ÿWPC! …# VU:a %› 0(¡b ÉwÕ å4í 0J 0TZ 0^® 0h 0rt 0|æ 0†b 0è 1ux U,í 0d U,} U*© B)Ó DCü AM?Œv~› BvÓ6 D3  0@< AO|ÆË 0D‘ D/Õ B˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 ,†r‰AZ‹"Arial RegularX($¡¡- ù -Ó€ `#DÒ 3|x 2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô  ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d 7Border 1dd€-!Cþÿ << Gÿÿ Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€XÔÌÌAugust€14,€1996ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'` dStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Monaco ÒÒ  BA Op Monaco Ò%%%%'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€X„d&ÓÑ#€Xd#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÑ  ÑÒ € ÒÒ ° ÒÒ € ÒÒ „ ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ€ÑÑ7€‡‰XXdædÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑJERRY€SAMS,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„9603„CH„00133ÌVS.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„2485„IÌCHARLES€TRAUGHBER,€et€al.,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àRespondents/Appellees.à àà à)ÌÙ€€ÙÙ€€ÙßL€"#!;+'h|nJ` ç `€€LßÌÌÌà@ àCOURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àMIDDLE€SECTION€AT€NASHVILLEÌÌÌÌAPPEALED€FROM€THE€CHANCERY€COURT€OF€DAVIDSON€COUNTYÌAT€NASHVILLE,€TENNESSEEÌÌTHE€HONORABLE€IRVIN€H.€KILCREASE,€JR.,€CHANCELLORÌÌÌÌÌJERRY€SAMSÌ7466€Centennial€BoulevardÌNashville,€Tennessee€37209„1052Ìà àPro€Se/Petitioner/AppellantÌÌCHARLES€W.€BURSONÌAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌÌPATRICIA€C.€KUSSMANNÌAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌ404€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌNashville,€Tennessee€37243ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌà@ àAFFIRMED€AND€REMANDEDÌÌÌÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àBEN€H.€CANTRELL,€JUDGEÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌTODD,€P.J.,€M.S.ÌKOCH,€J.ÌÌÓÓÓ  Óà@ àò òòòÔ€„ÔO€P€I€N€I€O€Nó óóóÔ€XÔÌÌà àà àThe€Board€of€Paroles€declined€to€grant€parole€to€the€appellant,€JerryÏSams.€€He€subsequently€filed€a€Petition€for€a€Writ€of€Certiorari€in€the€ChanceryÏCourt€of€Davidson€County,€claiming€that€the€Boardððs€concurrent€decision€to€deferÏany€future€parole€hearing€for€two€and€a€half€years€was€a€violation€of€theÏconstitutional€prohibition€against€ex€post€facto€laws.€€The€Chancery€CourtÏdismissed€the€Petition€for€lack€of€jurisdiction,€and€for€failure€to€state€a€claim€uponÏwhich€relief€can€be€granted.€€We€affirm.ÌÌà@ àò òI.ó óÌÌà àà àOn€November€20,€1991,€a€Cumberland€County€jury€found€JerryÏSams€to€be€guilty€of€second€degree€murder.€€Mr.€Sams€was€sentenced€toÏnineteen€years€imprisonment€as€a€Standard€Range€I€offender,€meaning€he€wouldÏnot€be€eligible€for€parole€until€he€had€served€at€least€30%€of€his€sentence.ÌÌà àà àOn€May€17,€1995€the€Board€of€Paroles€conducted€a€hearing€toÏconsider€releasing€Mr.€Sams€on€parole.€€The€two€Board€members€present€at€theÏhearing€recommended€that€parole€be€declined.€€Another€Board€memberÏsubsequently€concurred,€and€the€decision€was€communicated€to€the€prisoner€onÏMay€26,€1995.