ÿWPC‘ …# VU:a %› 0(¡w@É4  b , L8 0l„ 0Dð 0J4 0T~ 0^Ò 0h0 0r˜ 0| 0†† 0 1uœ 0dU*uB)ŸDCÈ B  AM(øu»mv~(vÓ¦ D3y 0@¬ AOìÆ; 0D D/E Bt˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÈÚØÚÚØÈÚ0nLLÎ,†r‰AZ‹"Arial RegularX($¡¡ ÍDÎÏÐDÑDÒUÓDÔÕÓ€ßDÒ ù 3|xß- ù -C:\OFFICE\WPWIN\TEMPLATE\STANDARD.WPT((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d 7Border 1dd d€-!Cþÿ << Gÿÿ îÝ ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€XÔÌÌJune€11,€1997ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó ó ±Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÒ € ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€ôÔÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóIn€her€affidavit,€Faye€Claud,€the€Manager€of€Sentence€Information€Services€for€theÏDepartment€of€Correction€refers€to€the€petitioner€as€Jerome€S.€Barrett€aka€Abdullah€Jihad€AbdulÏJaami.€€Presumably€the€petitioner€changed€his€name€after€he€was€sentenced.€€€€ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva Ò""""'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÑ  ÑÒ € ÒÒ ° ÒÒ € ÒÒ „ ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ€ÑÑ7€÷ÀXXdædÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÞ ÞÌABDULLAH€JIHAD€ABDUL€JAAMI,à à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àPetitioner/Appellant,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àAppeal€No.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à à01„A„01„9609„CH„00425ÌVS.à àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àDavidson€ChanceryÌÙ€€ÙßR€#$!A1-j|³` ç `€€@ÿRßà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àNo.€95„3539„IIÌROBERT€CONLEY,€WARDEN,€et€al.,à à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àRespondents/Appellees.à àà à)ÌÌÌà@ àCOURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àMIDDLE€SECTION€AT€NASHVILLEÌÌÌAPPEALED€FROM€THE€CHANCERY€COURT€OF€DAVIDSON€COUNTYÌAT€NASHVILLE,€TENNESSEEÌÌTHE€HONORABLE€ELLEN€HOBBS€LYLE,€CHANCELLORÌÌÌÌÌÌABDULLAH€JIHAD€ABDUL€JAAMI,€#73179ÌLake€County€Regional€PrisonÌRoute€1,€Box€330ÌTiptonville,€Tennessee€38079Ìà àPro€Se/Plaintiff/AppellantÌÌJOHN€KNOX€WALKUPÌAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌÌPATRICIA€C.€KUSSMANNÌAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌ404€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌSuite€2000ÌNashville,€Tennessee€37243Ìà àAttorney€for€Defendant/AppelleeÌÌÌÌÌÌà@ àAFFIRMED€AND€REMANDEDÌÌÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àBEN€H.€CANTRELL,€JUDGEÌÌCONCUR:ÌTODD,€P.J.,€M.S.ÌKOCH,€J.ÌÇÓÓÓ  Óà@ àò òòòÔ€„ÔO€P€I€N€I€O€Nó óóóÔ€XÔÌÌà àà àA€prisoner€in€the€custody€of€the€Department€of€Correction€petitionedÏthe€chancery€court€for€a€Writ€of€Mandamus€to€compel€the€Department€to€changeÏhis€security€classification,€so€that€he€might€be€transferred€to€a€minimum€securityÏannex€or€to€a€community€corrections€center.€€The€chancellor€dismissed€theÏpetition.€€We€affirm.ÌÌà@ àò òI.ó óÌÌà àà àIn€1975,€the€petitioner€Abdullah€Jaami× ƒ% ××  ×€was€convicted€of€committingÏa€rape€while€on€parole€from€a€conviction€for€another€sexual€offense.