on€appeal.à àÌà àÌà àFinally,€Flowers€contends€that€the€chancery€court€erred€in€dismissing€his€petitionÍfor€writ€of€certiorari€holding€that€the€Board€did€not€act€arbitrarily,€capriciously€or€inÏexcess€of€its€jurisdiction€in€making€its€decision€to€delay€Flowersðð€parole€eligibilityÏhearing.€€Because€the€Tennessee€legislature€has€given€the€Board€the€discretion€inÏdetermining€when€and€under€what€conditions€prisoners€serving€felony€sentences€ofÏmore€that€two€years€may€be€released€on€parole€and€because€the€Board€did€not€actÏillegally,€fraudulently,€arbitrarily€or€in€excess€of€its€jurisdiction€when€it€decided€toÏpostpone€Flowersðð€parole€hearing€until€he€received€an€updated€psychologicalÏevaluation,€the€chancery€court€did€not€err€in€dismissing€Flowersðð€petition€for€writ€ofÏœcertiorari.ÌÌÌÌÌ›ÌÌà àThe€decision€of€the€chancery€court€is€hereby€affirmed.€€Costs€on€appeal€areÏtaxed€to€Flowers€for€which€execution€may€issue€if€œnecessary.ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ïóóà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àHIGHERS,€J.ÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌFARMER,€J.ÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌLILLARD,€J.ÌÌ›Ìà à