ÿWPCþ Cw£Úðè,] 'L  I«2&NÍÏ6‹×7PðSeb<—H˜¾ïXõJþVïÿßœºGì‡ë ›£dÙQH¤÷t;UªÆlŠêC4ñ–é5Ax!¶˜Ë‡Êd/œ¦©Œs^V#9|ÉË7V“8ç û§Â–Ϻ¦ÆSþO1=µîDÉÌ2)ôÜNy2;¦;dµÜr7S“±¦Öž…vö1gú;fq:ò.¯Nwšµ(|4ÊGê C7nîâõ¬°¯“ö–þ¾»æ°ñP ša¤¬¥D¸CQDqñé}ÙòË  |ª x¬‚ÉF‘`bB/ÞI¾ëKR>±"5s_ÜZVèVÇ%£bä&DtTÖóWtÜcžÒ‰¨Mð™ƒáј’˜ÙS"þÉca­Z?ÌgT?k÷ULŽANC[mŠq&åÃ0=\s©ýºðva«TÔ¯+& ØñR·vo_⪴…c6Æ|´\1Ê!J‡ô,sú9ßÍpeÛeCyßô$¡ÉpÃ?b"¼ ó¥îx¢H•Aµ؇I¶[zO æ+i!zb-pA«7P3é4‰+¸ BÕå/"Ê1’ó¨òT¼ìüÖ&ƪÍÙæFxŽÅb %\^ b 0ˆnUNöw D4Nb zqÒë½ m¿ #ÉÖ Ÿ ƹ ÆÆEÆ ØÑN© 0D««Eïïïïïïïïïïïïïïïïïïïïïïïïbññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññññ 0ëùùùù Bää 0¤ D5¥ D-Ú 0K ASRÆ¥ 0¤k 0D A«S»Ù{[/Ï (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular=ƒ.ê:i¢×+003|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.wptÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ˜\\IB01S08\KNOXCLERK4ÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0 CONKLIN P.J.DupreeFredric CrimBiddleLoudonNorthlandMeighanShoppeBeareHembreei]ndicationd]ismissalLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 ÎÝ ƒR|§$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¬Õò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€€Contrary€to€Plaintiffððs€assertions,€the€Stateððs€decision€not€to€retry€him€is€not€equivalent€to€a€determination€thatÐ ° ÐPlaintiff€was€not€guilty€of€the€crime€with€which€he€was€charged.€€There€are€many€possible€reasons€why€the€State€may€have€Ð tÄ Ðdecided€not€to€retry€Plaintiff,€some€of€which€have€no€bearing€on€his€actual€guilt€or€innocence.€€For€example,€evidenceÐ 8ˆ Ðmay€have€become€stale€after€fourteen€and€one„half€years,€or€the€alleged€victim€may€have€refused€to€reopen€this€traumaticÐ üL Ðevent€from€her€past,€etc.€(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó- ù-(|G2Æ$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€F»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôï½ò»»Ô d(|3?$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€F»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV)ÿÿ!dxdx)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3?$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€F»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€F»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÔ€¼F»»»ÔÑ8€XXdì»»d8ÑÑ  Ñà@ü ü ìàÔ‡îW¼î»¼FÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@WW$ìàAT€KNOXVILLEÔ#†¼F»îîW¼ #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  ÓAugust€20,€2003€SessionÐ üL ÐÔ‡XX»¼FÔÌÌò òÔ#†¼F»XXô#ÔSTEVE€CONKLIN€v.€STATE€OF€TENNESSEEÔ‡XX»¼FÔó óÐ æ 6 ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òÔ#†¼F»XX^#ÔÔ€XX»¼FÔAppeal€from€the€Claims€Commission€of€the€State€of€TennesseeÐ æ 6 Ðà@@øøìàNo.€20200755€€€€€€Vance€W.