WPC [\G 56ޥ3T&ᅷ?\#4S+ \7 ySNMߜ_>8TvTi|y>1u۸kx's^s4r;ؕ bUKR7c8VZc*1o&dΗesEf/kjC.|]y0rP֗g c!=.*jxU` `@EI` 8ttxP  t~@{{(ATNASHVILLE   RANDYL.HENSLEY,   8   ) B   0      8   ) K( ( H!#%P(*( XXKPlaintiff/Appellant,  )  AppealNo.  n    )  _01m-mAn-n01-9712-CH-00747_ 4  v.   ) J     )  DavidsonChancery `  TENNESSEEDEPARTMENT  )  No.97-2538_Ԅo1opIp_ v  OFCORRECTION,  )      ) Defendant/Appellee.  )      )  APPEALFROMTHECHANCERYCOURT̀FORDAVIDSONCOUNTYATNASHVILLE,TENNESSEETHEHONORABLEIRVINH.KILCREASE,JR.,CHANCELLOR  K( ( @H!#%P(( XKRANDYL.HENSLEY#099477NECXPOB5000MountainCity,Tennessee37683PROSEJOHNKNOXWALKUPAttorneyGeneralandReporterMICHAELE.MOORESolicitorGeneralMICHAELL.HAYNIEAssistantAttorneyGeneralCivilRightsandClaimsDivisionSecondFloor,CordellHullBuilding425FifthAvenueNorthNashville,Tennessee37243ATTORNEYSFORDEFENDANT/APPELLEE @$AFFIRMED ANDREMANDED  x4/, CONCUR:CANTRELL,J.t|a7DdXXd7  |a#d#    tKOCH,J. :L62 |a7DdXXd7  t|a#d#    t  PATRICIAJ.COTTRELL,JUDGEt|a 87d XXd8   t  #X,X֏#~XX,#~~#~~OPINION ,   #X,X~ ##X,XXX, #X,XXX, XX,H( ( @H!#%P(( XHThisappealinvolvesastateprisoner'schallengetohiscurrentand   continuedincarceration.Mr.Hensleycontendsthatheisentitledtothebenefitofthe1989SentencingReformActslessersentenceforrobberyarmedwithadeadlyweapon,ratherthanthesentenceoflifeimprisonment#ֶ #Ԁimposedatthetime   ofhisconvictionin1984.Healsocontendsheisentitled,asamatteroflaw,tocertainsentencereductioncredits.#ֶ#ԀFinally,hecontendsthat,takentogether,the  downwardadjustmentsofhissentenceonthebasisofthesetwocontentionswouldentitlehimtobeimmediatelyreleasedfrom_custody._ԀThetrialcourtgrantedtheDepartment_ofCorrection's_ԀmotiontodismisspursuanttoRule12.02(6)oftheTennesseeRulesofCivilProcedure.Weaffirmthedismissaloftheprisoner'spetitionbecauseitfailstostateaclaimuponwhichreliefcanbegranted.  I.    RandyHensleyisincarceratedintheNortheastCorrectionalCenterwherehewasorderedtoservelifeinprisonfortheoffenseofrobberybyuseofadeadlyweapon.ThisoffensewascommittedonAugust19,1984,andMr.HensleywassentencedonSeptember18,1984.OnMay9,1997,Mr.HensleyfiledaPetitionforDeclaratoryOrderwiththeTennesseeDepartmentofCorrection,askingtheDepartmenttoimmediatelyreleasehimonthebasisofaninterpretationofTenn.CodeAnn.391105andvariousstatutesrelatingtosentencereductioncredits.BeforetheDepartment,healsoraisedotherissuesnotraisedinhistrialorinthisappellateproceeding.TheDepartmentrefusedthedeclaratoryorderonJune27,1997.OnJuly30,1997,Mr.HensleyfiledaPetitionforJudicialReviewand/orPetitionforaDeclaratoryJudgmentand/orPetitionforCommonlawWritofCertiorariintheChanceryCourtofDavidsonCountyseekingjudicialreviewoftheDepartmentsdecision.  ThetrialcourtdismissedAppellantsclaimandgrantedaTenn.R.Civ.P.12.02(6)motionfiledonbehalfoftheDepartment.ThetrialcourtheldthatAppellantwasnotentitledtoadeclaratoryjudgmentreducinghissentence.Further,withregardtotheAppellantsclaimsundercommonlawwritof 9)5> certiorari,thetrialcourtfoundthattheAppellanthadallegednofactsindicatingtheDepartmentexceededitsjurisdictionoractedillegally. 8*4@ @-II.  WhentheAppellantcommittedtheoffenseofrobberybyuseofadeadlyweaponin1984,andwhenhewassentencedforthatoffenseonSeptember18,1984,  #  1      ׀robberybyuseofadeadlyweaponwasaClassXFelony f  underTenn.CodeAnn.391701etseq.(1982)[repealed].  