€€He€receivedÏa€sentence€of€sixty€years,€with€parole€eligibility€after€completion€of€50%€of€hisÏsentence.€Mr.€Jaami€was€sent€to€the€Lake€County€Regional€Correctional€Facility,Ïwhere€he€has€been€ever€since.€€The€Department€of€Corrections€apparently€had€aÏpolicy€at€the€time€he€was€sentenced€that€allowed€all€inmates€to€be€considered€forÏminimum€custody€classification€if€they€were€within€ten€years€of€their€earliestÏrelease€date,€and€met€certain€other€conditions.ÌÌà àà àIn€June€of€1994,€the€above„mentioned€policy€was€changed.€€TheÏnew€policy€(Admin.€Pol.€&€Proc.€of€the€Dept.€Of€Correction€#404.07)€did€not€permitÏthe€transfer€of€sex€offenders€to€minimum€custody€until€they€were€within€ten€yearsÏof€the€expiration€of€their€sentences.€€Those€convicted€of€other€crimes€could€still€beÏconsidered€for€reclassification€if€they€were€within€ten€years€of€their€earliest€releaseÏdates.€€The€petitioner€claimed€that€his€scheduled€classification€review€wasÏdeliberately€delayed€until€the€new€policy€went€into€effect,€and€that€he€wasÏtherefore€unfairly€denied€the€possibility€of€being€granted€minimum€custody€statusÏand€placement.ÌÌà àà àOn€November€9,€1995,€Mr.€Jaami€filed€a€Petition€in€the€ChanceryÏCourt€of€Davidson€County€for€a€Writ€of€Mandamus,€for€a€Declaratory€Order,€and€forÏInjunctive€Relief.€€He€named€as€respondents€the€Warden€of€the€Lake€CountyÏRegional€Prison,€and€several€other€Department€of€Corrections€officers€andÏemployees,€including€the€Manager€of€its€Sentence€Information€Services,€theÏDirector€and€Assistant€Director€of€the€Departmentððs€Classification€Programs,€andÏtwo€counselors€at€the€Lake€County€facility.ÌÌà àà àThe€petition€asked€the€court€among€other€things€to€declare€theÏDepartmentððs€1994€policy€change€to€be€unconstitutional€because€lacking€aÏrational€basis,€and€to€order€the€respondents€to€conduct€an€immediateÏreclassification€which€would€take€into€account€his€unblemished€institutionalÍrecord.€€The€chancellor€dismissed€the€petition,€finding€the€policy€at€issue€not€to€beÏin€violation€of€any€constitutional€provision.€€The€chancellor€also€found€that€theÏinmateððs€classification€was€a€matter€of€internal€state€regulation,€and€that€the€courtÏwas€therefore€without€jurisdiction€to€hear€his€claim€for€declaratory€relief.€€ThisÏappeal€followed.ÌÌà@ àò òII.€€Constitutional€Issuesó óÌÌà àà àThe€appellant€has€designated€forty„seven€issues€on€appeal,€andÏgrouped€them€under€three€different€headings.€€In€order€to€eliminate€redundancy,Ïwe€will€treat€the€issues€under€a€slightly€different€organizational€scheme,€andÏconsolidate€them€into€Constitutional€issues€and€Jurisdictional€issues.€€First€we€willÏdeal€with€the€Constitutional€issues.ÌÌÌà@ àò òa.€The€Ex€Post€Facto€Argumentó ó€ÌÌà àà àThe€appellant€contends€that€the€Departmentððs€policy€isÏunconstitutional€as€it€applies€to€him€because€it€amounts€to€òòex€post€factoóóÏpunishment,€forbidden€under€both€the€U.S.and€Tennessee€Constitutions.€€In€theÏcase€of€òòWeaver€v.€Grahamóó,€450€U.S.€24,€28,€101€S.Ct.