WPC N8y}tKfBJxȤf) (3O])KuGBg9S5&c!"IÐMji ;$-7WG҆?-6Gw&T_LfL6H@Ls Rg߇ #rEtFl+H֢}lp>hj>EwfxiJx t$$l2VCE+e(hH+E~>BQ0B!RyAx2!Z _/$P!l v+IBdIn6 (}VNqF:W5g6-K"Txʹ{N!A8<\!\@^ŬI,zn|C~죄F}FP1]b %\^ b 0nUNwD4H\ zk m #  W   0DNEb 0 B 0 D3 D- 0K ASP 0i 0D  AQt+s (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman RegularB+YL_3|x C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptUHP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 5e,,,,0Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#$  0  - -(|G2J$ !.8dd8         0   d(|3}$ !.8dd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3}$ !.8dd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8dd8     _  8UXXdd8  @ INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @kk$ATNASHVILLE# #Ԉ &   December29,2000Session L XUX #XXU#CAROLT.COFFEY,IIIv.STATEOFTENNESSEE,etal.XUX  J @@ AnAppealfromtheChanceryCourtforDavidsonCounty  J @@No.991342IIrvinH._Kilcrease_,Jr.,Chancellor  6 @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.M200000831_COA_ԄR3CVFiledAugust31,_2001_   AV) ` dE<|` A }       ThisisanappealbyaprisonerplaintiffseekingreviewofadecisionbytheBoardofParoles x  denyinghisapplicationforparole.Thetrialcourtdismissedtheplaintiffspetitionbecauseitwas d notfiledwithinsixtydaysasrequiredbyTennesseeCodeAnnotated279102,anddeniedthe P plaintiffsmotionforreliefunderTennesseeRuleofCivilProcedure60.02.Theplaintiffnow < appeals.Weaffirm. (x  Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheChanceryCourtAffirmed  P   #XUz#XUX.HollyKirbyLillard,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichW.FrankCrawford,_P.J._, ( _W.S._,andAlanE._Highers_,J.,joined.  CarolT.Coffey,III,MountainCity,Tennessee,ProSe.  PaulG.Summers,AttorneyGeneralandReporter,MichaelE.Moore,SolicitorGeneral,andPamela t S._Lorch_,AssistantAttorneyGeneral,fortheappellees,StateofTennessee,etal. `  OPINION #XXU#XUX 8!  #XXU #  XUX   Inthiscase,CarolT.Coffey,III,aninmateintheNortheastCorrectionalCenterinMountain #L# City,Tennessee,fileda PetitionforaWritofCertiorariintheChanceryCourtseekingreviewof $8 $ adecisionbytheTennesseeStateBoardofParolesdenyinghimparole.Coffeyadmitsthathis %$!% petitionwasnotfiledwithinsixtydaysofthedatetheBoardissueditsdecision,asrequiredby &"& TennesseeCodeAnnotated279102(2000).ThetrialcourtdismissedCoffeyspetitionas '"' untimely.CoffeythenfiledamotionforreliefunderTennesseeRuleofCivilProcedure60.02.This (#( motionwasdenied.Fromthisorder,Coffeynowappeals. )$)   Inthiscase,theessentialfactsareundisputed.Therefore,questionsoflawarereviewedde \+&+ novowithnopresumptionofcorrectnessinthetrialcourtsdecision. See_Ridings_Ԁv.RalphM. H,', ParsonsCo. ,914S.W.2d79,80(Tenn.1996).Thetrialcourtsdecisiontograntordenyrelief 4-(- underRule60.02isreviewedunderanabuseofdiscretionstandard. SeeDayv.Day ,931S.W.2d  936,939(Tenn.Ct.App.1996).    