€€The€form€containing€the€signatures€of€the€Board€membersÏindicated€ð ðSeriousness€of€Offenseðð€as€a€reason€for€declining€parole,€andÏcontained€a€notation€indicating€that€the€next€parole€hearing€on€his€case€wouldÏtake€place€in€November€of€1997.€€Theletter€notifying€Mr.€Sams€of€the€BoardððsÏaction€informed€him€of€his€right€of€appeal€as€follows:ÌÒ € ÒÒ  ÒÓÓÒ 0 ÒÒ  ÒYou€have€a€right€to€request€an€appellate€review€by€theÏBoard€if€there€is€new€evidence€or€information€that€was€notÏavailable€at€the€time€of€your€hearing€or€if€there€areÏallegations€of€misconduct€by€the€Hearing€Official€that€areÏsubstantiated€by€the€record€or€if€there€were€significantÏprocedural€errors€by€the€Hearing€Official.€€This€requestÏmust€be€made€within€21€days€after€notification.ÌÌÌÌÒ € ÒÒ  ÒÒ € ÒÒ „ ÒÓÓà àà àWithin€twenty„one€days€of€the€Boardððs€decision,€Mr.€Sams€filed€aÏrequest€for€appellate€review€of€its€deferral€of€his€next€parole€hearing.€€He€claimedÍthat€Tennessee€Department€of€Correction€Policy€501.30,€which€was€in€effect€at€theÏtime€he€was€sentenced,€entitled€him€to€a€new€parole€hearing€within€one€year€ofÏthe€previous€one.ÌÌà àà àIn€a€letter€dated€June€14,€1995,€the€Board€notified€Mr.€Sams€thatÏappellate€review€was€denied.€€The€letter€acknowledged€that€the€above„mentionedÏpolicy€had€previously€read€ð ðIf€a€case€is€continued€or€parole€denied,€a€futureÏhearing€date€shall€be€specified€within€one€year€of€the€current€hearing,ðð€butÏasserted€that€the€policy€had€been€changed€effective€April€23,€1992€to€omit€theÏphrase,€ð ðwithin€one€year€of€the€current€hearing.ððÌÌà àà àOn€August€10,€1995,€Mr.€Sams€filed€his€Petition€for€Certiorari.€€HeÏclaimed€that€since€his€offense€was€committed€before€the€policy€was€amended,€heÏwas€entitled€to€receive€his€next€hearing€in€accordance€with€its€earlier€provisions,Ïand€that€the€length€of€the€Parole€Boardððs€deferral€of€that€hearing€amounted€to€aÏdeprivation€of€his€constitutional€right€not€to€be€subjected€to€an€ex€post€facto€law.ÌÌà àà àThe€State€responded€with€a€Motion€to€Dismiss€on€the€ground€thatÏthe€Petition€was€not€filed€within€sixty€days€of€the€Boardððs€decision,€as€is€requiredÏby€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€27„9„102,€and€that€the€petitioner€had€failed€to€state€a€claimÏupon€which€relief€can€be€granted.€€The€chancellor€found€that€the€Petition€was€notÍtimely€filed,€and€that€Mr.€Samsðð€arguments€were€without€merit.€€This€appealÏfollowed.ÌÌÌà@ àò òII.ó óÌÌà àà àThe€appellant€admits€that€his€Petition€was€filed€more€than€sixty€daysÏafter€the€Boardððs€decision€to€deny€him€parole,€but€argues€that€it€was€nonethelessÏtimely€because€it€was€filed€less€than€sixty€days€after€the€Board€of€Parole€deniedÏhim€an€appellate€review.€ÌÌà àà àThis€court€has€not€previously€determined€whether€the€filing€of€aÏrequest€for€Appellate€Review€with€the€Board€of€Paroles€tolls€the€sixty€dayÏjurisdictional€limit€for€filing€a€Petition€for€a€Writ€of€Certiorari,€though€the€questionÏhas€been€raised€in€earlier€cases.€€See€òòFite€v.€State€of€Tennesseeóó,€Appeal€No.€01„A„01„9508„CH„00362€(Filed€Nashville,€February€28,€1996).€€Since€we€find€thatÏthe€appellantððs€Petition€fails€to€state€a€claim€on€which€relief€may€be€granted,€weÏlikewise€decline€to€address€the€issue€made€with€respect€to€the€timeliness€of€theÏappeal.ÌÌà@ àò òIII.