ÿWPC» …# VU:a %› 0(¡b ÉwÕ4ë ÿ 0J 0T` 0^´ 0h 0rz 0|ì 0†h 0î 1u~ 0dó U*W B) DCª AMí û:v~5vÓ³ B† D3£ 0@Ö AOÆe 0D+ D/o Bž˜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  ÝÑ  ÑÒ € ÒÒ „ ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ€ÑÑ7€§¤XXdædÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑRICHARD€P.€RIENHOLTZ,à 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„9512„CH„00570ÌVS.à àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àDavidson€ChanceryÌÙ€€ÙßL€ !;+'h|o` ç `€€Lßà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àNo.€94„63„IIÌCHRISTINE€BRADLEY,€à àà àà à)ÌCommissioner,€and€TENNESSEEà à)ÌDEPARTMENT€OF€CORRECTION,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,€CHANCELLORÌÌÌÌÌJOHN€G.€OLIVAÌROBERT€P.€BALLINGERÌWashington€Square,€Suite€417Ì222€Second€Avenue,€NorthÌNashville,€Tennessee€37201Ìà àAttorneys€for€Petitioner/AppellantÌÌCHARLES€W.€BURSONÌAttorney€General€&€ReporterÌÌPATRICIA€C.€KUSSMANNÌAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌ404€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌSuite€2000ÌNashville,€Tennessee€€37243Ìà àAttorney€for€Respondents/AppelleesÌÌÌÌÌà@ àAFFIRMED€AND€REMANDEDÌÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àBEN€H.€CANTRELL,€JUDGEÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌTODD,€P.J.ÌLEWIS,€J.Ìà àà àà àà àà àÓ  ÓÓÓà@ àò òòòÔ€„ÔO€P€I€N€I€O€Nó óóóÔ€XÔÌÌà àà àRichard€P.€Rienholtz,€an€inmate€in€the€Tennessee€prison€system€Ïpetitioned€the€Chancery€Court€of€Davidson€County€for€a€declaratory€judgmentÏarguing€that€€the€Department€of€Correctionððs€decision€to€extend€his€paroleÏeligibility€date€for€escape€was€illegal.€€The€chancellor€dismissed€the€petition€andÏwe€affirm.ÌÌà@ àò òI.ó óÌÌà àà àIn€1981,€Mr.€Rienholtz€received€a€sentence€of€forty„five€years€inÏprison€for€two€counts€of€murder,€a€Class€X€felony.€€Under€the€law€then€in€effect€heÏhad€to€serve€forty€percent€of€the€sentence€to€be€eligible€for€parole,€and€he€couldÍnot€earn€sentence€credits€to€advance€his€parole€eligibility€date.€€A€later€change€inÏthe€law€reduced€the€mandatory€time€to€be€served€to€thirty„five€percent€of€theÏsentence.ÌÌà àà àIn€1990€Mr.€Rienholtz€was€reclassified€as€a€minimum€securityÏprisoner€and€placed€on€work€release€status.€€As€a€condition€of€being€placed€onÏwork€release€he€signed€an€agreement€containing€the€following:ÌÒ 0 ÒÒ  ÒÓÓI€understand€that€if€I€am€convicted€of€a€felony€exceptÏescape€committed€while€on€work,€educational,€restitution,Ïor€other€program€which€allows€me€the€privilege€ofÏsupervised€or€unsupervised€release€into€the€community€IÏmust€serve€the€remainder€of€my€term€without€parole€orÏfurther€participation€in€any€such€programs.€€I€alsoÏunderstand€that€if€I€escape€from€any€of€these€programs,Ïthe€department€has€the€authority€to€penalize€or€punish€meÏin€accordance€with€departmental€policy.€€This€is€consistentÏwith€the€laws€of€Tennessee,€specifically€TCA€40„28„123(b)(1).ÌÌÌÌÒ € ÒÒ „ ÒÓÓà àà àApproximately€three€months€later,€Mr.€Rienholtz€escaped€and€stayedÏat€large€for€three€and€a€half€months.€€He€pled€guilty€to€the€escape€charge€andÏreceived€an€additional€one€year€sentence.€€In€addition,€in€accordance€with€itsÏpolicy€No.€502.02,€the€Department€of€Correction€extended€Mr.