WPC/ Iglˆ90T95TAJ|= CVyҴB(1b=D Ғjj; 7~A \*heot~#[4 QqCf7ɚ+SAE6\У:,x/Fg-C{^]Ʌ[y[ <5c&*dUw.q(Cl0/pϵ(pL&Q\ַ ڍ3_> yo,T )yD{I:څIm ឈ?*VR >S3; '& 9XǮCqM֠ۿDo])I,%WSHAP(NtR4wY-ܫAI'bܠβ1 ?eTxき!V:H cNK O4CQ@D|fu:yĤ^$ x* 5"S\y*Tb#\ %% UN+ 0y U$N O T ze 1uG &U>m 0D{A N" 72"^ #E#w #46#J#Y# m[# 0r# 07$ 0% 0% 0h& 0' 0' 0K(K(K(K(K(K(K(K(K(K(K(b((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((( 1e((((( 0M)M)H8*8* B++ 0+ D3A, D-t, 0K,, AS,?- 0. 0D. A.\\IB01S02\CLERKJAC,,,,0(9 Z6Times New Roman Regular(`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regular  Re$      1    _ԀRule10oftheRulesoftheCourtofAppealsofTennesseeprovidesasfollows:    ThisCourt,withtheconcurrenceofalljudgesparticipatinginthecase,mayaffirm, q reverseormodifytheactionsofthetrialcourtbymemorandumopinionwhena 2 formalopinionwouldhavenoprecedentialvalue.Whenacaseisdecidedby C memorandumopinionitshallbedesignated MEMORANDUMOPINION,shall  notbepublished,andshallnotbecitedorreliedonforanyreasoninanyunrelated u case.  Re$      2    _ԀThereleaseeligibilitydateofaprisonerinthecustodyofthe_TDOC_Ԁisgovernedbysection4035501ofthe  TennesseeCode,whichprovides,inrelevantpart,asfollows: q   (a)(1)Afelonysentencetothedepartmentofcorrectionortoalocaljailor 2 workhouseshallbeservedaccordingtothischapter.Aninmateshallnotbe C eligibleforparoleuntilreachingsuchinmatesreleaseeligibilitydate[.]    sTenn.CodeAnn.4035501(a)(1)(2003). 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.wpt3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a) = Re$      3    _ԀSection4035501oftheTennesseeCodeprovides,inrelevantpart,asfollows: S   M !"#(03 ?+ ` hp x X?   (h)(1)Releaseeligibilityforeachdefendantreceivingasentenceofimprisonment  forlifeforfirstdegreemurdershalloccurafterserviceofsixtypercent(60%)of  sixty(60)yearslesssentencecreditsearnedandretainedbythedefendant,butin F noeventshalladefendantsentencedtoimprisonmentforlifebeeligibleforparole W untilthedefendanthasservedaminimumoftwentyfive(25)fullcalendaryearsof  suchsentence,notwithstandingthegovernor'spowertoreduceprisonovercrowding   pursuanttotitle41,chapter1,part5,oranysentencereductioncreditsauthorized J  by# # # # 4121236,oranyotherprovisionoflawrelatingtosentencecredits.A  [ defendantreceivingasentenceofimprisonmentforlifeforfirstdegreemurdershall    beentitledtoearnandretainsuchsentencecredits,butsuchcreditsshallnot    operatetomakesuchdefendanteligibleforreleasepriortotheserviceoftwenty N   five(25)fullcalendaryears.# :# _      S Tenn.CodeAnn.4035501(h)(1)(2003).# #NeitherMr._DeBerry_Ԁnorthe_TDOC_ԀprovidedanexplanationastowhyMr.  _DeBerry_sreleaseeligibilitydatewasextended.  q # #\  `&Times New Roman(#$  0  Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5  Re$      5    _ԀIntheAppendixtotheAppellantsBrief,Mr._DeBerry_ԀincludedacopyofaPetitionforDeclaratoryOrder  datedJuly13,1999,addressedtothe_TDOC_.Aftersearchingthepetitionfiledwiththetrialcourt,however,weare q unabletofindanymentionthatthisrequestforadeclaratoryorderwasactuallysubmittedto_TDOC_Ԁandruledupon. 