WPC*:  jv: z{Y^Ȕ;cڴo\U:5/OClY.obF4E\ H;7 (FAY?c2gIEuJP8w^hw}3HcX/Y3Sr _E68192Qp}%6>Wݟ%s!hwn5|qn;i@' BATC0xZM2?v fY Ls:<=:0clH R8 b})0F䂌Tf&y:k.vl#y%sN{-3ǟ[Ui YJ`?plZ|ܭl3A$Msf 9< LFbtApi{~EmLMš' Dm•x'2#'@L&8xxy|`Ų&FfDd"5 ?J||(b#\ 0D %a 0g UN UN=  zUN^ 0^ z@ 0Nw4E mz 0y 0g 0R! 0:" 0# 0$ 0$ 0% 0& 0}' 0Y( 02) 0* 0* 0+ 0x,bB- 0J- 0+. 0 / 0/ 00 01 0c2 023 03U>44444444444"555555555555555 0'5'5'5'5 B66 0/6 D36 D-7 0K3737 AS~77 08 0D;9 A9HP LaserJet 4Si,,,,,,0(#$  0  (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regular(I Z6Times New Roman Regular } Rc`$      1  t  _8ttTenn.Ct.App.R.10(b)provides:  #t8t~#8tt#t8t#8tt8   ` TheCourt,withtheconcurrenceofalljudgesparticipatinginthecase,mayaffirm,reverse @ ormodifytheactionsofthetrialcourtbymemorandumopinionwhenaformalopinionwouldhave X noprecedentialvalue.Whenacaseisdecidedbymemorandumopinion,itshallbedesignated   "MEMORANDUMOPINION,"shallnotbepublished,andshallnotbecitedorreliedonforany  reasoninasubsequentunrelatedcase.#t8t9# C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt'"  Z 6Times New Roman Regular2J+M 0_level1  X 2( ` hp x 223  ..  5+ ` hp x 5   'j(L Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 52G+M 0_level2   /%` ` hp x /23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  ~( 3|xU  Rc`$      2  t  _InsupportofitsmotiontheStatesubmittedanaffidavitofWilmerG.Lutche,aTDOClegalassistant  responsibleformaintainingrecordsrelatingtodeclaratoryorderrequests.Intheaffidavit,Mr.Lutchestatedthathis x searchoftheTDOCindexofinmaterequestsfordeclaratoryordersrevealednosuchrequestfromMr.Frazier.  Rc`$      3  t  _Anagencysrefusaltoissueadeclaratoryorderincludesfailuretosetacontestedcasehearingwithinsixty  daysaftertheagencyreceivesapetitionforadeclaratoryorder.SeeTenn.CodeAnn.4-5-223(c);Davisv.Sundquist, x 947S.W.2d155,156(Tenn.Ct.App.1997).  Rc`$      4  t  _PursuanttoTenn.CodeAnn45322(b)(1)(1998),courtsarewithoutjurisdictiontohearpetitionsfor  judicialreviewnotfiledwithinsixtydaysaftertheagencyentersitsfinalorder. ttSeeScheringPloughHealthcare x Prods.,Inc.v.StateBd.ofEqualization,999S.W.2d773,776(Tenn.1999);#t tV# ttHousealv.Roberts,709S.W.2d580,581 @ (Tenn.Ct.App.1984).#t t#e} tHowever,Tenn.CodeAnn45322(b)(1)#t e}# ttԀdoesnotapplytoadeclaratoryjudgmentpetition X wheretheagencyhasrefusedtoconveneacontestedcasehearingandissueadeclaratoryorder.SeeRienholtzv. , Bradley,945S.W.2d727,729(Tenn.Ct.App.1996).#t t)#e} tԀ  Rc`$      5  t  _Weassumewithoutdecidingthatthisletterconstitutedapetitionforadeclaratoryorder.However,theState  contendsthat,bywritingtoMs.Whisman,Mr.Frazierdidnotfollowtheappropriatechannelsforfilingapetitionfor x adeclaratoryorder.Ifso,Mr.Frazierfailedtoexhausthisadministrativeremediesinanyevent.2D+M 0_level3   ," hp x ,23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2A+M 0_level4  ` ) hp x )23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2>+M 0_level5   &hhp x &23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2;+M 0_level6   #p x #23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  28+M 0_level7  h  p x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  25+M 0_level8   pp x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  22+M 0_level9    x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2JM 0_levsl1  X 2( ` hp x 223  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2GM 0_levsl2   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2DM 0_levsl3   ," hp x ,23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2AM 0_levsl4  ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2>M 0_levsl5   &hhp x &23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2;M 0_levsl6   #p x #23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  28M 0_levsl7  h  p x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  25M 0_levsl8   pp x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  22M 0_levsl9    x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  - -2JM 0_levnl1  X 2( ` hp x 223   5+ ` hp x 5  2GM 0_levnl2   /%` ` hp x /23   5+ ` hp x 5  2DM 0_levnl3   ," hp x ,23   5+ ` hp x 5  2AM 0_levnl4  ` ) hp x )23   5+ ` hp x 5  2>M 0_levnl5   &hhp x &23   5+ ` hp x 5  2;M 0_levnl6   #p x #23   5+ ` hp x 5  28M 0_levnl7  h  p x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  25M 0_levnl8   pp x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  22M 0_levnl9    x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  \  `&Times New Roman    (|G2c`$ !.8ldd8         0  t d(|3A$ !.8ldd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3A$ !.8ldd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8ldd8     _lCdO  8+XXdd8  @ /lINTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @kk$ATNASHVILLE#l/#Ԉ , @"June1998Session X X+Xl #lXX+#@  DEWEYSCOTTFRAZIERv.CANDACEWHISMANX+Xl   ` @  AppealfromtheChanceryCourtforDavidsonCounty  h @^ ^ No.97483IICarolL.McCoy,Chancellor  X @*AV) ` dE< ` A߈  8  @@ @ No.M199700225_COA_ԄR3CVFiled_July19,2000_Ԉ 7  AV) ` dE<` A    #lXX+#X+XlThisappealarisesfromtheeffortsofaninmateoftheTennesseeDepartmentofCorrectiontohave   hissentencerecalculated.Theprisonerinitiallywrotetoanemployeeofthedepartmentrequesting  therecalculation.Tenmonthsafterreceivingthedepartmentsletterdenyinghisrequest,the  prisonerfiledapetitionforadeclaratoryjudgmentintheChanceryCourtforDavidsonCounty.The  trialcourtdismissedthepetition,andtheprisonerappeals.Weaffirmthetrialcourtbecausethe  prisonerdidnotfilehispetitionwithinsixtydaysofthedepartmentsdecision.lXX+ v #X+Xl# @))Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheChanceryCourtAffirmed  V WilliamC.Koch,Jr.,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichHenryF.Todd,P.J.,M.S., 6 andWilliamB.Cain,J.,joined. &v DeweyScottFrazier,MountainCity,Tennessee,ProSe. V PaulG.Summers,AttorneyGeneralandReporter,andJohnR.Miles,Nashville,Tennessee,forthe 6 appellee,CandaceWhisman. & @! MEMORANDUMOPINION #  1       !    In1976ajuryintheCriminalCourtforSullivanCountyfoundDeweyScottFrazierguilty #" ofbankrobbery,usingafirearminthecommissionofafelony,andassaultandbatteryand $# sentencedhimtolifeimprisonmentasanhabitualcriminal.TheTennesseeCourtofCriminal v% $ Appealsaffirmedhisconviction,seeFrazierv.State,566S.W.2d545(Tenn.Crim.App.1977),and f&!%' theTennesseeSupremeCourtdeclinedtoentertainhisappeal.Hewaslaterconvictedofescapeby  ajuryintheCriminalCourtforDavidsonCountyandwassentencedtoserveanadditionalthree  yearstobeservedconsecutivelywithhisothersentences.SeeStatev.Frazier,No.86206III,1987  WL16387,at*1(Sept.2,1987),perm.app.denied(Tenn.Nov.30,1987).Heiscurrently  incarceratedintheNortheastCorrectionalCenteratMountainCity. p   OnAugust23,1995,Mr.FrazierwrotetoCandaceWhisman,anemployeeoftheTennessee P  DepartmentofCorrectionsSentenceInformationServices( SentenceInformationServices), @  requestingarecalculationofhissentencethatwouldresultinanearlierreleaseeligibilitydate.On 0  September1,1995,SentenceInformationServicessentamemorandumtoMr.Frazierstatingthat  p  itdidnotrespondtoindividualinmateinquiries.Subsequently,StevenGrindstaff,another `  departmentemployee,sentMr.FrazieraletterdatedApril18,1996,statingthatMr.Fraziers P  sentencehadbeencorrectlycalculatedandspecificallyrefutingMr.Fraziersargumentstothe @  contrary. 0    OnFebruary10,1997,Mr.FrazierfiledapetitionintheChanceryCourtforDavidson  Countyseekingadeclaratoryjudgmentconcerningthecalculationofhissentence.TheStatemoved  todismissMr.Frazierspetitiononthegroundsthathefailedtoexhausthisadministrativeremedies  byseekingadeclaratoryorderfromtheTennesseeDepartmentofCorrection( TDOC)before  petitioningthetrialcourtforadeclaratoryjudgment. #  2      ׀Thetrialcourtgrantedthemotionon  November3,1997.Lateronthesameday,thetrialcourtreceivedMr.Fraziersresponsetothe p Statesmotion.Mr.FrazierassertedthathisAugust23,1995lettertoMs.Whismanconstituteda ` petitionforadeclaratoryorderfromtheTDOC. P   ThetrialcourtconstruedMr.FraziersresponseasaTenn.R.Civ.P.60.02motionforrelief 0 fromitsNovember3,1997order.Thereupon,thetrialcourtvacateditsNovember3,1997order  p because anissueoffact[exists]astowhetherornotPetitionerfiledthepetitionwiththeTDOCand ` thereforeRespondentisnotentitledtoadismissalonthegroundsofPetitionersfailuretoexhaust P hisadministrativeremedies.Nevertheless,thetrialcourtdismissedMr.Frazierspetitiononthe @ alternativegroundofMr.Fraziersfailuretofilehispetitionforadeclaratoryjudgmentwithinsixty 0 daysoftheagencysfinaldecision.Mr.Frazierappealsthedismissal.   @) I.  "    ThedeterminativeissueinthiscaseisthetimelinessofMr.Frazierspetitionfora $" declaratoryjudgment.Affectedpersonsmaypetitionanagencyforadeclaratoryorderonthe % # validityorapplicabilityofastatute,rule,ororderwithintheprimaryjurisdictionoftheagency.See p&!$  Tenn.CodeAnn.4-5-223(a)(1998).Whentheagencyreceivesthepetition,itmay(1) [c]onvene `'"% CdO C C  acontestedcasehearing...andissueadeclaratoryorder,Tenn.CodeAnn.4-5-223(a)(1),or(2)   [r]efusetoissueadeclaratoryorder. #  3      ׀Tenn.CodeAnn.4-5-223(a)(2).     Iftheagencychoosesthelatteroption,petitionersmayseekadeclaratoryjudgmentfromthe  ChanceryCourtforDavidsonCounty.SeeTenn.CodeAnn.4-5-223(a)(2),225(a)(1998). p Unfortunately,unlikewithpetitionsforjudicialreview,theUniformAdministrativeProceduresAct `  issilentonthetimeperiodwithinwhichpetitionsfordeclaratoryjudgmentmustbefiled. #  4       P    Iftheagencyfollowstheformercourseofaction,thedeclaratoryorderissubjecttoreview 0  asacontestedcaseintheChanceryCourtforDavidsonCounty,seeTenn.CodeAnn.  p  4-5-223(a)(1),butthechancerycourthasnojurisdictiontohearapetitionforreviewnotfiledwithin `  sixtydaysfromtheagencysfinaldecision.SeeTenn.CodeAnn.4-5-322(b)(1);Rienholtzv. P  Bradley,No.01A019409CH00433,1995WL33736,at*2(Tenn.Ct.App.Jan.27,1995)(No @  Tenn.R.App.P.11applicationfiled);Bishopv.TennesseeDeptofCorrection,896S.W.2d557, 0  558(Tenn.Ct.App.1994).Thetimeforfilingthepetitionrunsfromthedateofentryofthe   agencysfinalorder,ratherthanfromthepetitionersreceiptoftheorder.SeeCheairsv.Lawson,  815S.W.2d533,534(Tenn.Ct.App.1991);Housealv.Roberts,709S.W.2dat581.    Forthepurposesofdeterminingwhetherthesixtydayperiodappliestoapetitionforreview  ofanagencysdecision,thiscourtrecentlyheldthatconvening acontestedcasehearingand  issu[ing]adeclaratoryorderpursuanttoTenn.CodeAnn.4-5-223(a)(1)includessendingaletter p tothepetitionerrespondingsubstantivelytothemeritsofthepetition.SeeCopelandv.Bradley,No. ` 01A01-9409-CH-00435,1995WL70602,at*2(Tenn.Ct.App.Feb.22,1995)(NoTenn.R.App. P P.11applicationfiled);Rienholtzv.Bradley,1995WL33736,at*3.Thus,apetitionforreviewof @ anagencydecisionrenderedthroughsuchalettermustbefiledwithinsixtydaysfromthedateof 0 theletter.Conversely,aletterinformingthepetitionerthattheagencywillnotconsiderthepetition  p onitsmeritsisnotacontestedcasehearing,andfailuretofileapetitionforadeclaratoryjudgment ` withthetrialcourtwithinsixtydaysisnotfataltothepetition.SeeRienholtzv.Bradley,1995WL P 33736,at*4. @   0   OnAugust23,1995,Mr.FrazierwrotetotheTDOCrequestingarecalculationofhis  sentence. #  5      ׀TheTDOCrespondedinaletterdatedApril18,1996thatspecificallyaddressesMr.   Fraziersargumentsconcerningthecalculationofhissentence,andconcludesthattheyarewithout  merit.ForthepurposesofdeterminingwhetherMr.Fraziertimelyfiledhispetitionforadeclaratory  judgment,thisletterconstitutedconveningacontestedcasehearingandissuingadeclaratoryorder. p Accordingly,Mr.Frazierhadawindowofsixtydayswithinwhichtofilehispetitioninthetrial `  court.HemissedthisdeadlinebyfilinghisdeclaratoryjudgmentpetitiononFebruary10,1997,ten P  monthsaftertheagencyentereditsfinalorder.Therefore,thetrialcourtcorrectlydismissedMr. @  Frazierspetitiononjurisdictionalgrounds. 0  @) II.  `    WeaffirmthedismissalofMr.Frazierspetitionforadeclaratoryjudgment,andremandthe @  casetothetrialcourtforwhateverfurtherproceedingsmayberequired.Wealsotaxthecostsofthis 0  appealtoDeweyScottFrazierforwhichexecution,ifnecessary,mayissue.      `     h     __________________________________     `     h     WILLIAMC.KOCH,JR.,JUDGE