€Rienholtzððs€releaseÏeligibility€date€on€his€original€sentence€by€twenty€percent.€€Policy€502.02€states:ÌÒ 0 ÒÒ  ÒÓÓIn€all€cases€in€which€an€inmate€is€found€guilty€of€theÏdisciplinary€offense€of€Escape,€including€Escape€fromÏcustody€and€failure€to€return€from€a€pass€or€furlough,€inÏaddition€to€any€other€punishment€imposed,€the€offenderððsÍparole€or€release€eligibility€date€shall€be€extended€byÏadding€thereto€an€additional€20€percent€of€the€offenderððsÏoriginal€maximum€sentence,€or€by€extending€the€inmateððsÏparole€or€release€eligibility€date€to€the€sentence€expirationÏdate,€whichever€is€less.ÌÌÌÌÒ € ÒÒ „ ÒÓÓà àà àMr.€Rienholtz€filed€a€petition€for€a€declaratory€order€under€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€4„5„223€of€the€Administrative€Procedures€Act.€€He€argued€that€theÏpolicies€adopted€for€the€Department€of€Correctionððs€Disciplinary€Board€draw€aÏdistinction€between€escape€and€breach€of€trust,€and€that€he€should€have€beenÏdisciplined€for€the€latter.€€The€difference,€apparently,€is€an€extension€of€theÏprisonerððs€parole€eligibility€date€by€twenty€percent€in€the€case€of€escape€andÏmerely€a€loss€of€sentence€credits€or€a€period€of€punitive€segregation€for€breach€ofÏtrust.ÌÌà àà àThe€Department€of€Correction€responded€to€the€petition€by€a€letterÏfrom€the€Departmentððs€legal€assistant,€denying€any€consideration€becauseÏð ðdisciplinary€decisions€are€not€subject€to€appeal€under€the€Uniform€AdministrativeÏProcedures€Act.ðð€€Mr.€Rienholtz€then€filed€a€petition€for€a€declaratory€judgment€inÏthe€Chancery€Court€of€Davidson€County,€which€the€court€dismissed€because€itÏwas€not€filed€within€sixty€days€of€the€date€the€Department€of€Correction€deniedÏconsideration€of€the€petition€for€declaratory€order.€€We€reversed€on€appeal,Ïholding€that€the€sixty€day€provision€in€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€4„5„322(a)(1)€did€notÍapply€to€a€case€where€the€agency€refused€to€convene€a€contested€case€hearing.€ÏSee€also€òòTaylor€v.€Reynoldsóó,€No.€01„A„01„9401„CH„00016€(filed€in€Nashville,ÏJune€10,€1994).ÌÌà àà àOn€remand,€the€Chancery€Court€addressed€the€arguments€raised€inÏthe€petition,€found€them€insufficient€as€a€matter€of€law,€and€dismissed€the€petitionÏfor€failing€to€state€a€cause€of€action.€€In€so€doing,€however,€the€chancellorÏconsidered€affidavits€filed€by€both€parties.€€We€will,€therefore,€treat€the€judgmentÏbelow€as€a€summary€judgment.€€See€Rule€12.02,€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€Proc.ÌÌà@ àò òII.ó óÌÌà àà àThe€focus€in€this€case€has€constantly€changed€since€Mr.€RienholtzÏsought€the€first€declaratory€order€from€the€Department€of€Correction.€€We€notedÏthat€in€the€first€appeal€he€sought€a€declaration€that€he€should€have€been€punishedÏfor€breach€of€trust€rather€than€for€escape.€€His€petition€in€the€Chancery€CourtÏalleges€that€in€addition€to€the€escape„breach€of€trust€argument,€he€sought€aÏdeclaration€that€the€disciplinary€rule€was€null€and€void,€that€the€rule€discriminatedÏagainst€inmates€with€more€serious€offenses,€and€that€he€did€not€violate€theÏagreement€he€signed€when€he€was€placed€on€work€release.€€In€an€amendedÏpetition,€Mr.€Rienholtz€also€alleges€that€the€Department€of€Correction€failed€toÏbring€the€rule€to€his€attention€in€accordance€with€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€41„21„218.