ÿWPCÜ …# VU:a %› 0(¡b Éw@Õ4 ) 0J8 0T‚ 0^Ö 0h4 0rœ 0| 0†Š 0 1u  0d U*y B)£ DCÌ AMú\v~VvÓÔ B§ D3Ä 0@÷ AO7Ɔ 0DL D/ B¿˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 ,†r‰AZ‹"Arial RegularX($¡¡- ù - ùúDûüýDþDÿÓ€ DÒ 3|x2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô  ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d7Border 1dd€-Cþÿ << Gÿÿ ðÝ ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€XÔÌÌJanuary€15€1997ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva Ò d%%%%'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££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€·ÏXXdædÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÞ ÞÌCARL€E.€JORDAN,à àà àà àà 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„9607„CH„00347ÌVS.à àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àDavidson€ChanceryÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àNo.€95„3201„IIIÌÙ€€ÙßR€ A1-j|+©` ç `€€@ÿRßTENNESSEE€BOARD€OF€PAROLES,à à)Ìet€al.,€à àà àà àà àà 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€ROBERT€S.€BRANDT,€CHANCELLORÌÌÌÌÌCARL€E.€JORDANÌ#91050ÌRiverbend€Maximum€Security€InstitutionÌ7475€Cockrill€Bend€Industrial€RoadÌNashville,€Tennessee€37209Ìà àPro€Se/Petitioner/AppellantÌÌCHARLES€W.€BURSONÌAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌÌPATRICIA€C.€KUSSMANNÌAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌ404€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌNashville,€Tennessee€37243Ìà àAttorney€for€Respondents/AppelleesÌÌÌÌÌà@ àAFFIRMED€AND€REMANDEDÌÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àBEN€H.€CANTRELL,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌTODD,€P.J.,€M.S.ÌKOCH,€J.ÌÇÓÓÓ  Óà@ àò òòòÔ€„ÔO€P€I€N€I€O€Nó óóóÔ€XÔÌÌà àà àAn€inmate€in€the€custody€of€the€Department€of€Correction€filed€aÏPetition€for€Writ€of€Certiorari€to€challenge€the€Parole€Boardððs€refusal€to€grant€himÏparole.€€The€Chancery€Court€dismissed€the€Petition€for€failure€to€comply€with€theÏtime€limitations€for€filing.€€We€affirm€the€dismissal€on€the€alternate€ground€of€failureÏto€state€a€claim€upon€which€relief€can€be€granted.€ÌÌà@ àò òIó ó.ÌÌà àà àOn€January€23,€1981,€Carl€E.€Jordan€pled€guilty€to€aggravated€rape,Ïarmed€robbery€and€second€degree€murder,€and€was€sentenced€to€threeÏconcurrent€forty€year€sentences.€€On€May€2,€1986,€the€Court€of€Criminal€AppealsÏvacated€the€guilty€plea,€because€it€found€that€the€trial€court€had€failed€to€fullyÏcomply€with€the€procedures€required€by€Tenn.R.Crim€P.€11(c)€to€determineÏwhether€a€guilty€plea€is€a€voluntary€and€knowing€one.€ÌÌà àà àOn€September€23,€1986,€Mr.€Jordan€again€pled€guilty€to€the€sameÏcrimes,€and€was€sentenced€to€three€concurrent€sentences€of€thirty„five€years.€€Mr.ÏJordan€became€eligible€for€parole€consideration,€and€a€hearing€was€conductedÍon€April€11,€1995.€€On€May€2,€1995,€parole€was€declined.€€The€Board€cited€highÏrisk€and€the€seriousness€of€his€offense€as€its€reasons€for€decline.ÌÌà àà àMr.€Jordan€followed€the€procedures€established€by€the€Parole€BoardÏto€apply€for€appellate€review€of€its€decisions.€€His€request€for€an€administrativeÏappeal€was€denied€on€August€24,€1995,€and€he€learned€of€the€decision€onÏSeptember€1,€1995.€€On€October€17,€1995,€Mr.€Jordan€filed€his€Petition€for€Writ€ofÏCertiorari€in€the€Chancery€Court€of€Davidson€County.