€960,€964,€67€L.Ed€2d€17,Ï22€(1991)€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€said€ð ð[t]he€ex€post€facto€provisionÍforbids€the€Congress€and€the€State€to€enact€any€law€which€imposes€a€punishmentÏfor€an€act€which€was€not€punishable€at€the€time€it€was€committed;€or€imposes€anÏadditional€punishment€to€that€then€prescribed.ðð€€The€Tennessee€Supreme€CourtÏhas€defined€one€type€of€òòex€post€factoóó€law€as€that€which€ð ðchanges€punishment€orÏinflicts€a€greater€punishment€than€the€law€annexed€to€the€crime€when€committed.ðð€òòÏMiller€v.€State,óó€584€S.W.2d€758,€761€(1979).€€Since€the€length€of€Mr.€JaamiððsÏsentence€was€unchanged€by€the€new€regulation,€the€chancellor€concluded€that€itÏcould€not€be€considered€an€òòex€post€factoóó€law.ÌÌà àà àThe€relevant€case€law€appears€to€support€the€chancellorððsÏreasoning.€Eligibility€for€parole€consideration,€for€example,€is€normally€part€of€theÏlaw€annexed€to€the€crime€when€committed,€and€thus€a€change€of€parole€eligibilityÏstandards€to€the€possible€detriment€of€prisoners€sentenced€under€the€earlier€lawÏmay€implicate€òòex€post€factoóó€concerns.€€See€òòKaylor€v.€Bradleyóó,€912€S.W.2d€728Ï(Tenn.€App.€1995).€€But€also€see€òòCalifornia€Dept€of€Corrections€v.€Morales,óó€___ÏU.S.€___,€115€S.€Ct.€1597,€131€L.Ed.2d€588€(1995).ÌÌà àà àIn€the€òòWeaveróó€case,€mentioned€above,€the€United€States€SupremeÏCourt€held€that€a€Florida€law€which€decreased€the€rate€at€which€a€prisoner€couldÏearn€good€time€credits,€and€which€was€enacted€after€his€conviction,€constituted€anòòÏex€post€factoóó€violation€as€to€him,€because€it€effectively€extended€the€length€of€hisÏsentence.€450€U.S.€at€33,€101€S.Ct.€At€967,€67€L.Ed.2d€at€26.ÌÌà àà àThough€regulations€for€the€classification€of€prisoners€normally€takeÏinto€account€the€inmateððs€crime€and€sentence,€their€primary€purpose€is€notÏpunishment,€but€security.€€We€do€not€therefore€believe€that€such€regulations€areÏð ðpart€of€the€law€annexed€to€the€crime€when€committed.ðð€€There€appears€to€be€noÏTennessee€case€where€a€change€in€the€security€classification€of€a€prisoner€hasÏbeen€found€to€be€in€violation€of€theòò€ex€post€facto€óóprohibition.€€The€need€forÏcorrectional€officials€to€remain€in€control€of€their€institutions€may€explain€thatÏnegative€result.ÌÒ 0 ÒÒ „ ÒÒ 0 ÒÒ  ÒÓÓð ðA€state€prison€inmate€has€no€right€to€a€particularÏclassification€under€state€law,€and€prison€officials€mustÏhave€broad€discretion,€free€from€judicial€intervention,€inÏclassifying€prisoners€in€terms€of€their€custodial€status.ðð€€ÌÌÒ € ÒÒ  ÒÒ € ÒÒ „ Ò60€Am.Jur.€2dòò€Penal€and€Correctional€Institutions€óóðð€34€(1979).ÌÓÓÌÌà àà àThough€the€ð ðbroad€discretion,ðð€referred€to€above€cannot€meanÏunlimited€discretion,€we€conclude€that€no€òòex€post€factoóó€violation€has€resulted€fromÏthe€departmentððs€decision€to€make€a€change€in€the€regulations€for€the€securityÏclassifications€of€sex€offenders.€ÌÌà@ àò òb.€Equal€Protectionó óÌÌà àà àThe€appellant€also€contends€that€the€change€of€regulation€treats€sexÏoffenders€differently€from€other€offenders,€makes€inequitable€distinctions€betweenÏtwo€different€classes€of€sex€offender,€and€lacks€a€rational€basis.