In1989,theClassXFelonyActwasrepealedandreplacedbytheSentencingReformActof1989.Tenn.CodeAnn.4035101etseq.Appellantcontendsthathadhebeensentencedunderthe1989Actforthesameoffense,hissentencewouldhavebeensignificantlyshorterthanthesentenceheisnowserving.Hefurthercontendsthathissentenceshouldbereducedtothelowersentenceapplicableafter1989becauseofthecriminalsavingsstatute,Tenn.CodeAnn.391105   #  2      ׀(1982)[repealed],andbyvirtueoftheequal F protectionclauseoftheTennesseeConstitution.  _____In_Ԁ_dismissing_ԀMr.Hensleys_action,thetrialcourt___Ԁheldthatthecriminalsavingsstatutedidnotapplytosentencesalreadyimposedatthe_time_Ԁ_thestatute__wasenacted_Ԁwhichprovidedforalesserpenalty.Weagree.#77 # >   ThecriminalsavingsstatuteineffectwhenAppellantwassentencedanduntilNovemberof1989read:  Wheneveranypenalstatuteorpenallegislativeactofthestateisrepealedoramendedbyasubsequentlegislativeact,anyoffense,asdefinedbythestatuteoractbeingrepealedoramended,committedwhilesuchstatuteoractwasinfullforceandeffectshallbeprosecutedundertheactorstatuteineffectatthetimeofthecommissionoftheoffense.Intheeventthesubsequentactprovidesforalesserpenalty,anypunishmentimposedshallbeinaccordancewiththesubsequentact.  Tenn.CodeAnn.391105(1982).  Asstatedabove,atthetimeofMr.Hensley'soffense,robberybyuseofadeadlyweaponwasaClassXfelony.However,thelawwaschangedbytheCriminalSentencingReformActof1989suchthataggravatedrobbery(which 1-6 wouldincluderobberyusingadeadlyweapon)isnowaClassBfelony.Tenn.CodeAnn.3913402(1997).Mr.Hensleywassentencedtolifeimprisonmentandassertsthatunderthe1989Act,themaximumsentencehecouldreceiveforaggravatedrobberyistwentyfiveyears.  #  3       f  77  H( ( @H!#%P(( XHMr.Hensleymaintainsthatthecriminalsavingsstatutemandates  H downwardadjustmentofhissentencetothe1989Actsrelevantmaximumentitlinghimtoimmediaterelease.AstheCourtofCriminalAppealshasstated,"Thecriminalsavingsstatutehasneverbeeninterpretedtoapplytoconvictionsandsentenceswhichwerealreadyreceivedwhenasubsequentactoramendmentprovidedforalesserpenalty.Bytheirterms,theformerandpresentsavingsstatutesrelatetoactiveprosecutions,notpastcasesforwhichsentencesarebeingserved."#77!#77Stateexrel.Stewartv.McWherter,857S.W.2d875,877(Tenn.Crim. F App.1992),perm.toappealdenied(Tenn.1993).  ThecourtinStewartalsoaddressedtheequalprotectionchallenge j basedonArticleXI,8oftheTennesseeConstitutionraisedbyMr.Hensley,whichisthatheandthosesentencedpriortothe1989Actwerenottreatedequallytoidenticaloffenders(personsconvictedofarmedrobbery)whoweresentencedafterthe1989lawbecameeffective.TheStewartcourtnotedthata b" primarypurposeofthelegislatureinenactingthe1989SentencingActwastofightovercrowdingintheprisonsystembycreatingnewsentencingstandards.BylimitingtheActinapplicationtopersonsnotpreviouslysentenced,thelegislaturedeviseda"partialsolutiontoprisonovercrowdingwhileavoidingthereopeningofcasesinwhichpersonshadbeenvalidlysentencedpreviously."Id. <'", at877.Thecourtconcludedthatthe1989ActsurvivedequalprotectionscrutinybecausethepurposesfordistinguishingbetweenprisonerssentencedundertheActandthosesentencedunderpriorlaw satisfyacompellingstateinterestandthemeansusedaresuitablytailoredtoaccomplishthosepurposes._Id._Ԁat876. -(4 Thecourtfurthernotedtheinterestsserved:  #  4       /f*6   K+ ( @H!#%P(( XK[T]hereisalegitimatestateinterestatstakeinnotallowingthereopeningofavirtual_kpklPlandora's_ԀboxofallcasesinvolvingsentencesimposedbeforeNovember1,1989,butwhicharepresentlybeingservedbyconfinement,parole,orprobation.    