€€The€state€filed€a€Motion€toÏDismiss€the€Petition€on€the€grounds€that€it€was€not€filed€within€the€jurisdictionalÏtime€limit€set€out€in€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€27„9„102,€and€that€the€nature€of€the€reviewÏsought€was€outside€the€scope€of€the€common€law€writ€of€certiorari.€€The€courtÏdismissed€the€petition€on€the€jurisdictional€ground.€€This€appeal€followed.ÌÌà@ àò òII.ó óÌÌà àà àTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€27„9„102€requires€that€a€Petition€for€Writ€ofÏCertiorari€be€filed€within€sixty€days€of€the€entry€of€the€order€or€judgmentÏcomplained€of.€€Failure€to€file€within€this€statutory€time€limit€deprives€the€trial€courtÏof€jurisdiction.€òò€Fairhaven€Corp.€v.€Tennessee€Health€Facilities€Commission,óó€566ÏS.W.2d€885,€887€(Tenn.€App.€1976).€€There€has€been€some€uncertainty€as€to€howÏthe€time€limit€is€to€be€applied€in€cases€involving€the€Tennessee€Parole€Board.€ÏThe€question€that€usually€arises€is€whether€the€sixty€day€limit€begins€at€the€time€ofÍthe€Parole€Boardððs€initial€decision,€or€if€it€is€tolled€until€administrative€appellateÏreview€is€exhausted.€€See€for€example,€òòFite€v.€State€of€Tennesseeóó,€Appeal€No.€01„A„01„9508„CH„00362€(Filed€Nashville,€February€28,€1996),òò€Sams€v.€Traughberóó,ÏAppeal€No.€01„A„01„9603„CH„00133€(Filed€Nashville,€August€14,€1996).ÌÌà àà àOn€March€6,€1996,€the€Western€Section€of€this€court€issued€anÏopinion€in€a€parole€revocation€action€that€held€that€the€time€limit€cannot€begin€toÏrun€until€the€decision€of€the€Parole€Board€becomes€final.€òòJennings€v.€Traughberóó,ÏAppeal€No.€01A01„9509„CH„00390.€If€a€prisoner€appeals€a€refusal€to€grant€himÏparole,€the€Boardððs€decision€does€not€become€final€until€the€Board€renders€aÏdecision€on€that€appeal.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„28„105(d).€€Thus,€if€consideredÏunder€the€rule€announced€in€òòJenningsóó,€the€appellantððs€petition€would€beÏconsidered€timely€because€it€was€filed€less€than€sixty€days€after€the€BoardÏrejected€his€appeal.ÌÌà àà àThe€State€argues€however,€that€the€courtððs€ruling€in€òòJennings€v.ÏTraughberóó€is€inapplicable€to€this€case,€because€it€was€issued€after€the€ChanceryÏCourt€dismissed€Mr.€Jordanððs€petition.€€This€is€certainly€a€valid€argument,€andÏmight€well€be€conclusive€if€the€òòJenningsóó€court€had€reversed€a€well„establishedÏrule.€However€because€of€the€uncertainty€of€the€law€prior€to€the€Jennings€opinion,Ïwe€decline€to€uphold€the€Chancery€Courtððs€dismissal€on€jurisdictional€grounds,Íand€instead€review€the€sufficiency€of€Mr.€Jordanððs€petition€under€the€requirementsÏof€the€writ.ÌÌà@ àò òIII.ó óÌÌà àà àAs€this€court€has€stated€many€times,€the€scope€of€a€Writ€of€CertiorariÏis€quite€limited:ÌÒ 0 ÒÒ „ ÒÒ 0 ÒÒ  ÒÓÓð ðIt€covers€only€an€inquiry€into€whether€the€Board€hasÏexceeded€its€jurisdiction€or€is€acting€illegally,€fraudulentlyÏor€arbitrarily.€€Conclusory€terms€such€as€ððarbitrary€andÏcapriciousðð€will€not€entitle€a€petitioner€to€the€writ.€€At€theÏrisk€of€oversimplification,€one€may€say€that€it€is€not€theÏcorrectness€of€the€decision€that€is€subject€to€judicialÏreview,€but€the€manner€in€which€the€decision€is€reached.ðð€ÌÒ € ÒÒ  ÒÒ € ÒÒ „ ÒÌòòPowell€v.€Parole€Eligibility€Review€Boardóó,€878€S.W.2d€871,€873€(Tenn.€App.Ï1994).ÌÓÓÌà àà àMr.€Jordanððs€Petition€states€in€several€places€that€the€BoardððsÏactions€in€his€case€were€unconstitutional€and€in€violation€of€law,€but€as€the€quotedÏpassage€above€indicates,€such€a€statement€does€not€entitle€him€to€the€writ€unlessÏit€can€be€supported€by€a€claim€of€some€substance.