ÿWPCµ …# VU:a %› 0(¡b ÉwÕ å4í 0J 0TZ 0^® 0h 0rt 0|æ 0†b 0è 1ux 0dí U*Q B){ DC¤ AMç û4v~/vÓ­ B€ D3 0@Ð AOÆ_ 0D% D/i B˜˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 ,†r‰AZ‹"Arial RegularX($¡¡- ù -Ó€  #DÒ 3|x 2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô  ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d7Border 1dd€-Cþÿ << Gÿÿ ñÝ ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€XÔÌÌNovember€1,€1996ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Geneva ÒÒ  BA Op Geneva Ò d%%%%'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÒ € ÒÒ „ ÒÑ  ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ€ÑÑ7€gïXXdædÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑKEVIN€RYAN€MOSLEY,à 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„9604„CH„00162ÌVS.à àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àDavidson€ChanceryÌÙ€€ÙßL€ !;+'h|æ²` ç `€€Lßà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àNo.€95„3185„IÌTENNESSEE€BOARD€OF€PAROLES,à à)Ìet€al.,à àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àRespondent/Appellee.à àà à)ÌÌÌà@ àCOURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àMIDDLE€SECTION€AT€NASHVILLEÌÌÌAPPEALED€FROM€THE€CHANCERY€COURT€OF€DAVIDSON€COUNTYÌAT€NASHVILLE,€TENNESSEEÌÌTHE€HONORABLE€IRVIN€H.€KILCREASE,€JR.,€CHANCELLORÌÌÌÌÌÌKEVIN€RYAN€MOSLEYÌN.C.S.C.€134663Ì7466€Centennial€BoulevardÌNashville,€Tennessee€37209„1052Ìà àPro€Se/Petitioner/AppellantÌÌCHARLES€W.€BURSONÌAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌÌPATRICIA€C.€KUSSMANNÌAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌ404€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌSuite€2000ÌNashville,€Tennessee€37243Ìà àAttorney€for€Respondent/AppelleeÌÌÌÌÌÌà@ àAFFIRMED€AND€REMANDEDÌÌÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àBEN€H.€CANTRELL,€JUDGEÌÌCONCUR:ÌTODD,€P.J.,€M.S.ÌKOCH,€J.ÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓà@ àò òòòÔ€„ÔO€P€I€N€I€O€Nó óóóÔ€XÔÌÌà àà àKevin€Mosley,€a€prisoner€in€the€custody€of€the€Department€ofÏCorrection,€was€twice€considered€for€parole.€€On€each€occasion€the€Parole€BoardÏdeclined€to€release€him,€citing€as€its€reason€the€seriousness€of€his€offense.€€Mr.ÏMosley€filed€a€Petition€for€Certiorari€with€the€Chancery€Court€of€Davidson€County,Ïcontending€that€he€was€entitled€to€a€more€definite€statement€of€the€Parole€BoardððsÏreasons.€€The€prisoner€also€argued€that€the€Board€erred€in€failing€to€consider€theÏresults€of€a€psychological€study€it€had€ordered.€€The€Chancery€Court€dismissedÏthe€petition.€€We€affirm€the€trial€court.ÌÌà@ àò òI.ó óÌÌà àà àThe€appellant€was€convicted€of€burglary€and€aggravated€robberyÏand€was€sentenced€to€fifteen€years,€with€eligibility€for€parole€after€he€had€servedÏ30%€of€his€sentence.€€On€May€19,€1993€he€was€granted€his€first€parole€hearing.€ÏThe€Board€of€Paroles€denied€him€parole€because€of€the€seriousness€of€hisÏoffense,€and€scheduled€the€next€parole€hearing€for€May€1995.€€However,€in€MayÏ1995€the€Board€continued€the€hearing€in€order€to€obtain€a€psychologicalÏevaluation€of€the€prisoner.€ÌÌà àà àAccording€to€Mr.€Mosley,€he€has€been€a€model€prisoner,€and€he€hadÏbeen€told€that€a€positive€prognosis€by€the€psychologist€would€be€the€decisiveÏfactor€as€to€the€grant€or€denial€of€parole.