Societyhasastronginterestinpreservingthefinalityofcriminallitigationresultinginaconvictionandsentencewhichwerevalidatthetimeoftheirimposition.Thewholesaleunsettlingoffinaljudgmentsofconvictionandsentencewhichwouldoccurifthe1989ActwereapplicableaspetitionerclaimsisapricethelegislaturewasjustifiedinnotpayingwhenitprovidedthattheActwouldnotapplytopreviouslysentenced_offenders...Society_Ԁisnotrequiredtoundergosuchadisruptionofitscriminaljusticesystem.  Id.at877(quotingStateexrel.Crumv.McWherter,1992WL99029(Tenn. p Crim.App.1992),perm.toappealdenied(Tenn.1992)).  Thus,Appellantscontinuedincarcerationunderhisoriginalsentencedoesnotviolatehisrighttoequalprotectionunderthelaw.BothofAppellantsargumentsregardinghisentitlementtoasentencecomparabletothe1989SentencingReformActssentenceshavebeenconsideredandrejectedbythis_Statesappellate__courts._Ԁ #77|$#/7ԀWilsonv.State,980S.W.2d196(Tenn.___App._Ԁ1998), , perm.toappealdenied(Tenn.1998);Smithv.State,1998WL75288(Tenn. w  Crim.App.1998);Stateexrel.Stewartv.McWherter,857S.W.2d875,877 "b  (Tenn.Crim.App.1992),perm.toappealdenied(Tenn.1993);Stateexrel. #" Crumv.McWherter,1992WL99029(Tenn.Crim.App.1992),perm.toappeal H% $ denied(Tenn.1992).#7/W1#77 &3"& ____@XX,III.__  Mr.Hensleyssecondissueinvolveshiseligibilityforvarioussentencereductioncredits.Thebasicfactsrelevanttoananalysisofhispositionarethathisoffensewascommittedandhewassentencedin1984,asaClassXoffender.  PriortoJuly1,1983thoseconvictedofClassXfelonieswerenot 1:-4 entitledtosentencereductionforgood,honor,incentiveorothersentencereductioncreditsofanysort.Tenn.CodeAnn.#773#391703(1982)[repealed]. B In1983,theGeneralAssemblyadoptedPublicChapter400,whichbecameeffectiveJuly1,1983.Inpertinentpart,Section3ofChapter400stated:8  Notwithstandingtheprovisionsofthischaptertothecontrary,apersonconvictedofaClassXfelonyshallbeeligibletoreceiveprisonerperformancesentencecreditsasprovidedinTenn.CodeAnn.4121230toreducetheexpirationdateofsuchpersonssentence.TheprovisionsofthissubsectionshallnotaffectthereleaseclassificationeligibilitydateofClassXoffenders.    Tenn.CodeAnn.4028301(I)(1983Supp.)[repealed].  SinceAppellantwasconvictedofacrimewhichwascommittedaftertheeffectivedateofChapter400,hewaseligible,asaClassXfelon,forthosecreditsavailablethroughTenn.CodeAnn.4121230,asitwasineffectatthetimeofPublicChapter400'senactment(PrisonerPerformanceSentenceCredits).In1985,theGeneralAssemblyrepealedthoseprovisionsthencodifiedatTenn.CodeAnn.4121212,214,228,229,and23077ԀandenactedTennessee J CodeAnn.#77;#77#77;#77Ԁ41-21-236(1997).1985Tenn.Pub.Actsch.512&14(_E.S._). ,  ThisprovisionallowedinmatesconvictedofClassXfeloniestoearnsentence n   reductioncreditsasfollows#77;#77: "P"  ' Anypersonwhocommittedafelony,includinganyClassXfelony,priortoDecember11,1985maybecomeeligibleforthesentencereductioncredits &"' authorizedbythissectionbysigningawrittenwaiverwaivinghisrighttoservehissentenceunderthelawineffectatthetimehiscrimewascommitted.However,sentencereductioncreditsauthorizedbythissectionmaybeawardedonlyforconductand/orperformancefromandafterthedateapersonbecomeseligibleunderthissection.  .Z).  \= 'N=#77=#77Tenn.CodeAnn.41-21-236(c)(3)(1990).(Emphasisadded.).#77?