ÌÌà àà àMr.€Jordan€first€argues€that€he€has€a€constitutionally€protected€libertyÏinterest€in€parole.€€The€United€States€Supreme€Court€has€stated€that€a€prisonerÏhas€no€constitutional€right€to€be€released€prior€the€expiration€of€a€valid€sentence,Íbut€that€a€stateððs€parole€statutes€law€may€create€a€protected€liberty€interest.òò€ÏGreenholtz€v.€Inmates€of€the€Nebraska€Penal€and€Correctional€Complexóó,€442€U.S.Ï1,€99€S.€Ct.€2100€60€L.Ed€688€(1979).ÌÌà àà àMr.€Jordan€relies€upon€the€case€ofòò€Mayes€v.€Trammel,óó€751€F.2d€175Ï(6th€Cir.€1984)€wherein€the€Federal€appeals€court€found€that€the€TennesseeÏparole€scheme€as€it€then€existed,€created€a€liberty€entitlement€protected€by€dueÏprocess,€by€virtue€of€the€following€language,€found€in€Rule€1100„1„1„.06€of€theÏRules€of€Tennessee€Board€of€Paroles:ÌÒ 0 ÒÒ „ ÒÒ 0 ÒÒ ° ÒÓÓð ðThe€Board€operates€under€the€presumption€that€each€residentÏwho€is€eligible€for€parole€is€a€worthy€candidate€and€thus€theÏBoard€presumes€that€he€will€be€released€on€parole€when€he€isÏfirst€eligible.€Before€granting€or€denying€parole,€the€Board€shallÏapply€the€following€factors€to€each€eligible€resident€to€assist€it€inÏdetermining€whether€such€resident€will€live€and€remain€at€libertyÏwithoutviolating€the€law€or€the€conditions€of€his€parole.ððÌÒ € ÒÒ ° ÒÒ € ÒÒ „ ÒÌÓÓà àà àThe€Parole€Board€subsequently€amended€its€rules€to€eliminate€theÏfirst€sentence€of€the€above€paragraph,€and€the€appeals€court€recognized€that€theÏamended€rule€eliminated€the€constitutionally„protected€liberty€interest.òò€Wright€v.ÏTrammelóó,€810€F.2d€589,€591€(6th€Cir.€1987).€See€alsoòò€Wells€v.€Board€of€Parolesóó,Ï909€S.W.2d€826€(Tenn.€App.€1995).€€€€ÌÌà àà àThe€appellant€argues€that€since€he€committed€his€crimes€prior€to€theÏdecision€in€òòWright€v.€Trammelóó,€it€is€a€violation€of€the€protections€against€ex€postÍfacto€laws€to€deprive€him€of€the€benefits€of€the€prior€rule.€We€note€at€the€outset€thatÏòòWright€v.€Trammelóó€did€not€say€that€the€amended€rule€could€only€be€applied€toÏcrimes€committed€after€it€was€put€into€effect,€but€that€it€applied€to€parole€hearingsÏheld€after€its€effective€date€of€April€10,€1985.ÌÌà àà àIn€regard€to€the€ex€post€facto€argument,€the€appellant€mentions€twoÏcases€where€the€courts€have€said€that€changes€in€rules€relating€to€early€releaseÏwere€violations€of€ex€post€facto€prohibitions,€but€neither€case€is€on€point€with€theÏone€before€us.€€In€òòAkins€v.€Snowóó,€922€F.2d€1558€(Eleventh€Circuit€1991),€theÏfederal€appeals€court€ruled€that€the€Georgia€Board€of€Paroles€could€not€reduceÏthe€frequency€of€parole€hearings€from€annually€to€once€every€eight€years€forÏprisoners€who€were€sentenced€when€the€earlier€rule€was€in€effect.€€Inòò€Weaver€v.ÏGraham,óó€450€U.S.€24,€101€S.Ct.€960,€67€L.Ed.2d€17€(1981)€the€Supreme€CourtÏprohibited€the€Florida€Department€of€Corrections€from€reducing€the€amount€ofÏgood€time€and€honor€time€that€inmates€could€accumulate€each€month€below€theÏlevels€that€were€in€place€at€the€time€of€sentencing.€€ÌÌà àà àHowever€in€a€later€case€involving€frequency€of€parole€hearings,€theÏSupreme€Court€held€that€not€every€change€in€parole€rules€to€the€possibleÏdetriment€of€previously€convicted€offenders€can€be€considered€an€ex€post€factoÏviolation.€The€court€stated€that€the€question€was€the€degree€of€risk€that€the€changeÏwould€increase€the€measure€of€punishment€retroactively.