ó óÌÌà àà àPutting€aside€the€jurisdictional€issue,€we€must€consider€theÏappellantððs€argument€that€denial€of€an€annual€parole€hearing€is€a€violation€as€toÏhim€of€Article€I,€ðð€10€of€the€U.S.€Constitution,€which€forbids€the€States€fromÏpassing€any€ex€post€facto€law,€and€of€Article€1,€ðð€11€of€the€TennesseeÏConstitution,€which€is€of€like€import.ÌÌà àà àThe€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€has€stated€that€under€both€theÏTennessee€and€United€States€Constitutions,€the€critical€question€in€determiningÏwhether€an€ex€post€facto€violation€exists€is€ð ðwhether€the€law€changes€theÏpunishment€to€the€defendantððs€disadvantage,€or€inflicts€a€greater€punishment€thanÏthe€law€allowed€when€the€offense€occurred.ðð€òò€State€v.€Pearsonóó,€858€S.W.2d€879,Ï883€(Tenn.€1993).ÌÌà àà àThe€United€States€Supreme€Court€has€recently€rejected€theÏproposition€that€a€change€in€the€frequency€of€parole€hearings€to€the€possibleÏdetriment€of€one€sentenced€prior€to€the€change€must€of€necessity€be€considered€aÏviolation€of€the€ex€post€facto€clause.€òò€California€Dept.€of€Corrections€v.€Moralesóó,Ï514€U.S.___,€115€S.€Ct.€1597,€131€L.Ed.2d€588€(1995).ÌÌà àà à€Mr.€Morales€was€convicted€of€a€murder€which€he€committed€whileÏon€parole€from€a€conviction€for€an€earlier€murder.€€After€a€hearing,€the€ParoleÏBoard€found€him€unsuitable€for€parole€for€numerous€reasons,€including€the€crueltyÍof€his€offense€and€his€record€of€violence€and€assaultive€behavior.€€Acting€underÏthe€authority€of€a€recently€enacted€California€statute,€the€Board€deferred€his€nextÏhearing€for€three€years€instead€of€ordering€the€previously€mandated€annualÏreview.ÌÌà àà àThe€statute€in€question€permitted€the€Board€to€defer€subsequentÏparole€consideration€after€hearing,€for€those€found€unsuitable€for€parole,€if€theÏBoard€also€found€that€ð ðit€is€not€reasonable€to€expect€that€parole€would€be€grantedÏat€a€hearing€during€the€following€years.ðð€(Cal.€Penal€Code€Ann.€ðð€3041.5(b)(2)).€ÏThe€U.S.€District€Court€denied€the€prisonerððs€petition€for€habeas€corpus,€but€theÏNinth€Circuit€Court€of€Appeals€reversed.€16€F.3d€1001€(1994).€€The€SupremeÏCourt€reversed€the€Ninth€Circuit.ÌÌà àà àThe€High€Court€reasoned€that€for€the€sake€of€administrativeÏefficiency,€the€legislature€could€alter€the€methods€to€be€followed€by€the€ParoleÏBoard€in€determining€if€and€when€to€parole€prisoners,€and€that€the€adjustmentsÏordered€by€the€California€legislature€did€not€transgress€any€constitutionalÏprohibitions.€€The€application€of€the€new€procedures€to€Mr.€Morales€did€not€runÏafoul€of€the€ex€post€facto€clause,€because€in€the€light€of€the€reasons€that€he€wasÏfound€unsuitable€for€parole,€it€had€to€be€considered€speculative€at€best€whetherÏmore€frequent€hearings€would€have€any€effect€on€his€actual€term€of€confinement,Ïand€thus€the€severity€of€his€punishment.ÌÌà àà àThe€Court€declined€to€enunciate€a€rule€or€a€formula€to€determineÏwhen€a€legislative€enactment€that€alters€parole€procedures€violates€theÏprohibition€against€ex€post€facto€laws,€but€stated€that€the€question€was€one€of€theÏdegree€of€risk€that€the€statute€would€increase€the€measure€of€punishmentÏretroactively.