ÌÌà àà àOn€remand,€Mr.€Rienholtz€filed€a€brief€in€which€he€asserted€that€heÏdid€not€violate€the€agreement€he€signed€when€he€was€placed€on€work€release;Ïthat€he€was€erroneously€disciplined€for€escape€rather€than€breach€of€trust;€that€heÏwas€given€a€disproportionate€sentence€for€escape;€that€the€effect€of€his€escapeÏwas€never€brought€to€his€attention€in€accordance€with€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€41„21„218;€that€the€twenty€percent€addition€to€his€sentence€violated€his€rights€to€dueÏprocess€and€equal€protection;€and€that€extending€his€release€eligibility€date€byÏtwenty€percent€violated€the€constitutional€prohibition€against€ex€post€facto€laws.ÌÌà@ àò òà@ àIII.ó óÌÌà àà àMr.€Rienholtz€does€not€raise€all€the€issues€on€appeal€that€he€raisedÏin€his€amended€petition€in€the€chancery€court.€€His€first€issue€addresses€theÏchancellorððs€holding€that€he€waived€his€right€to€rely€on€the€law€as€it€existed€prior€toÏJuly€1,€1982.€€See€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„117.€€Inherent€in€this€argument€is€anÏassertion€that€policy€502.02€cannot€be€applied€to€him€because€it€was€adoptedÏafter€he€was€first€sentenced€to€the€Department€of€Correction.ÌÌà àà àIn€her€memorandum€the€chancellor€found,€ð ðThe€petitionerððs€swornÏaffidavit,€signed€May€12,€1995,€indicates€that€the€petitioner€signed€a€waiver€of€hisÏright€to€serve€his€sentence€under€the€laws€in€effect€on€the€date€the€indictmentÍalleges€the€offense€was€committed.ðð€€The€petitionerððs€designation€of€the€recordÏdoes€not€include€the€May€12,€1995€affidavit.€€We€are,€therefore,€handicapped€inÏreviewing€the€question€of€what€waiver€the€petitioner€executed€and€we€would€beÏjustified€in€taking€the€chancellorððs€finding€as€conclusive.€€òòState€v.€Banesóó,€874ÏS.W.2d€73€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994).ÌÌà àà àNevertheless,€there€is€in€the€record€a€form€signed€by€Mr.€RienholtzÏon€March€12,€1986€in€which€he€waived€ð ðfor€the€sole€and€exclusive€purpose€ofÏreceiving€Sentence€Reduction€Credits€.€.€.€.ðð€his€right€to€serve€his€sentences€underÏthe€prior€law.€€He€argues€on€appeal€that€the€only€effect€of€this€waiver€was€to€allowÏhim€to€begin€accruing€sentence€credits€under€the€subsequent€law;€it€did€not€allowÏthe€state€to€apply€the€penalties€for€escape€that€were€enacted€after€his€originalÏsentence.ÌÌà àà àThe€waiver€states€that€for€the€òòsole€and€exclusiveóó€purpose€ofÏreceiving€sentence€reduction€credits€Mr.€Rienholtz€waived€the€right€to€serve€hisÏsentences€under€the€law€in€effect€at€the€time€he€was€indicted.€€He€acquired€theÏright€to€earn€sentence€credits€and€he€gave€up€any€rights€to€serve€his€sentencesÏunder€the€prior€law.€€Thus,€allowing€him€to€accrue€sentence€credits€was€òònotóó€theÏonly€effect€of€the€waiver.€€The€òòsole€and€exclusiveóó€language€in€the€waiver€refers€toÏwhat€he€was€getting€in€return€for€his€waiver,€not€what€he€was€giving€up.€€We€holdÍthat€the€waiver€of€his€rights€under€the€prior€law€makes€him€subject€to€the€currentÏlaw,€the€law€in€effect€after€the€1989€amendments.ÌÌà àà àWe€also€think€Mr.€Rienholtz€overlooks€the€fact€that€he€signed€theÏð ðAssignment€of€Responsibilityðð€when€he€was€placed€on€work€release.