€€If€it€can€be€consideredÍhighly€speculative€that€the€petitioner€would€be€released€earlier€because€of€theÏapplication€of€the€prior€rule€(as€it€does€in€the€present€case),€then€the€use€of€theÏlater€rule€would€not€violate€€the€ex€post€facto€prohibition.€€Seeòò€California€Dept.€OfÏCorrections€v.€Moralesóó,€514€U.S.€__,€115€S.Ct,€1597,€131€L.Ed€2d€588€(1995).€ÏSee€also€òòKaylor€v.€Bradleyóó,€912€S.W.2d€728€(Tenn.€App.€1995).€Ì€Ìà@ àò òIVó ó.ÌÌà àà àMr.€Jordan€also€contends€that€it€was€unlawful€to€deny€him€parole€onÏthe€ground€of€the€seriousness€of€his€offense,€and€that€it€was€likewise€unlawful€notÏto€supply€him€with€a€more€detailed€statement€of€the€Boardððs€reasons€for€itsÏactions,€and€of€the€facts€it€relied€upon€in€reaching€its€decision.€We€have€recentlyÏdealt€with€both€of€these€issues€in€some€detail,€so€we€will€only€briefly€respond€toÏthem€here.€ÌÌà àà àOne€of€the€factors€the€Board€is€statutorily€obligated€to€take€intoÏaccount€in€parole€decisions€is€the€seriousness€of€the€crime(s)€for€which€theÏprisoner€was€sentenced.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„503€states€that:ÌÒ 0 ÒÒ „ ÒÒ 0 ÒÒ  ÒÓÓà à(b)€Release€on€parole€is€a€privilege€and€not€a€right,Ïand€no€inmate€convicted€shall€be€granted€parole€if€theÏboard€finds€that:Ìà à(1)€€.€.€.Ìà à(2)€The€release€from€custody€at€the€time€wouldÏdepreciate€the€seriousness€of€the€crime€of€which€theÍdefendant€stands€convicted€or€promote€disrespect€for€theÏlaw.ÌÒ € ÒÒ  ÒÒ € ÒÒ „ ÒÓÓÌÌà àà àAlthough€some€federal€courts€have€criticized€the€use€of€theÏseriousness€of€the€crime€as€a€factor€in€parole€consideration,€the€TennesseeÏlegislature€is€persuaded€otherwise,€and€we€have€recently€upheld€the€right€of€theÏlegislature€to€require€the€Parole€Board€to€consider€that€factor.€See€òòSouth€v.€BoardÏof€Parolesóó,€Appeal€No.€01A„01„9609„CH„00393€(Filed€Nashville,€December€11,Ï1996).€ÌÌà àà àFurther,€although€some€jurisdictions€require€their€Parole€Boards€toÏfurnish€prisoners€with€a€detailed€statement€of€the€reasons€for€declining€parole,Ïsuch€is€not€the€case€in€Tennessee.€See€òòMosley€v.€Board€of€Parolesóó,€Appeal€No.Ï01„A„01„9604„CH„00162€(Filed€Nashville,€November€1,€1995).€ÌÌà@ àò òV.Ìó óÌà àà àMr.€Jordanððs€final€argument€is€that€the€Parole€Board€erred€inÏapplying€the€wrong€standard€for€reviewing€his€eligibility€for€release€as€a€sexualÏoffender.€Although€sex€offenders€were€treated€the€same€as€all€other€offenders€withÏregard€to€parole€eligibility€prior€to€1957,€our€legislature€has€since€passed€aÍnumber€of€statutes€for€the€purpose€of€preventing€the€release€of€sex€offendersÏwithout€some€sort€of€mental€health€evaluation€to€determine€whether€they€are€atÏrisk€for€offending€again.€See€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€40„28„116(a)(2),€40„35„503(4)(c)€and€(d).ÌÌà àà àAccording€to€Attorney€General€Opinion€90„10€(January€29,€1990)€theÏvariations€in€these€statutes€and€the€differences€in€the€dates€they€were€enactedÏrequire€the€application€of€slightly€different€standards€of€evaluation€before€a€sexÏoffender€can€be€released,€depending€on€the€date€of€his€crimes.€ÌÌà àà àMr.€Jordan€discusses€in€detail€the€various€statutes,€and€theÏcategories€they€have€created€among€sexual€offenders,€and€argues€that€the€wrongÏstandard€was€applied€to€him,€because€of€a€comment€written€by€the€hearingÏofficers€who€conducted€his€parole€hearing.€à àThe€comment,€which€is€found€in€aÏdocument€entitled€Notice€of€Board€Action,€states€ð ðPsychological€does€not€trackÏlanguage,ðð€and€was€apparently€meant€to€provide€another€reason€for€decliningÏparole.