€€The€Board„appointed€examiningÏpsychologist€allegedly€determined€that€no€further€psychological€counseling€wasÏneeded€in€order€for€him€to€be€released€on€parole.€€However€on€September€15,Ï1995,€the€Board€denied€him€parole.€€Apparently€the€Board€used€the€standard€formÏto€report€its€action,€simply€entering€the€initials€ð ðSOðð€on€the€form€to€indicate€that€theÏreason€for€declining€Mr.€Mosley€was€the€seriousness€of€his€offense.ÌÌà àà àMr.€Mosley€submitted€a€Petition€for€Certiorari€to€the€Chancery€CourtÏof€Davidson€County,€arguing€that€the€Board€of€Paroles€had€denied€him€dueÏprocess,€and€had€acted€in€an€arbitrary€and€capricious€manner€by€using€aÏboilerplate€reason€to€deny€him€parole€without€offering€any€further€explanation,Ïand€by€ignoring€the€results€of€the€psychological€evaluation€that€the€Board€itselfÍhad€ordered.€€The€Chancery€Court€dismissed€the€petition€for€failure€to€state€aÏclaim€upon€which€relief€can€be€granted.€This€appeal€followed.ÌÌà@ àò òII.ó óÌÌà àà àWe€begin,€as€we€must,€with€the€observation€that€the€avenues€ofÏredress€available€to€a€prisoner€who€believes€that€the€Board€of€Paroles€has€erredÏin€declining€to€grant€him€parole€are€very€limited.ÌÌà àà àThe€United€States€Supreme€Court€has€ruled€that€a€prisoner€has€noÏright€under€the€United€States€Constitution€to€be€released€on€parole€prior€to€theÏexpiration€of€a€valid€sentence.€òò€Greenholtz€v.€Inmates€of€the€Nebraska€Penal€andÏCorrection€Complexóó,€442€U.S.€1,€99€S.Ct.€2100,€2104,€60€L.Ed.2d€668€(1979)Ï(Marshall€J.,€dissenting).€€The€Tennessee€parole€statute,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„503(b)€states€in€part€that€ð ð[r]elease€on€parole€is€a€privilege€and€not€a€right.ððÌ€Ìà àà àIn€Tennessee,€the€grant€of€parole€is€a€discretionary€matter€vestedÏexclusively€in€the€Board€of€Paroles.€òò€Doyle€v.€Hamptonóó,€207€Tenn.€399,€340ÏS.W.2d€891€(1960).€€Also,€decisions€of€the€Board€of€Paroles,€unlike€those€of€mostÏother€administrative€agencies,€are€not€subject€to€judicial€review€under€theÏAdministrative€Procedures€Act.€€See€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€€4„5„106(c).€ÌÌà àà àHowever€we€have€previously€held€that€the€Board€of€Paroles€is€notÏtotally€immune€from€judicial€scrutiny.€€See€òòPowell€v.€Parole€Eligibility€ReviewÏBoard,óó€879€S.W.2d€871€(Tenn.App.€1994).€€While€the€intrinsic€correctness€of€theÏBoardððs€decisions€is€beyond€the€scope€of€judicial€review,€a€Writ€of€Certiorari€givesÏthe€court€the€right€of€inquiry€into€the€question€of€whether€the€Board€is€exceedingÏits€authority,€or€is€acting€illegally,€fraudulently€or€arbitrarily.€€879€S.W.2d€at€873.€ÌÌà@ àò òIII.ó óÌÌà àà àThe€appellant€has€submitted€a€well„written€pro„se€brief€in€which€heÏcorrectly€acknowledges€the€inherent€limitations€of€any€challenge€to€the€actions€ofÏthe€Board€of€Paroles.€€However,€he€insists€that€his€rights€to€due€process€entitleÏhim€to€receive€a€more€definite€statement€of€the€reasons€for€the€parole€boardððsÏdecision€to€decline€to€grant€him€parole,€and€of€the€evidence€the€board€reliedÏupon.ÌÌà àà àIn€support€of€this€proposition,€Mr.€Mosley€cites€numerous€cases€fromÏdifferent€federal€jurisdictions,€where€the€courts€have€said€that€such€a€statementÏwas€a€component€of€minimum€due€process€in€parole€decisions.€€All€of€the€casesÏcited€by€Mr.€Mosley€precede€the€òòGreenholtz€óócase,€supra,€which€established€thatÏdeterminations€concerning€release€on€parole€do€not€directly€implicate€any€dueÏprocess€rights€under€the€United€States€Constitution,€but€are€matters€properly€to€beÍdecided€on€the€basis€of€the€law€of€the€jurisdiction€in€which€they€arise.€€No€casesÏare€cited€which€address€the€question€of€whether€a€petitioner€is€entitled€to€suchÏrelief€under€Tennessee€law.ÌÌà àà àFor€example,€the€appellant€quotes€extensively€fromòò€Wagner€v.ÏGilligan,óó€425€F.Supp.€1320€(1979),€an€opinion€involving€the€Ohio€parole€statutes.€ÏA€portion€of€the€quoted€language€is€reproduced€below:€ÌÒ 0 ÒÒ  ÒÓÓð ðIt€is€obvious€that€the€Authorityððs€standardized€reasons€forÏdenying€parole€provides€no€means€by€which€the€inmate€orÏa€reviewing€body€can€ascertain€whether€the€AuthorityððsÏdecision€was€rationally€based€on€correct€facts€or€any€factsÏpeculiar€to€the€inmate.€.€.€.€€The€Court€finds€that€theÏAuthority€must€provide€each€inmate€with€the€grounds€forÏdenial€of€his€parole€and€the€essential€facts€from€which€theÏAuthority€drew€the€inferences€that€led€to€its€decision.ððÌÌÒ € ÒÒ „ Ò425€F.Supp€at€1325.€ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àà àHowever€the€Sixth€Circuit€Court€of€Appeals€reversed€the€OhioÏDistrict€Courtððs€decision,€in€accordance€with€the€òòGreenholtz€óóopinion,€supra,€whichÏwas€issued€while€òòWagner€v.€Gilliganóó€was€on€appeal.€€See€òòWagner€v.€Gilligan,óó€609ÏF.2d€867€(1979).€€Mr.€Mosley€insists,€however,€that€only€some€aspects€of€theÏDistrict€Courtððs€opinion€were€reversed€by€the€Sixth€Circuit,€and€that€ð ða€fair€readingÏof€òòGreenholtz,óó€infra,€does€not€hold€that€the€parole€board€may€deny€parole€simplyÏon€no€reason,€or€by€simply€checking€a€form€and€stating€that€parole€has€beenÏdenied.ððÌÌà àà àWe€believe,€however,€that€the€Sixth€Circuit€issued€a€blanket€reversalÏof€the€lower€courtððs€holdings€inòò€Wagner€v.€Gilliganóó,€and€we€do€not€see€anything€inÏòòGreenholtzóó€that€prevents€a€State€from€allowing€its€parole€board€to€notify€an€inmateÏof€its€actions€by€checking€a€box€or€entering€a€few€characters€into€a€pre„printedÏform€to€indicate€its€reason€for€declining€parole.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€òòGreenholtzóó€court€determined€that€the€creation€of€a€system€ofÏparole€does€not€create€a€constitutionally€protected€liberty€interest€in€early€releaseÏon€the€basis€of€an€inmateððs€hope€or€expectation€of€parole,€unless€the€paroleÏstatute€is€drafted€in€such€a€way€as€to€give€rise€to€such€an€interest.€€Due€processÏrights€in€parole€determination€proceedings€are€likewise€derived€from€the€paroleÏstatutes€and€rules€themselves,€and€not€directly€from€the€Fifth€and€FourteenthÏAmendments€to€the€United€States€Constitution.ÌÌà àà àHaving€identified€the€source€of€any€rights€the€Nebraska€prisonersÏmight€have€had€in€relation€to€parole€decisions,€the€High€Court€proceeded€toÏexamine€the€argument€that€the€inmates€had€been€deprived€of€due€process,€in€lightÏof€Nebraskaððs€parole€statute.€€The€Court€found€that€the€statute,€as€drafted,€didÏcreate€an€expectancy€of€release€that€was€entitled€to€some€measure€ofÏconstitutional€protection,€but€also€concluded€that€:ÌÒ 0 ÒÒ  ÒÓÓð ð[W]e€find€nothing€in€the€due€process€concepts€as€theyÏhave€thus€far€evolved€that€requires€the€Parole€Board€toÏspecify€the€particular€ððevidenceðð€in€the€inmateððs€file€or€atÏhis€interview€on€which€it€rests€the€discretionaryÏdetermination€that€an€inmate€is€not€ready€for€conditionalÏrelease.€.€.€.€€To€require€the€parole€authority€to€provide€aÏsummary€of€the€evidence€would€tend€to€convert€theÏprocess€into€an€adversary€proceeding€and€to€equate€theÏBoardððs€parole€release€determination€with€a€guiltÏdetermination.€.€.€.ððÌÌÒ € ÒÒ „ Ò442€U.S.€at€15„16,€99€S.Ct.€at€2108,€60€L.Ed.2d€at€680„81.€ÌÓÓÌà@ àò òIV.ó óÌÌà àà àOf€course,€the€Supreme€Courtððs€interpretation€of€Nebraska€law€doesÏnot€relieve€us€of€the€obligation€to€determine€whether€Mr.€Mosley€has€received€allÏthe€process€to€which€he€is€entitled€under€Tennessee€law.€€However€we€must€firstÏnote€that€our€courts€have€determined€that€current€Tennessee€law€does€not€createÏa€protected€liberty€interest€in€parole.€òò€Wright€v.€Trammelóó,€810€F.2d€589€(6th€Cir.Ï1987),òò€Wells€v.€Board€of€Paroles,óó€909€S.W.2d€826€(Tenn.€App.€1995).ÌÌà àà àSecondly,€the€Board€of€Paroles€is€statutorily€authorized€to€denyÏparole€if€release€would€depreciate€the€seriousness€of€the€offense.€€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð€40„35„503.€€The€Board€has€accordingly€incorporated€this€provision€into€itsÏcriteria€for€granting€or€declining€parole.€€Rules€of€the€Board€of€Paroles€No.€1100„1„1„.06(3)(b).ÌÌà àà àAlthough€we€have€no€way€of€knowing€on€the€basis€of€this€record€theÏdetails€of€Mr.€Mosleyððs€offenses,€it€would€be€belaboring€the€obvious€to€state€thatÏaggravated€robbery€and€burglary€are€both€serious€offenses.€€We€also€find€nothingÏtroubling€in€the€concept€that€the€Board€might€use€that€same€reason€to€declineÏparole€twice€in€succession,€even€though€paroling€a€prisoner€after€his€secondÏhearing€might€depreciate€the€seriousness€of€his€offense€less€than€paroling€him€atÏthe€first€opportunity€would.ÌÌà àà àAs€for€Mr.€Moselyððs€argument€that€without€a€more€definite€statementÏof€the€reasons€for€decline,€he€has€no€way€of€knowing€how€to€conform€his€conductÏto€the€requirements€of€the€Board,€we€can€only€conclude€that€if€he€is€indeed€aÏmodel€prisoner€he€already€knows€what€is€required,€but€that€the€passage€ofÏadditional€time€may€also€be€necessary,€in€order€not€to€minimize€the€gravity€of€hisÏcrimes.€€ÌÌà@ àò òV.ó óÌÌà àà àMr.€Mosely€also€objects€to€the€apparent€failure€of€the€Parole€Board€toÏgive€consideration€to€the€favorable€report€of€the€psychologist€regarding€his€mentalÏstate.€€The€psychologistððs€report€is€not€found€in€the€record.€€However,€evenÏgranting€that€it€is€as€favorable€as€Mr.€Mosley€reports€it€to€be,€we€believe€the€BoardÍshould€be€able€to€consult€a€psychologist€or€psychiatrist€for€assistance€inÏdetermining€the€appropriateness€of€parole€in€a€particular€case,€withoutÏsurrendering€its€own€power€of€decision€to€that€consultant.€ÌÌà@ àò òVI.ó óÌÌà àà àMr.€Mosley€has€failed€to€make€a€sufficient€showing€to€enable€us€toÏconclude€that€the€Board€acted€arbitrarily,€fraudulently€or€illegally€in€declining€himÏparole.€€The€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.ÌÌÌÓÓà 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.,€JUDGEÌÌÌÇÑ  ÑÔ% € Ô