€Cheek,€Jr.,€CommissionerÐ Ò " ÐÌññFILED€OCTOBER€27,€Ô_Ô2003ññÔ_ÔÐ ªú  Ðà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<•` AßÐ –æ  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€E2002„03130„Ô_ÔCOAÔ_Ô„R3„CVÐ ‘á  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<h` Aßó óÓ  ÓÐ i¹  ÐÌApproximately€seventeen€years€ago,€Steve€Conklin€(Plaintiffðð)€was€convicted€by€a€jury€in€theÐ d´ ÐÔ_ÔMcMinnÔ_Ô€County€Criminal€Court€of€raping€a€child€under€the€age€of€thirteen€years.€€PlaintiffððsÐ P  Ðconviction€was€affirmed€by€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€in€1987.€€Plaintiff€was€represented€byÐ <Œ Ðappointed€counsel,€Fredric€J.€Chester,€Jr.€(ð ðChesterðð).€€Chester€represented€Plaintiff€both€at€trial€andÐ (x Ðon€the€direct€appeal.€€Many€years€later,€Plaintiff€was€granted€post„conviction€relief€based€onÐ d Ðineffective€assistance€of€counsel€and€a€new€trial€was€ordered.€€The€State€of€Tennessee€(ð ðStateðð)Ð P Ðdeclined€to€retry€Plaintiff,€who€then€was€set€free.€€Plaintiff€filed€this€lawsuit€in€the€ClaimsÐ ì< ÐCommission€(ð ðCommissionðð)€against€the€State€seeking€monetary€compensation€for€the€alleged€legalÐ Ø( Ðmalpractice€of€Chester€which€Plaintiff€claims€resulted€in€his€being€imprisoned€improperly€forÐ Ä Ðfourteen€and€one„half€years.€According€to€Plaintiff,€Chester€should€be€deemed€a€state€employeeÐ ° Ðbecause€he€was€appointed€by€the€court.€€The€State€disagreed€and€filed€a€motion€to€dismiss€theÐ œì Ðcomplaint.€€The€State€argued€that€the€Commission€lacked€subject€matter€jurisdiction€over€PlaintiffððsÐ ˆØ Ðlegal€malpractice€claim€because€Chester€was€not€a€ð ðstate€employeeðð.€€The€Commission€dismissedÐ tÄ Ðthe€lawsuit€solely€because€Plaintiff€failed€to€respond€timely€to€the€Stateððs€motion€to€dismiss.€€WeÐ `° Ðhold€Chester€was€not€an€employee€of€the€state€and,€therefore,€the€Commission€lacked€subject€matterÐ L œ Ðjurisdiction€over€Plaintiffððs€legal€malpractice€claim.€€The€result€reached€by€the€Commission€isÐ 8!ˆ  Ðaffirmed.Ð $"t! ÐÌà@µ µ ìàò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€theˆÐ ü#L# Ðà@ò ò ìàClaims€Commission€Affirmed;€Case€Remanded.ˆÐ è$8 $ Ðó óÌÌòòD.€Michael€Ô_ÔSwineyÔ_Ô,€J.,€óódelivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòHerschel€P.€Franks,€J.óó,Ð ¬'ü"' Ðjoined.€€òòHouston€M.€Ô_ÔGoddardÔ_Ô,€P.J.,óó€not€participating.Ð ˜(è#( ÐÌCharles€P.€Dupree,€Chattanooga,€Tennessee,€for€the€Appellant€Steve€Conklin.Ð p*À%* ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter,€Michael€E.€Moore,€Solicitor€General,€and€HeatherÐ H,˜', ÐC.€Ross,€Senior€Counsel,€Nashville,€Tennessee,€for€the€Appellee€State€of€Tennessee.Ð 4-„(-ý ÐÔ_Ô‡à@66'ìàò òOPINIONˆÐ ° ÐÌà@ÛÛ%ìàòòBackgroundó óóóˆÐ ˆØ ÐÌà  àà ` àPlaintiff€was€prosecuted€in€the€McMinn€County€Criminal€Court€for€the€crime€ofÐ `° Ðraping€a€child€under€the€age€of€thirteen€years.€€Plaintiff€could€not€afford€counsel€and€Chester€wasÐ L œ Ðappointed€to€represent€Plaintiff.€€Chester€was€employed€at€the€local€law€firm€of€Higgins,€Biddle€&Ð 8 ˆ ÐChester.