€€Putting€aside€for€a€moment€the€question€of€what€that€language€reallyÏmeans,€and€how€it€relates€to€the€categories€discussed€by€Mr.€Jordan,€we€note€thatÏthe€Board€modified€the€recommendations€of€the€hearing€officers€before€signing€offÏon€them,€and€eliminated€the€quoted€language.€According€to€the€final€notice€of€theÏBoardððs€action,€the€reasons€for€declining€€parole€to€Mr.€Jordan€were€high€risk€andÏthe€seriousness€of€his€offense.ÌÌà àà àSince€only€one€of€the€three€crimes€of€which€Mr.€Jordan€wasÏconvicted€can€be€considered€a€sexual€offense,€and€the€other€crimes€were€murderÏand€armed€robbery,€we€must€conclude€from€this€record€that€even€if€the€hearingÏofficers€erred€in€applying€the€wrong€sort€of€evaluation€standard€for€his€rapeÏconviction€(and€it€is€not€at€all€clear€that€they€did)€it€must€be€considered€harmlessÏerror,€in€light€of€subsequent€Board€action€and€the€seriousness€of€Mr.€JordanððsÏother€crimes.ÌÌò òÌà@ àVI.ó óÌÌà àà àWe€affirm€the€dismissal€of€Mr.€Jordanððs€petition,€on€the€ground€ofÏfailure€to€state€a€claim€upon€which€relief€can€be€granted.€€Remand€this€cause€toÏthe€Chancery€Court€of€Davidson€County€for€further€proceedings€consistent€withÏthis€opinion.€Tax€the€costs€on€appeal€to€the€appellant.€€€ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà à_____________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àBEN€H.€CANTRELL,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌÌ_______________________________ÌHENRY€F.€TODD,€PRESIDING€JUDGEÌMIDDLE€SECTIONÌÌÌÌÌ_______________________________ÌWILLIAM€C.€KOCH,€JR.,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌÇÑ  Ñà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àMIDDLE€SECTION€AT€NASHVILLEÌÌÌÌCARL€E.€JORDAN,à àà àà àà 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„9607„CH„00347ÌVS.à àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àDavidson€ChanceryÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àNo.€95„3201„IIIÌTENNESSEE€BOARD€OF€PAROLES,à à)Ìet€al.,€à àà àà àà àà à)à àAffirmedÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àandÌà àRespondents/Appellees.à àà à)à àRemandedÌÌÌà@ àò òòòÔ€¼ÔJ€U€D€G€M€E€N€Tó óóóÔ€XÔÌÌÌÓÓà àà àThis€cause€came€on€to€be€heard€upon€the€record€on€appeal€from€theÏChancery€Court€of€Davidson€County,€and€briefs€of€the€parties;€upon€considerationÏwhereof,€this€Court€is€of€the€opinion€that€in€the€decree€of€the€Chancellor€there€isÏno€reversible€error.Ìà àà àIn€accordance€with€the€opinion€of€the€Court€filed€herein,€it€is,Ïtherefore,€ordered€and€decreed€by€this€Court€that€the€decree€is€affirmed.€€TheÏcause€is€remanded€to€the€Chancery€Court€of€Davidson€County€for€theÏenforcement€of€the€decree€and€for€the€collection€of€the€costs€accrued€below.Ìà àà àCosts€of€this€appeal€are€taxed€against€Carl€E.€Jordan,€for€whichÏexecution€may€issue€if€necessary.Ìà àà àENTER€_______________________.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà à_________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àHENRY€F.€TODD,€PRESIDING€JUDGEÌà àà àà àà àà àà àMIDDLE€SECTIONÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà à_________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àBEN€H.€CANTRELL,€JUDGEÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà à_________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àWILLIAM€C.€KOCH,€JR.,€JUDGEÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà à