WPC # VU>a % 0(4w@ 0L8 0J 0T 0^" 0h 0r 0|Z 0 0\ 1u 0da U6 B) DC$ AMgU* 0N B,Iv~Zv D3 0@ AOm 0D3 D/w BHP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPT0 <( 9Z &Courier RegularX($D x3|x DIDDӀ> $Small Circle0 2 0Indent123  2" 0Indent20 23  2, 0Indent30 0 23  26 0Indent40 0 0 23  2@ 0Indent50 0 0 0 23  2J 0Indent60 0 0 0 0 23  2T 0Indent70 0 0 0 0 0 23  2^ 0Indent80 0 0 0 0 0 0 23   ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X<  9p`(Courier New% Line 7 d 7Border 1dd-!C << G<  9p`(Arial>$"Small Circle"0   d  !  #d#  ##   YYY FILED#XNovember13,1996CecilW.CrowsonAppellateCourtClerk  PtPt HHHV,(hh hd'0F Styl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Geneva   BA Op Geneva  BA Op Geneva %%%%'dxd("$    -C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd ! .    ` X X \RA'\7>Xdd7  ћJAMESD.SANDERS, )  )#` XxX# Petitioner/Appellant, ) AppealNo.  ) 01A019608CH00364v.  )  ) DavidsonChancery TENNESSEEBOARDOFPAROLE, ) No.96222IIIٜL"&!;+'h|h`  `Lߛetal, )  ) Respondents/Appellees. )  COURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEEMIDDLESECTIONATNASHVILLEAPPEALFROMTHECHANCERYCOURTFORDAVIDSONCOUNTYATNASHVILLE,TENNESSEETHEHONORABLEROBERTS.BRANDT,CHANCELLOR ` XX   XJAMESD.SANDERS,ProSeL.C.R.C.F.Rt.1,Box330Tiptonville,Tennessee38079CHARLESW.BURSONAttorneyGeneralandReporterBRENDARHOTONLITTLECounseltotheStateCivilRightsandClaimsDivision404JamesRobertsonParkwaySuite2000Nashville,Tennessee372430488 ATTORNEYSFORRESPONDENTS/APPELLEES  AFFIRMEDANDREMANDED  SAMUELL.LEWIS,JUDGE  OԀPINION  #` ` X#X Thisisanappealbypetitioner/appellant,JamesD.Sanders,fromthechancerycourt'sdismissalofhispetitionforwritofcertiorari.ThepetitionchallengedthedecisionofϜrespondent/appellee,theTennesseeBoardofParoles("Board"),torevokepetitioner'sparole.Thefactsoutofwhichthismatteraroseareasfollows. TheBoardparoledpetitioneron4April1995.Petitionerwenttoajobinterviewduringtheweekof17April1995.Theemployerofferedpetitionerajobcontingentuponhissuccessfullycompletingaphysicalandadrugscreen.Theresultsofthedrugscreenwerepositiveforcocaine. On4May1995,officersarrestedpetitionerfordisorderlyconduct.UponamotionoftheState,theGeneralSessionsCourtofHenryCountydismissedthechargesagainstpetitioner.ThebasisofthemotionwasthattheStatedidnotwishtogototheexpenseofhavingtoproceedwithprosecution. Theparolecertificatesignedbypetitioneron4April1995containedlanguagethathewouldabidebytheconditionsofhisparole.Oneofthoseconditionswasthathewouldnotuseillegaldrugsandwouldsubmittodrugtestingifrequired.Asecondconditionwasthathewouldnotbearrestedwhileonparole.Asaresultofthepositivedrugscreen,thearrest,andpetitioner'sfailuretoobeythelaw,petitioner'sparoleofficerissuedaparolerevocationwarrant. Atapreliminaryparolehearingon29June1995,theparolehearingofficerfoundprobablecauseonallcounts.Petitionerwasrepresentedbycounselatthepreliminaryhearing.InJuly1995,theBoardheldaparolerevocationhearing.Onceagain,petitionerwasrepresentedbycounsel.Thehearingofficerdismissedthecountinvolvingthearrestfordisorderlyconductattherequestofpetitioner'sparoleofficer.ThehearingofficerrecommendedtotheBoardthatitrevokepetitioner'sparoleuntilsentenceexpirationbaseduponviolationsofhisparolecertificate.Atthetimeoftheparolehearing,petitioner'ssentenceexpirationdatewas6October1997.TheBoardadoptedthehearingofficer'srecommendationsandrevokedpetitioner'sparoleon1August1995.