€€Plaintiff€was€convicted€of€aggravated€rape€(sexual€penetration€of€a€child€under€the€age€ofÐ $ t Ðthirteen)€after€a€jury€trial€and€sentenced€to€twenty„five€years€in€prison.€€A€direct€appeal€was€taken€andÐ  ` Ðin€July€1987,€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€affirmed€Plaintiffððs€conviction€and€the€twenty„five€yearÐ ü L  Ðsentence.€€òòSee€Conklin€v.€Stateóó,€No.€146,€1987€Tenn.€Crim.€App.€LEXIS€2284€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð è 8  ÐJuly€22,€1987),òò€perm.€to€appeal€dismissed€Mar.€14,€1988.óó€€Chester€also€represented€Plaintiff€on€theÐ Ô$  Ðdirect€appeal€of€the€aggravated€rape€conviction.€Ð À  ÐÌà  àà ` àAfter€Plaintiffððs€conviction€was€affirmed€by€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals,€PlaintiffÐ ˜è  Ðset€about€filing€numerous€petitions€for€post„conviction€relief,€with€the€most€recent€petition€allegingÐ „Ô  Ðineffective€assistance€of€counsel.€€While€the€record€on€appeal€does€not€contain€a€copy€of€this€petitionÐ pÀ Ðor€the€criminal€courtððs€reasoning€as€to€why€Plaintiff€was€entitled€to€relief,€we€know€the€petition€wasÐ \¬ Ðsuccessful€and€on€November€17,€2000,€Plaintiffððs€conviction€was€set„aside€and€a€new€trial€wasÐ H˜ Ðordered.€€For€reasons€not€explained€in€the€record€before€this€Court€on€appeal,€the€State€declined€toÐ 4„ Ðretry€Plaintiff€and€the€charge€against€him€was€voluntarily€dismissed.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Plaintiff€thus€became€a€ð ðfreeÐ  p Ðman.ðð€Ð  \ ÐÌà  àà ` àPlaintiff€filed€his€claim€with€the€Division€of€Claims€Administration€alleging€the€StateÐ ä4 Ðwas€liable€to€him€for€Chesterððs€legal€malpractice.€€Plaintiffððs€claim€was€transferred€to€the€ClaimsÐ Ð  ÐCommission€where€Plaintiff€filed€his€Complaint€for€Damages.€€Plaintiff€claims€that€because€ChesterÐ ¼  Ðwas€appointed€by€the€criminal€court€to€represent€him,€Chester€is€to€be€considered€a€state€employeeÐ ¨ø Ðfor€any€legal€malpractice€claims€arising€out€of€that€court€appointed€representation.€€According€toÐ ”ä ÐPlaintiff,€Chesterððs€ineffective€assistance€resulted€in€Plaintiffððs€being€improperly€imprisoned€fromÐ €Ð ÐMay€30,€1986,€until€November€17,€2000.€€Plaintiff€seeks€damages€from€the€State€in€the€amount€ofÐ l¼ Ð$1.45€million€dollars,€representing€$100,000€for€each€year€Plaintiff€was€in€prison.€€Ð X ¨ ÐÌà  àà ` àOn€September€23,€2002,€the€State€filed€a€motion€to€dismiss€the€complaint.€€The€StateÐ 0"€  Ðargued€Chester€was€a€partner€in€the€law€firm€of€Higgins,€Biddle€&€Chester,€and€was€not€a€stateÐ #l! Ðemployee.€€The€State€argued€the€Commission€lacked€subject€matter€jurisdiction€because€Chester€wasÐ $X" Ðnot€a€state€employee€when€he€represented€Plaintiff€in€the€criminal€proceedings,€and,€therefore,€theÐ ô$D # Ðcomplaint€should€be€dismissed.€€Plaintiff€never€responded€to€the€Stateððs€motion€to€dismiss.Ð à%0!$ ÐÐ Ì&"% Ðà  àà ` àOn€October€29,€2002,€the€Commission€dismissed€the€complaint€because€PlaintiffÐ ° Ðfailed€to€respond€to€the€Stateððs€motion€to€dismiss.€€In€so€doing,€the€Commission€stated:Ð œì ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àPursuant€to€òòTennessee€Claims€Commission€Rule€No.óó€0310„1„Ð tÄ Ð1„.01(5)(c),€failure€to€make€a€timely€response€to€a€motion€essentiallyÐ `° Ðconstitutes€a€waiver€of€any€objection€to€the€motion.€€Responses€toÐ L œ Ðmotions€shall€be€made€no€later€than€fifteen€(15)€days€after€service€ofÐ 8 ˆ Ðthe€motion,€except€that€in€case€of€motions€for€summary€judgment€theÐ $ t Ðtime€shall€be€thirty€(30)€days€after€service€of€the€motion.€€The€StateÐ  ` Ðfiled€its€Motion€to€Dismiss€on€September€23,€2002.€€A€response€to€theÐ ü L  ÐStateððs€Motion€to€Dismiss€has€not€been€filed€with€the€Clerk€of€theÐ è 8  ÐTennessee€Claims€Commission€or€received€by€the€CommissionerððsÐ Ô$  ÐOffice€as€of€the€date€of€this€Order.ð8ðÐÀ ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àFor€the€reasons€stated€above,€the€Commissioner€herebyÐ ˜è  Ðò òORDERSó ó€that€this€claim€be€and€is€ò òDISMISSEDó ó.Ð„Ô ` x` x ÐÌà  àà ` àAfter€the€complaint€was€dismissed,€Plaintiff€filed€a€motion€pursuant€to€Tenn.€R.€Civ.Ð `° ÐP.€60.02€seeking€to€set€aside€the€order€of€dismissal.€€Plaintiff€claimed€no€response€was€filed€becauseÐ Lœ Ðhis€attorney€had€been€attempting€to€contact€the€Stateððs€attorney€to€request€an€extension€of€time€inÐ 8ˆ Ðwhich€to€respond€to€the€motion.€€The€Commission€denied€Plaintiffððs€motion€to€set€aside€the€orderÐ $t Ðof€dismissal,€concluding€Plaintiffððs€counselððs€attempt€to€contact€opposing€counsel€was€not€aÐ ` Ðsufficient€basis€under€Rule€60.02€in€which€to€set€aside€the€judgment.€€The€Commission€also€statedÐ üL Ðthat€if€counsel€needed€an€extension€of€time€to€respond€to€the€motion€to€dismiss,€ð ðthe€proper€party€toÐ è8 Ðwhich€he€should€have€sought€the€extension€should€have€been€the€Commissioner.ðð€€Plaintiff€appeals,Ð Ô$ Ðclaiming€the€Commission€erred€when€it€dismissed€his€complaint.€Ð À ÐÌà@))%ìàò òòòDiscussionó óóóˆÐ ˜è ÐÌà  àà ` àWhether€the€Commission€has€subject€matter€jurisdiction€over€the€allegations€inÐ pÀ ÐPlaintiffððs€complaint€is€a€question€of€law.€€With€respect€to€legal€issues,€our€review€is€conductedÐ \ ¬ Ðð ðunder€a€pure€òòde€novoóó€standard€of€review,€according€no€deference€to€the€conclusions€of€law€madeÐ H!˜ Ðby€the€lower€courts.ðð€€òòSouthern€Constructors,€Inc.€v.€Loudon€County€Bd.€Of€Educ.óó,€58€S.W.3d€706,Ð 4"„  Ð710€(Tenn.€2001).€€As€recently€stated€by€our€Supreme€Court€in€òòNorthland€Ins.€Co.€v.€Stateóó,€33Ð  #p! ÐS.W.3d€727€(Tenn.€2000):Ð  $\" ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àA€motion€to€dismiss€for€lack€of€subject€matter€jurisdictionÐ ä%4!$ Ðfalls€under€Tennessee€Rule€of€Civil€Procedure€12.02(1).