€€We€do€notÏbelieve,€however,€that€Mr.€Jaami€has€stated€a€constitutional€claim€under€the€equalÏprotection€clause€of€the€Fourteenth€Amendment.ÌÌà àà àThe€equal€protection€clause€requires€that€persons€similarly€situatedÏreceive€the€same€treatment€under€the€law.€€Laws€classifying€individuals€forÏdisparate€treatment€will€be€upheld€if€they€can€be€shown€to€be€ð ðrationally€related€toÏa€legitimate€state€interestðð€unless€they€affect€a€fundamental€constitutional€right,€orÏcreate€a€classification€based€upon€ð ðinherently€suspect€distinctions€such€as€race,Ïreligion€or€alienage.ðð€òò€New€Orleans€v.€Dukesóó,€427€U.S.€297,€303,€96€S.Ct.€2513,Ï49€L.Ed.2d€511€(1976).€ÌÌà àà àThe€appellant€has€not€shown€that€he€has€been€deprived€of€aÏfundamental€constitutional€right,€nor€that€he€has€been€treated€as€a€member€of€anyÏsuspect€class.€€Treating€prisoners€differently€based€on€their€offenses€does€notÏviolate€the€equal€protection€clause€if€the€treatment€is€related€to€a€legitimate€stateÏinterest.€As€the€trial€court€observed,ÌÒ € ÒÒ  ÒÓÓÒ 0 ÒÒ  Òð ðIt€was€the€obvious€judgment€of€the€legislature€and€theÏDepartment€of€Corrections€that€sex€offenders,€especiallyÏsex€offenders€who€commited€more€serious€crimes€andÏhave€more€than€ten€years€remaining€on€their€sentence,Íare€more€likely€to€be€a€security€threat.€€As€a€result,€suchÏoffenders€are€only€eligible€for€minimum€security€if€theyÏmeet€several€additional€criteria€enunciated€by€the€Board.€ÏThis€concern€about€the€additional€risk€posed€by€seriousÏsex€offenders€such€as€the€petitioner€is€reasonable,€and€theÏsteps€taken€to€protect€against€this€risk€is€(sic)€clearlyÏsupported€by€a€rational€basis€in€fact.ðð€€€ÌÌÌÌÒ € ÒÒ  ÒÒ € ÒÒ „ ÒÓÓà àà àAs€for€the€alleged€distinction€between€those€sentenced€under€theÏharsher€provisions€of€the€earlier€law,€and€those€sentenced€later,€the€disputedÏregulation€is€applied€to€all€sex€offenders€in€the€same€manner,€so€it€would€notÏseem€to€be€susceptible€to€an€equal€protection€challenge€at€all.€€However€Mr.ÏJaami€contends€that€the€regulation€has€a€disparate€effect€on€the€two€classes€ofÏsexual€offender,€and€we€will€concede,€for€the€sake€of€argument,€that€this€createsÏequal€protection€concerns.ÌÌà àà àHowever€the€challenged€regulation€will€pass€constitutional€muster€ifÏit€can€be€shown€to€have€a€rational€relationship€to€any€legitimate€state€interest.€€Mr.ÏJaamiððs€argument€is€that€there€can€be€no€rational€reason€for€linking€the€eligibilityÏof€sexual€offenders€for€minimum€security€placement€to€the€expiration€dates€of€theirÏsentences€rather€than€to€their€release€eligibility€dates.ÌÌà àà àHe€claims€that€under€the€regulation,€prisoners€like€himself€whoÏreceived€longer€sentences€under€the€prior€law€than€would€be€possible€for€thoseÍlater€convicted€of€the€same€offenses€become€eligible€for€relaxation€in€theÏconditions€of€their€confinement€later€than€do€more€recent€offenders.€€He€arguesÏthat€the€more€recent€offenders€pose€the€greater€security€risk,€because€they€haveÏnot€yet€had€enough€time€to€reflect€on€the€wrongfulness€of€their€acts,€or€to€proveÏthat€they€can€abide€by€the€terms€of€their€punishment.