€€In€it€heÏacknowledged€that€if€he€escaped€from€work€release€the€Department€of€CorrectionÏhad€the€authority€to€penalize€or€punish€him€in€accordance€with€departmentalÏpolicy.ÌÌà@ àò òIV.ó óÌÌà àà àMr.€Rienholtz€argues€on€appeal€that€applying€policy€502.02€to€himÏviolates€Article€I€Section€10€of€the€United€States€Constitution,€which€prohibits€theÏstates€from€passing€ex€post€facto€laws.€€We€fail€to€see,€however,€how€thisÏconstitutional€provision€is€implicated.ÌÌà àà àThe€United€States€Supreme€Court€has€said€that€the€ex€post€factoÏprovisions€of€our€constitution€are€ð ðaimed€at€laws€that€retroactively€alter€theÏdefinition€of€crimes€or€increase€the€punishment€for€criminal€acts.ðð€€òòCaliforniaÏDepartment€of€Corrections€v.€Moralesóó,€514€U.S.€____€at€____€(1995).€€PolicyÏ502.02€was€in€effect€at€the€time€Mr.€Rienholtz€escaped€in€1990.€€Therefore,€theÍconsequences€that€could€result€from€his€escape€were€fixed€and€have€not€beenÏincreased€by€subsequent€legislation.ÌÌÌà@ àò òV.ó óÌÌà àà àMr.€Rienholtz€also€argues€that€the€Department€of€Correction€violatedÏhis€right€to€due€process€by€failing€to€bring€Policy€502.02€to€his€attention.Ìà àà àTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€41„21„218€provides:ÌÒ 0 ÒÒ  ÒÓÓSuch€of€the€foregoing€regulations€with€all€others€adoptedÏby€the€general€assembly€or€the€commissioner€in€referenceÏto€the€police€and€government€of€the€penitentiary,€which€itÏis€necessary€that€the€convicts€should€know€.€.€.€shall€beÏprinted€so€as€to€be€conveniently€read,€and€set€up€by€theÏwarden,€in€a€conspicuous€place,€and€also€read€andÏexplained€by€the€warden€to€each€convict€on€his€admissionÏto€the€penitentiary.ÌÌÌÌÒ € ÒÒ „ ÒÓÓà àà àAssuming€that,€as€he€alleges,€policy€502.02€was€not€brought€to€Mr.ÏRienholtzððs€attention,€what€is€the€effect€of€that€lapse€on€the€ability€of€theÏDepartment€of€Correction€to€apply€the€policy€to€him?ÌÌà àà àThe€statute€itself€does€not€say€what€such€effect€will€be,€and€it€isÏarguable€that€the€statute€was€passed€for€the€Departmentððs€benefit€as€an€aid€toÏmaintaining€order€in€the€prison.€€By€making€sure€the€inmates€know€that€their€actsÍhave€consequences€prison€discipline€will€improve.€€But€the€main€reason€theÏpolicy€should€apply€to€Mr.€Rienholtz€is€the€fact€that€he€received€a€notice€thatÏsubstantially€complied€with€the€statute.€€When€he€was€assigned€to€work€releaseÏhe€signed€an€acknowledgment€that€if€he€escaped€while€on€that€program€theÏDepartment€of€Correction€could€punish€him€in€accordance€with€departmentalÏpolicy.€€We€do€not€think€it€is€critical€that€the€precise€nature€of€the€punishment€wasÏnot€set€out€in€the€agreement.€€It€is€sufficient€if€the€inmate€knows€that€theÏDepartment€of€Correction€has€the€power€to€impose€additional€disciplinaryÏsanctions€for€escape.€ÌÌÌÌÌà àà àThe€judgment€of€the€court€below€is€affirmed€and€the€cause€isÏremanded€to€the€Chancery€Court€of€Davidson€County€for€any€further€proceedingsÏnecessary.€€Tax€the€costs€on€appeal€to€the€appellant.ÌÌÌÓÓÌà àà àà àà àà àà à_____________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àBEN€H.€CANTRELL,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌÌ_______________________________ÌHENRY€F.€TODD,€PRESIDING€JUDGEÌMIDDLE€SECTIONÌÌÌÌÌ_______________________________ÌSAMUEL€L.€LEWIS,€JUDGEÌÌÇÑ  Ñà@ àÔ% € Ô