€€The€conceptÐ Ð& "% Ðof€subject€matter€jurisdiction€involves€a€court's€lawful€authority€toÐ ¼' #& Ðadjudicate€a€controversy€brought€before€it.òò€€See€Meighan€v.€U.S.Ð ¨(ø#' ÐSprint€Communications€Co.óó,€924€S.W.2d€632,€639€(Tenn.€1996);Ð ”)ä$( ÐòòStandard€Sur.€&€Casualty€Co.€v.€Sloan,óó€180€Tenn.€220,€230,€173Ð €*Ð%) ÐS.W.2d€436,€440€(1943).€€Subject€matter€jurisdiction€involves€theÐ l+¼&* Ðnature€of€the€cause€of€action€and€the€relief€sought,òò€see€Landers€v.Ð ° ÐJonesóó,€872€S.W.2d€674,€675€(Tenn.€1994),€and€can€only€be€conferredÐ œì Ðon€a€court€by€constitutional€or€legislative€act.òò€€See€Kane€v.€Kaneóó,€547Ð ˆØ ÐS.W.2d€559,€560€(Tenn.€1977);€òòComputer€Shoppe,€Inc.€v.€Stateóó,€780Ð tÄ ÐS.W.2d€729,€734€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1989).€€Since€a€determination€ofÐ `° Ðwhether€subject€matter€jurisdiction€exists€is€a€question€of€law,€ourÐ L œ Ðstandard€of€review€is€de€novo,€without€a€presumption€of€correctness.€Ð 8 ˆ ÐòòSee€Nelson€v.€Wal-Mart€Stores,€Incóó.,€8€S.W.3d€625,€628€(Tenn.€1999).Ð$ t` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àArticle€I,€section€17€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution€providesÐ ü L  Ðthat€"[s]uits€may€be€brought€against€the€State€in€such€manner€and€inÐ è 8  Ðsuch€courts€as€the€Legislature€may€by€law€direct."€€This€constitutionalÐ Ô$  Ðprovision€reflects€sovereign€immunity,€the€notion€that€a€sovereignÐ À  Ðgovernmental€entity€cannot€be€sued€in€its€own€courts€without€itsÐ ¬ü  Ðconsent.€€òòSee€State€v.€Cookóó,€171€Tenn.€605,€609,€106€S.W.2d€858,€860Ð ˜è  Ð(1937);€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€20-13-102€("No€court€in€the€state€shallÐ „Ô  Ðhave€any€power,€jurisdiction,€or€authority€to€entertain€any€suit€againstÐ pÀ Ðthe€state€...€with€a€view€to€reach€the€state,€its€treasury,€funds,€orÐ \¬ Ðproperty€...").€€As€a€general€interpretive€matter,€this€Court€has€heldÐ H˜ Ðthat€the€principle€of€sovereign€immunity€requires€that€legislationÐ 4„ Ðauthorizing€suits€against€the€state€must€provide€for€the€state's€consentÐ  p Ðin€"plain,€clear,€and€unmistakable"€terms.€€òòCookóó,€171€Tenn.€at€611,Ð  \ Ð106€S.W.2d€at€861;€€òòsee€also€Beare€Company€v.€Olsenóó,€711€S.W.2dÐ øH Ð603,€605€(Tenn.€1986).€€We€must€therefore€carefully€analyze€theÐ ä4 Ðstatute€granting€jurisdiction€to€the€Tennessee€Claims€Commission,Ð Ð  Ðwhich€this€Court€has€previously€held€creates€a€"sweeping€procedureÐ ¼  Ðfor€filing€monetary€claims€against€the€state."€€òòHembree€v.€Stateóó,€925Ð ¨ø ÐS.W.2d€513,€516€(Tenn.€1996).Дä` x` x ÐÌòòNorthlandóó,€33€S.W.3d€at€729.Ð l¼ ÐÌà  àà ` àIn€the€present€case,€Plaintiff€argues€that€even€if€he€did€not€respond€timely€to€theÐ D!” ÐStateððs€motion€to€dismiss,€the€Commission€nevertheless€was€required€to€determine€whether€theÐ 0"€  Ðrequested€relief€was€appropriate€under€the€law€and€facts.€€Plaintiff€then€argues€that€because€his€courtÐ #l! Ðappointed€attorney€was€a€state€employee,€the€motion€to€dismiss€should€not€have€been€grantedÐ $X" Ðregardless€of€whether€a€response€to€the€motion€to€dismiss€was€filed.€€Ð ô$D # ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€State€argues€that€the€Commission€was€entitled€to€deem€Plaintiffððs€lack€ofÐ Ì&"% Ðresponse€to€the€motion€to€dismiss€as€ð ðan€[i]ndication€that€he€did€not€[o]pposeðð€having€his€caseÐ ¸'#& Ðdismissed.€€Alternatively,€the€State€argues€that€the€complaint€was€subject€to€dismissal€becauseÐ ¤(ô#' ÐPlaintiffððs€court€appointed€attorney€was€not€a€state€employee€and,€consequently,€the€CommissionÐ )à$( Ðâ âlacked€subject€matter€jurisdiction.€€In€other€words,€the€State€argues€that€had€the€Commission€actuallyÐ |*Ì%) Ðreached€the€merits€of€its€motion€to€dismiss,€the€claim€would€have€been€dismissed€anyway.€€We€firstÐ ° Ðwill€address€this€alternative€argument€of€the€State.Ð œì Ðâ âÌà  àà ` àTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€9-8-307(a)(1)(D)€waives€the€stateððs€immunity€for€legalÐ tÄ Ðmalpractice€actions€when€the€malpractice€is€committed€by€a€state€employee€and€there€is€aÐ `° Ðprofessional/client€relationship.€€The€statute€provides:€Ð L œ ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ à(a)(1)€€The€commission€or€each€commissioner€sittingÐ $ t Ðindividually€has€exclusive€jurisdiction€to€determine€all€monetaryÐ  ` Ðclaims€against€the€state€based€on€the€acts€or€omissions€of€"stateÐ ü L  Ðemployees,"€as€defined€in€ðð€8-42-101(3),€falling€within€one€(1)€orÐ è 8  Ðmore€of€the€following€categories:ÐÔ$ ` x` x ÐÌà@ÙÙ'ìà*€*€*€*ˆÐ ¬ü  ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ à(D)€€Legal€ð8ð€malpractice€by€a€state€employee;€€provided,€thatÐ „Ô  Ðthe€state€employee€has€a€professional/client€relationship€with€theÐ pÀ Ðclaimant;€ð8ð.Ð\¬` x` x ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€issue€of€whether€a€court€appointed€attorney€is€considered€a€state€employee€isÐ 4„ Ðspecifically€addressed€in€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€8-42-103.€€In€general,€this€statutory€section€gives€theÐ  p Ðattorney€general€discretion€to€provide€legal€representation€to€state€employees€who€have€been€suedÐ  \ Ðbecause€of€certain€acts€or€omissions€committed€within€their€scope€of€employment.€€The€statuteÐ øH Ðprovides€unequivocally€that€court€appointed€attorneys€are€to€be€considered€state€employees,€but€òòonlyóóÐ ä4 Ðfor€purposes€of€the€attorney€general€having€discretion€to€provide€legal€representation€when€a€courtÐ Ð  Ðappointed€attorney€is€sued,€assuming€the€other€statutory€requirements€are€met.€€In€relevant€part,€theÐ ¼  Ðstatute€provides:Ð ¨ø ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ à(a)€€When€a€civil€action€for€damages€is€commenced€in€anyÐ €Ð Ðcourt€by€any€person€against€any€state€employee€as€defined€in€thisÐ l¼ Ðchapter€for€any€acts€or€omissions€of€the€state€employee€within€theÐ X ¨ Ðscope€of€the€employee's€employment,€except€for€willful,€malicious,Ð D!” Ðor€criminal€acts€or€omissions€or€for€acts€or€omissions€done€forÐ 0"€  Ðpersonal€gain,€the€attorney€general€and€reporter€has€the€discretion€toÐ #l! Ðprovide€representation€to€the€employee.ð8ðÐ$X"` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ à(b)€€For€the€exclusive€purpose€of€this€section,€"state€employee"Ð à%0!$ Ðalso€includes€attorneys€appointed€by€a€court,€or€other€agencyÐ Ì&"% Ðauthorized€by€law€to€make€such€appointments,€to€represent€anÐ ¸'#& Ðindigent€when€a€civil€action€for€damages€is€commenced€against€suchÐ ¤(ô#' Ðattorney€for€any€act€or€omission€in€the€course€of€representing€suchÐ )à$( Ðâ âindigent.€€òòNotwithstanding€any€provision€of€law€to€the€contrary,€suchÐ |*Ì%) Ðattorney€shall€not€be€considered€a€state€employee€for€any€otherÐ ° Ðpurpose€including,€but€not€limited€to,€ðððð€9-8-112€and€9-8-307.óóМì` x` x Ðâ âÌTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€8„42„103€(emphasis€added).Ð tÄ ÐÌà  àà ` àWe€believe€the€intent€of€the€legislature€is€quite€clear€from€the€statute€itself.€€Tenn.Ð L œ ÐCode€Ann.€ðð€8„42„103(b)€clearly€states€that€a€court€appointed€attorney€is€not€considered€a€ð ðstateÐ 8 ˆ Ðemployeeðð€for€purposes€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€9„8„307,€the€statutory€provision€which€waives€the€stateððsÐ $ t Ðsovereign€immunity€in€certain€specific€instances€and€which€confers€subject€matter€jurisdiction€on€theÐ  ` ÐCommission€to€resolve€those€claims.€€Accordingly,€the€Commission€has€no€subject€matterÐ ü L  Ðjurisdiction€to€hear€a€claim€against€the€State€for€legal€malpractice€arising€out€of€the€acts€or€omissionsÐ è 8  Ðof€a€court€appointed€attorney.€€Notwithstanding€the€foregoing,€if€a€legal€malpractice€action€is€broughtÐ Ô$  Ðagainst€a€court€appointed€attorney,€as€opposed€to€the€state,€arising€out€of€acts€or€omissions€occurringÐ À  Ðduring€the€court€appointed€representation,€then€the€attorney€general€has€discretion€to€provide€thatÐ ¬ü  Ðattorney€with€legal€representation.€€The€Western€Section€of€this€Court€reached€this€very€sameÐ ˜è  Ðconclusion€in€òòTaylor€v.€Stateóó,€No.€02A01„9508„BC„00229,€1996€Tenn.€App.€LEXIS€389€(Tenn.€Ct.Ð „Ô  ÐApp.€July€3,€1996),€òòno€appl.€perm.€appeal€filedóó.€€In€òòTayloróó,€we€affirmed€the€dismissal€of€a€legalÐ pÀ Ðmalpractice€lawsuit€filed€with€the€Commission€against€the€State€of€Tennessee€arising€out€of€allegedÐ \¬ Ðacts€or€omission€of€a€court€appointed€attorney.€€We€concluded€the€Commission€lacked€subject€matterÐ H˜ Ðjurisdiction€over€such€a€claim,€reasoning€as€follows:Ð 4„ ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àThe€crux€of€Title€8,€Chapter€42€of€the€Code€is€found€in€T.C.A.