TennesseeCodeAnnotated279101providesanypersonaggrievedbythedecisionofa t boardorcommissionfunctioningaccordingtoStatelawtheopportunitytoappealthatdecisionto ` Statecourts. See Tenn.CodeAnn.279101(2000).Section279102states: L  8  Suchpartyshall,withinsixty(60)daysfromtheentryoftheorderorjudgment,file $ t apetitionofcertiorariinthechancerycourtofanycountyinwhichanyone(1)or  ` moreofthepetitioners,oranyone(1)ormoreofthematerialdefendantsreside,or  L  havetheirprincipaloffice,statingbrieflytheissuesinvolvedinthecause,the  8  substanceoftheorderorjudgmentcomplainedof,therespectsinwhichthe $  petitionerclaimstheorderorjudgmentiserroneous,andprayingforanaccordant   review.    Tenn.CodeAnn.279102(2000).Thesixtydaytimeperiodismandatory;failuretofilewithin   sixtydaysrendersthedecisionoftheagencyfinal,andthecourtsnolongerhavejurisdictionto p reviewit. See_Thandiwe_Ԁv._Traughber_ ,909S.W.2d802,804(Tenn.Ct.App.1994). \   Coffeydoesnotdisputethathispetitionforreviewwasnotfiledwithinthesixtydaytime 4 periodmandatedunderSection279102.Sincethisrequirementisabsolutelymandatory, seeid. ,  p wefindnoerrorinthetrialcourtsdecisiondismissingCoffeyscomplaintastimebarred.  \   ThesecondissueforourconsiderationiswhetherthetrialcourterredindenyingCoffeys 4 motionforreliefunderRule60.02.TennesseeRuleofCivilProcedure60.02states:   8  Onmotionanduponsuchtermsasarejust,thecourtmayrelieveapartyorthe  partyslegalrepresentativefromafinaljudgment,orderorproceedingforthe  followingreasons:(1)mistake,inadvertence,surpriseorexcusableneglect;...(5)  anyotherreasonjustifyingrelieffromtheoperationofthejudgment.l    See Tenn.R.Civ.P.60.02.InwrittensubmissionstothisCourtandthetrialcourtbelow,Coffey D! assertsthatthereasonhispetitionwasuntimelyfiledisthathereliedonalawlibraryaidesadvice 0"  thatholidaysandweekenddayswerenotcountedinthesixtydaytimeperiodunderTennesseeCode #l! Annotated279102.Ifholidaysandweekendsarenotcounted,Coffeyasserts,hispetitionwas $X" timelyfiledwithinsixtydays.InsupportofhisargumentthatreliefunderRule60.02shouldhave $D # beengranted,CoffeyarguesthatSection279102doesnotspecify calendardays,andthathe,as %0!$ aproselitigant,shouldnotbeexpectedtohavetheknowledgethatatrainedlegalprofessional &"% wouldhave. '#&   However,amistakeoflawisnotabasisforreliefunderRule60.02. See_Thigpen_Ԁv.First )$( CityBank ,No.01A019603CV00095,1997WL351247,at*3(Tenn.Ct.App.June27,1997) |*%) (citing FoodLion,Inc.v.WashingtonCountyBeerBd. ,700S.W.2d893,896(Tenn.1985)).In h+&*  FoodLion,Inc.v.WashingtonCountyBeerBoard ,theTennesseeSupremeCourtstated [_i]f_Ԁthis  CourtweretoholdthatignoranceofthelawisapropergroundforreliefunderRule60.02...itis  hardtoconceivehowanyjudgmentcouldbesafefromassaultonthatground. FoodLion,Inc. ,  700S.W.2dat896.Underthesecircumstances,wefindnoabuseofdiscretioninthetrialcourts t decisiontodenyCoffeyreliefunderRule60.02ofTennesseeRulesofCivilProcedure. `   Thedecisionofthetrialcourtisaffirmed.CostsonappealaretaxedtotheAppellant,Carol 8  T.Coffey,III,andhissurety,forwhichexecutionmayissueifnecessary. $ t Ѐ  L  _____ _   `     h     ___________________________________      `     h     HOLLYKIRBYLILLARD,JUDGE