ÌÌà àà àHis€analysis€may€well€be€correct,€but€we€cannot€conclusively€stateÏthat€it€is,€nor€can€we€state€that€the€regulation€has€no€rational€basis.€It€appears€to€usÏthat€its€purpose€is€to€protect€the€public,€and€its€effect€is€to€keep€all€those€convictedÏof€sexual€crimes€confined€for€a€longer€period€under€conditions€of€rigorousÏsecurity,€regardless€of€the€lengths€of€their€sentences.ÌÌà àà àIt€is€possible€that€a€regulation€that€calls€for€a€more€particularizedÏinquiry€into€the€circumstances€and€institutional€record€of€each€individual€offenderÏwould€serve€the€same€purpose,€and€would€lead€to€a€more€equitable€result€forÏthose€sentenced€under€the€prior€law.€But€a€regulation€or€statute€is€not€deemed€toÏbe€irrational€just€because€a€more€precisely€focused€one€could€have€been€drafted.ÏSee€òòMassachusetts€Board€of€Retirement€v.€Murgiaóó,€(Marshall,€J.,€dissenting)€427ÏU.S.€307,€316,€96€S.Ct.€2562,€49€L.Ed.2d€520€(1976).€€We€therefore€believe€thatÏMr.€Jaamiððs€equal€protection€argument€must€also€fail.€Ìà àà àà àÌÌÌà@ àò òIII.€Jurisdictional€Issuesó óÌà àà àThe€trial€court€dismissed€that€portion€of€the€appellantððs€petition€thatÏasked€for€a€declaratory€judgment€under€the€Uniform€Administrative€ProceduresÏAct€(UAPA),€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€4„5„322(h).€€The€court€held€that€it€did€not€haveÏjurisdiction€to€review€the€regulation€in€question€because€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€4„5„102(10)(A)€excludes€from€the€provisions€of€the€UAPA€ð ð[s]tatements€concerningÏonly€the€internal€management€of€state€government€and€not€affecting€private€rights,Ïprivileges,€or€procedures€available€to€the€public.ðð€€€ÌÌà àà àThe€chancellor€also€found€there€to€be€no€evidence€that€the€petitionerÏhad€first€sought€a€declaratory€order€from€the€Department€of€Correction€or€that€heÏexhausted€his€administrative€remedies,€as€would€be€required€under€the€UAPA.€€InÏhis€reply€brief,€Mr.€Jaami€has€submitted€as€exhibits€ten€unauthenticatedÏdocuments,€which€appear€to€show€a€lengthy€course€of€administrative€appeals€onÏthe€same€questions€that€he€raised€in€his€petition.ÌÌà àà àHowever€in€view€of€our€finding€that€none€of€Mr.€Jaamiððs€theoriesÏentitle€him€to€relief,€and€our€belief€that€the€trial€court€was€correct€in€holding€thatÏregulations€for€the€classification€of€prisoners€do€not€fall€within€the€ambit€of€theÏUAPA,€we€pretermit€the€question€of€whether€Mr.€Jaami€exhausted€hisÏadministrative€remedies€before€filing€his€petition.€Ìà@ àò òIV.ó óÌà àà àThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.€€Remand€this€cause€to€theÏChancery€Court€of€Davidson€County€for€further€proceedings€consistent€with€thisÏopinion.€€Tax€the€costs€on€appeal€to€the€appellant.ÌÌÓÓÌà àà àà àà àà àà à_________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àBEN€H.€CANTRELL,€JUDGEÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌÌ_______________________________ÌHENRY€F.€TODD,€PRESIDING€JUDGEÌMIDDLE€SECTIONÌÌÌÌÌ_______________________________ÌWILLIAM€C.€KOCH,€JR.,€JUDGEÌÌÇÑ  ÑÌà àà àà àà àà àà à