€ððÐ  \ Ð8-42-103,€entitled€"Defense€Counsel€for€State€Employees."€€ThisÐ øH Ðsection€states€that€under€certain€defined€conditions,€a€state€employeeÐ ä4 Ðwho€is€sued€in€a€civil€action€for€damages€for€any€act€or€omission€inÐ Ð  Ðthe€course€of€his€employment€will€be€provided€defense€counsel€by€theÐ ¼  Ðstate.€€T.C.A.€ðð€8-42-103(b)€states€in€simple€terms€that€aÐ ¨ø Ðcourt-appointed€attorney€assigned€to€represent€an€indigent€who€isÐ ”ä Ðthereafter€sued€by€the€indigent€for€damages€arising€as€a€result€of€thisÐ €Ð Ðrepresentation€is€a€"state€employee,"€and€may€avail€himself€of€defenseÐ l¼ Ðcounsel€provided€by€the€state.€€As€noted,€T.C.A.€ðð€8-42-103(b)Ð X ¨ Ðspecifically€provides€that€such€attorney€will€not€be€considered€a€stateÐ D!” Ðemployee€for€any€other€purpose,€including,€but€not€limited€to,€T.C.A.Ð 0"€  Ððð€9-8-307,€which€delineates€the€jurisdiction€of€the€Tennessee€ClaimsÐ #l! ÐCommission.Ð$X"` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àThe€order€of€the€commissioner€dismissing€claimant's€suit€isÐ à%0!$ Ðaffirmed.ð8ð€ÐÌ&"%` x` x ÐÌòòTayloróó,€1996€Tenn.€App.€LEXIS€389,€at€**3,€4.Ð ¤(ô#' ÐÌà  àà ` àIn€the€present€case,€we€agree€with€the€State€that€the€Commission€has€no€subject€matterÐ |*Ì%) Ðjurisdiction€over€the€allegations€contained€within€Plaintiffððs€complaint€because€Plaintiffððs€courtÐ h+¸&* Ðappointed€attorney€was€not€a€state€employee,€and€for€this€reason€the€complaint€was€subject€toÐ ° Ðdismissal.€€Even€though€the€Commission€never€decided€this€issue,€it€nevertheless€reached€the€correctÐ œì Ðresult€when€it€dismissed€the€complaint€because€Plaintiff€did€not€respond€to€the€Stateððs€Motion€toÐ ˆØ ÐDismiss€€.€€We€affirm€the€Commissionððs€judgment€dismissing€the€complaint,€although€for€the€reasonsÐ tÄ Ðdiscussed€above.€€òòSeeóó€òòBasily€v.€Rain,€Inc.óó,€29€S.W.3d€879,€884€n.3€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€2000)(ð ðWe€mayÐ `° Ðaffirm€a€judgment€upon€different€grounds€than€those€relied€on€by€the€trial€court€when€the€trial€courtÐ L œ Ðhas€reached€the€correct€result.ðð).€€The€remaining€issue€of€whether€the€Commission€erred€inÐ 8 ˆ Ðdismissing€the€complaint€solely€because€Plaintiff€did€not€file€a€timely€response€is€pretermitted.€Ð $ t ÐÌòòóóà@  %ìàò òòòConclusionó óóóˆÐ ü L  ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€judgment€of€the€Claims€Commission€is€affirmed,€and€this€cause€is€remanded€toÐ Ô$  Ðthe€Commission€for€further€proceedings€as€are€necessary,€if€any,€consistent€with€this€Opinion,€andÐ À  Ðfor€collection€of€the€costs€below.€€The€costs€on€appeal€are€assessed€against€the€Appellant€SteveÐ ¬ü  ÐConklin€and€his€surety.€€Ð ˜è  ÐÌÌÌÌÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð øH Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àD.€MICHAEL€SWINEY,€JUDGEÐ ä4 Ð