#77  TheDepartmentspositionisthatAppellantwasentitledtoearn 1-2 PrisonerPerformanceSentenceCredits,pursuanttoCh.400,Tenn.PublicActsof1983,whichcreditscouldreducethesentenceexpirationdate,notthereleaseeligibility_date._ԀTheDepartmentalsomaintainsthatAppellanthasbeeneligibletoearnPrisonerSentenceReductionCredits,pursuanttoTenn.CodeAnn.#77x@#77Ԁ41 7L3: 21236(c)(3),fromthetimeAppellantexecutedthewaiverrequiredbythe 94< statute.jjjj  #  5          Tenn.CodeAnn.#77}B#77Ԁ4121236(g)specificallyauthorizesthe B Departmenttocontinuetheapplicationofcertainpreviouslyenactedsentencecreditprogramstoanyinmatestowhomtheyappliedatthetimeofenactmentandwhodonotsignthewrittenwaiversprovidedforin#77C#77Ԁ4121236(c).  H   Thus,itappearsthattheDepartmentspositionisthatAppellantwaseligibletoearnthosesentencereductioncreditsdefinedandestablishedin#77CE#77former4121230,pursuanttoTenn.CodeAnn.#77JF#77Ԁ4028302(1983Supp.)   [repealed]fromhisincarcerationuntilhesigneda#77F#77Ԁ4121236(c)waiver.From @  thatpoint,AppellantwaseligibletoearnthecreditsavailableunderTenn.CodeAnn.#77kG#77Ԁ4121236.Thus,accordingtotheDepartment,Appellanthasbeen d eligibleforcertainsentencereductioncreditssincehisincarceration,butforonlyonekindofcreditatanytime.  Appellantappearstoarguethatheisentitledtoadditionalsentencereductioncreditsauthorizedbyotherstatutesand/orthatheisentitledtocumulativelyaccrueallpotentialcreditsforwhichhemayhavebeeneligibleatanytime.Appellantarguesthathe wasentitledtoearn,andshouldhavereceived,thefollowingsentencereductioncreditsatthesametimeand b" retroactively,asamatteroflaw.(Emphasisinoriginal.)PetitionforDeclaratory  D$ Order(T.R.10).AppellantarguesthatheisentitledtothesentencecreditsprovidedinT.C.A.#778H#77Ԁ4121212,214,228,229,and230. $h(   Mr.Hensleyseligibilityforsentencereductioncreditsdependsuponthelanguageofthestatutescreating,authorizing,ordefiningsuchcredits._Jones_ <'", v._Reynolds,_Ԁ1997WL367661,*3(Tenn.App.July2,1997).Areviewof ($. relevantstatutesasdiscussed_above_ԀdemonstratesthathewasnoteligibleasaClassXoffenderforthesentencereductioncreditsestablishedinanyofthestatuteshecites,exceptforTenn.CodeAnn.#77K#77Ԁ4121230and,afterthewaiver, -(4 4121236.#77N#77 /f*6   AppellantspositionthatheisentitledtoretroactiveapplicationofthesentencereductioncreditsinTenn.CodeAnn.#77O#77Ԁ4121212,214,228,and :2-: 229necessarilyalso_fail_Ԁsincehewasnevereligibleforthosecredits.Hisclaimofretroactiveapplicationofeligibilityforthe#77O#77Ԁ4121230creditsisanswered B bytheDepartmentspositionthathewaseligibleforsuchcreditsfromthedateofhisincarceration.  TotheextentAppellantsclaimscanbeconstruedasanargumentthatheisentitledtoboth#77Q#77Ԁ4121230and4121236creditsforanyperiodoftime,    Tenn.CodeAnn.#77qR#4121236(c)(3),quotedabove,clearlyprovidesforelection l  bytheprisoneroftheonetypeofcreditheprefers._See_Ԁ_Jones_Ԁv._Reynolds,_Ԁ1997   WL367661(Tenn.App.July2,1997).  TotheextentthatAppellantsclaimscanbeconstruedtoarguethat4121236shouldbeappliedretroactively,thatclaimmustalsofail.First,Appellantlistedthosestatuteswhichhearguedhewasentitledtohaveretroactivelyapplied,and4121236isnotamongthoselisted.Inaddition,asthiscourthaspreviouslyobservedinHendersonv.Lutche,938S.W.2d428 j (Tenn.App.1996),thereisapresumptionthatcourtsaretoapplystatutesprospectivelyunlessthereisaspecificstatutorydirectiverequiringcourtstoapplythemretrospectively.OurSupremeCourthasstated"intheabsenceoflegislativeintentoranecessaryinferencethatastatuteistohaveretroactiveforce,anactofthelegislatureistobegivenprospectiveeffectonlybythecourts."ElectricPowerBd.v.Woods,558S.W.2d821,825(Tenn.1977).Courts "& mustapplyastatuteprospectivelyintheabsenceof"themostclearandunequivocalexpression"tothecontrary.Hendersonv.Ford,488S.W.2d720, % * 721(Tenn.1972)(quotingJenningsv.Jennings,165Tenn.295,54S.W.2d961 <'", (1932)).Tenn.CodeAnn.41-21-236containsnosuch clearandunequivocalexpressionthatitistobeappliedretroactively,andthereisnothinginthestatutefromwhichwecaninferthattheGeneralAssemblyintendedittoapplyretroactively.Rather,aplainreadingofthestatuteclearlyindicatestheoppositeintention.Inparticular,4121236(c)(3),quotedabove,clearlystatesthemethodforapplying4121236topreviouslyconvictedClassXfelons.Itisprospectiveonly,andavailableonlyuponawrittenwaiver.Petitionerhasnorighttoeligibilityfor4121236'ssentencereductioncreditspriortosigningthewaiverandhasnobasisforclaimingretrospectiveapplicationpriorto4121236'senactment.  AppellanthasnotclaimedthattheDepartmenthasmiscalculatedhis 83B sentencereductioncredits.Rather,_hqisqrer_Ԁclaims_sares__ssthat_ԀtheDepartmenthasdeniedhimeligibilityforcertainkindsofcreditstowhich,heasserts,heisentitledasamatteroflaw.  Finally,Appellanthasraisedonappealanissuenotraisedinthetrialcourt.Thatissueiswhetherhewasfullyinformedofhis77Ԁ4121236(c)waiver  H optionand,therefore,whetherhiseligibilityforsentencereductioncreditsunder#77M^#4121236shouldbeginearlier.Itiswellsettledthatanissuecannotberaised l  forthefirsttimeonappeal.Irvinv.Binkley,577S.W.2d677,679(Tenn.App.   1979);StewartTitleGuitarCo.v.F.D.I.C.,936S.W.2d266,270271(Tenn @  App.1996).Thetrialcourtwasnotpresentedwiththisissueoranyfactualinformationnecessarytodeterminetheissue,andthisCourtcanonlyconsidersuchmattersaswerebroughttotheattentionofthetrialcourt.@RR-IV.  ThetrialcourtgrantedtheDepartmentofCorrection'smotiontodismisspursuanttoRule12.02oftheTennesseeRulesofCivilProcedure.ARule12.02motionadmitsthetruthofallrelevantandmaterialavermentscontainedinacomplaint,butassertsthatsuchfactsdonotconstituteacauseofaction.Onceatrialcourt'sgrantofaRule12.02(6)motionhasbeenappealed,theappellatecourtmust"takeallallegationsoffactintheplaintiff'scomplaintastrue,andreviewthelowercourts'legalconclusionsdenovowithnopresumptionofcorrectness."Steinv.DavidsonHotelCo.,945S.W.2d714,716 $h( (Tenn.1997)(citingTenn.R.App.P.13(d)andOwensv.TruckstopsofAmerica, % * 915S.W.2d420,424(Tenn.1996)).Mr.Hensleysclaimsarebasedsolelyonlegalarguments.Inlightoftheclearholdingsin_Stewart__v._Ԁ_McWherter,_ ($. Hendersonv.Lutche,andlatercasesconsideringthesameargumentsraised `*%0 hereinbyMr.Hensley,andinlightoftheclearlanguageofthestatutesinvolved,Mr.Hensleyspetitionfailstostateacauseofaction.  K( ( @H!#%P(( XK77ԀV. /f*6     WeholdthatneitherthecriminalsavingsstatutenortheTennesseeConstitutionmandatethatthe1989SentencingActberetroactivelyappliedtoMr.Hensleys1985sentence._ԀWefurtherholdthatMr.HensleyisnotentitledtoeligibilityforthestatutorilycreatedsentencereductioncreditsofTenn.Code  ^50> Ann.4121212,214,228,or229.Wethereforeaffirmthetrialcourt'sdismissalofthiscase,andremandthecaseforwhateverfurtherproceedingsmayberequired.ThecostsofthisappealshouldbetaxedtoMr.Hensley.0  0 T$ T$______________________________ T$T$ #77f#77    PATRICIAJ.COTTRELL,JUDGE  T    CONCUR:______________________________________BENH.CANTRELL,PRESIDINGJUDGE(M.S.)______________________________________#77i#WILLIAMC.KOCH,JUDGE