̜ InJanuary1996,petitionerfiledtheinstantpetitionforwritofcertiorariintheChanceryCourtforDavidsonCountyandsoughtareviewoftheBoard'sdecisiontorevokehisparole.TheBoardmovedtodismissthepetitionassertingthatitwasoutsidethecourt'sjurisdictionbecauseitchallengedtheintrinsiccorrectnessoftheBoard'sdecision.Afterconsideringtheentirerecord,thechancellorgrantedtheBoard'smotionanddismissedthepetitioninMay1996.Thereafter,petitionerfiledatimelynoticeofappeal.ThesoleissueonappealiswhetherthetrialcourtproperlydismissedthepetitionforwritofcertiorarifindingthatpetitionersoughttochallengetheintrinsiccorrectnessoftheBoard'sdecision. Inthepetition,petitionercomplainedthatthehearingofficershouldnothaveconsideredevidencefromthepotentialemployerofthepositivedrugscreen.Atthehearing,however,neitherpetitionernorhisattorneyobjectedtotheintroductionofthisevidence.PetitionernowcontendsthattheBoardshouldnothaveconsideredtheevidencebecausetheevidencewasinadmissableunder Statev.Wade ,863S.W.2d406(Tenn.1993). Wade andtheinstantcaseareeasilydistinguishable.In Wade, theinmateobjectedtotheadmissionofadrugscreenreportatthebeginningofhishearing,whentheprobationofficerwastestifyingconcerningtheresults,andattheconclusionoftheproof. Wade ,863S.W.2dat409.Here,petitionerwasrepresentedbycounselandneitherpetitionernorcounselvoicedasingleobjectiontotheintroductionoftheevidence.Byremainingsilentattherevocationhearing,petitionerdistinguishedhiscasefrom Wade andwaivedanyrighttoclaimtheintroductionoftheevidencewasimproperandsubjecttoreviewbythiscourt. Statev.Humphrey ,No.01C019401CR00016,1994WL235695,at*2(Tenn.Crim.App.2June1994). ItisalsonoteworthytoconsiderthattheBoardcouldhaverevokedpetitioner'sparoleforareasonindependentofthepositivedrugscreen.Asaconditionofhisparole,petitioneragreedtoabidebyallspecialconditionsofparoleandcarryoutallinstructionsofhisparoleofficer.Oneofthosespecialconditionswasthathewouldreceiveaparoleviolationwarrantforanyarrest.Petitioner'sarrestfordisorderlyconducton4May1995wassufficienttosupportparoleviolationandrevocation. PetitionerdoesnotallegenoristhereanyevidencetoshowthattheBoardactedillegallywhenrevokinghisparole.Aparolerevocationhearingisamuchnarrowerinquirythanacriminalprosecutionandevidencewhichmaynotbeadmissibleatacriminaltrial,suchaslettersandaffidavits,maybeconsideredataparolehearing. Morrisseyv.Brewer ,408U.S.471,489,92S.Ct.2593,2604,33L.Ed.2d484,499(1972). In Powellv.ParoleEligibilityReviewBoard ,879S.W.2d871(Tenn.App.1994),thiscourtheldthatthedecisionsoftheparoleeligibilityBoardwerereviewableunderthecommonlawwritofcertioraributthat:8 [t]hescopeofreviewunderthecommonlawwrit,however,isverynarrow.ItcoversonlyaninquiryintowhethertheBoardhasexceededitsjurisdictionorisactingillegally,fraudulently,orarbitrarily.Attheriskofoversimplification,onemaysaythatitisnotthecorrectnessofthedecisionthatissubjecttojudicialreview,butthemannerinwhichthedecisionisreached.IftheagencyorboardhasreacheditsdecisioninaϜconstitutionalorlawfulmanner,thenthedecisionwouldnotbesubjecttojudicialreview. Powell, 879S.W.2dat873(citationsomitted).Here,petitionerpresentednofactsassertingthattheBoardexceededitsjurisdictionoractedillegally,fraudulently,orarbitrarily.HepresentednofactswarrantingareviewofthemannerinwhichtheBoardreacheditsdecisiontorevokehisparole.Itistheopinionofthiscourtthatthechancerycourtcorrectlydismissedthepetition,butthatthecourt'sbasisfordismissalwaserroneous.Toexplain,hadpetitionerpresentedfactsinsupportofhischarges,thepetitionwouldhaveallegedthattheBoardactedillegally.Instead,thepetitionfailedtoallegethefactsnecessarytosupportaclaimofillegalconduct.Inotherwords,thepetitionfailedtostateaclaimuponwhichthecourtcouldgrantrelief.Thus,thecourtshouldhavedismissedthepetitiononthatground. Fortheforegoingreasonsthejudgmentofthechancellorisaffirmedatthecostofpetitioner/appellant,JamesD.Sanders,andthecauseisremandedtothechancerycourtforanyfurthernecessaryproceedings.  __________________________________  SAMUELL.LEWIS,JUDGE̜CONCUR:_________________________________BENH.CANTRELL,JUDGE_________________________________WILLIAMC.KOCH,JR.,JUDGE