€€This€court€has€adopted€a€similar€case„by„case€approach€inÏdetermining€whether€the€application€of€administrative€changes€to€the€earlyÏrelease€of€previously€convicted€inmates€lawfully€in€the€custody€of€the€DepartmentÏof€Correction€implicates€ex€post€facto€claims.€€See€òòKaylor€v.€Bradleyóó,€912€S.W.2dÏ728€(Tenn.€App.€1995).ÌÌà àà àTurning€to€the€case€before€us,€we€note€that€Mr.€Sams€was€deniedÏparole€because€of€the€seriousness€of€his€offense,€in€accordance€with€Rule€1100„1„1„.06(3)(b)€which€allows€the€board€to€turn€down€a€prisoner€if€ð ðHis€release€at€thatÏtime€would€depreciate€the€seriousness€of€the€offense€or€would€promote€disrespectÏfor€the€law.ðð€it€does€not€seem€unreasonable€to€us€that€the€Board€could€determineÏin€a€single€hearing€that€releasing€Mr.€Sams€at€the€earliest€possible€date€wouldÏdepreciate€the€seriousness€of€his€offense,€and€that€deferring€further€considerationÏfor€only€one€year€would€have€the€same€effect.€ÌÌà àà àThe€appellant€relies€on€a€federal€class€action€suit€from€Michigan,ÏòòShabazz€v.€Gabryóó,€900€F.Supp.€118€(E.D.€Mich.€1995),€to€bolster€his€argument.ÍHowever,€even€though€the€òòShabazzóó€Court€found€that€legislative€action€extendingÏthe€interval€between€parole€hearings€for€certain€classes€of€prisoners€was€an€exÏpost€facto€violation€as€to€two€of€the€three€classes€considered€in€the€opinion,ÏòòShabazzóó€is€not€a€controlling€opinion€for€this€court,€nor€is€it€on€point.ÌÌà àà àWithout€getting€too€much€into€the€intricacies€of€the€òòShabazzóó€opinionÏ(and€they€are€many)€we€note€that€unlike€the€California€statutes€discussed€inÏòòMoralesóó,€and€the€changes€in€the€Tennessee€Administrative€rules€that€Mr.€SamsÏobjects€to,€the€Michigan€statutes€that€were€under€challenge€did€not€permitÏindividualized€scheduling€of€parole€hearings,€depending€on€the€likelihood€thatÏparole€would€be€found€appropriate€for€certain€prisoners,€but€extended€the€intervalÏbetween€hearings€for€all€prisoners€similarly€situated.€€The€disputed€statutes€alsoÏpostponed€the€date€for€the€initial€parole€hearing,€requiring€some€inmates€to€waitÏten€years€before€being€considered€for€parole,€while€the€law€in€effect€at€the€timeÏthey€were€sentenced€permitted€parole€consideration€after€only€four€years.ÌÌà àà àIn€contrast,€the€amended€Tennessee€policy€did€not€prevent€theÏBoard€from€continuing€to€give€timely€consideration€to€those€whose€records€madeÏthem€suitable€candidates€for€parole€within€the€year,€but€only€enabled€the€Board€toÏeliminate€hearings€that€would€have€no€practical€purpose.€€Further,€theÏamendment€did€not€affect€the€rights€of€inmates€to€receive€a€timely€initial€hearing,Ínor€does€Mr.€Sams€deny€that€he€was€granted€a€hearing€that€was€consistent€withÏhis€Release€Eligibility€Date.€ÌÌà@ àò òIV.ó óÌÌà àà àWe€accordingly€affim€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.€€Remand€thisÏcause€to€the€Chancery€Court€of€Davidson€County€for€further€proceedingsÏconsistent€with€this€opinion.€€Tax€the€costs€on€appeal€to€the€appellant.ÌÌÓÓÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà à_____________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àBEN€H.€CANTRELL,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌÌ_______________________________ÌHENRY€F.€TODD,€PRESIDING€JUDGEÌMIDDLE€SECTIONÌÌÌÌÌ_______________________________ÌWILLIAM€C.€KOCH,€JR.,€JUDGEÌÌÌÇÑ  ÑÔ% € Ô