2 SeeTenn.CodeAnn.45223(a)(2003);Tenn.CodeAnn.45224(b)(2003). i)q1 E6h0L K3|xU*AA (_17  5+ ` hp x 523  Ԁ5+ ` hp x 5  *GG (_16   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ/%` ` hp x /   *88 (_15  ," hp x ,23  Ԁ," hp x ,  *55 (_14 ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ) hp x ) ` *22 (_13  &hhp x &23  Ԁ&hhp x &  *// (_12  #p x #23  Ԁ#p x #  *,, (_11 h  p x 23  Ԁ p x h *)) (_10  pp x 23  Ԁpp x   - - !"# 35;AGMSY_11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.(|G2e$ !.8dd8         0   > Re$      4    _ԀManagementInformationServicesisanadministrativeagencyemployedbythe_TDOC_.(_T.R._,Vol.1,p.36).   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     _  8XXdd8  @ kINTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @%ATJACKSON#k #Ԉ #   ASSIGNEDONBRIEFSAUGUST24,2004 F XX #XX#MAXDEBERRYv.EDGORE,etal.XX  ? @@ DirectAppealfromtheCircuitCourtforGibsonCounty  9 @@No.7919ClayburnPeeples,Judge  # @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.W200302679COAR3CV񀄀FilednovemNovember17,2004   AV) ` dE<]` A ^     X9XXXThiscaseinvolvesaninmatespetitionforawritofmandamusfiledagainsttheTennessee V  DepartmentofCorrectionfollowinganincreaseinhisreleaseeligibilitydate.Theinmatefiledthe ? petitionaskingthetrialcourttoorderthedepartmenttoenforcethesentencingrangesetforthinthe (x judgmententeredasaresultofhispleaagreement.Thedepartmentfiledamotiontodismisswhich a thetrialcourtgranted.Weaffirm. J Ѐ#XXXX9c##XXm#XX 3 W Tenn.R.App.P.3;AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheCircuitCourtAffirmed     #X#XX.AlanE.Highers,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichDavidR.Farmer,J.,andHolly  M.Kirby,J.,joined. q MaxDeberry,prose,Only,TN C PaulG.Summers,AttorneyGeneralandReporter,MichaelMoore,SolicitorGeneral,PamelaS. e Lorch,SeniorCounsel,Nashville,TN,forAppellees N  #XX#XX#XXϿ #XX  X9XXX  *X%*v @!MEMORANDUMOPINION  #  1      ׈   @t t FactualBackgroundandProceduralHistory n       MaxDeBerry( Mr.DeBerryor Appellant)iscurrentlyaninmateinthecustodyofthe , | TennesseeDepartmentofCorrection(the TDOC)attheTurneyCenterIndustrialPrisoninOnly,  e Tennessee.OnNovember25,1997,Mr.DeBerrypledguiltytofirstdegreemurderintheCircuit  N CourtofGibsonCounty,Tennessee.TheHonorableDickJerman,Jr.,enteredajudgmentonthat  7  datestatingthatMr.DeBerrywasbeingsentencedundertheSentenceReformActof1989and   classifiedhimasa Standard30%RangeIoffender.JudgeJermanenteredanAmendedJudgement   onMarch2,1998,whichreflectedthatMr.DeBerrypledguiltytofirstdegreemurderin   perpetrationofespeciallyaggravatedrobberycommittedonJanuary11,1996.  #  2      ׀TheAmended   JudgmentalsoclassifiedMr.DeBerryasa Standard30%RangeIoffenderandsentencedhimto t  lifeinprison.  ]    Althoughtherecordisnotentirelyclear,afterMr.DeBerrywassurrenderedintothe F TDOCscustodyhisreleaseeligibilitydatewasapparentlyadjustedupwardbyTDOCofficials. %   #  3      ׀ / OnJanuary28,2003,Mr.DeBerryfiledaprosePetitionforWritofMandamusintheCircuitCourt  ofGibsonCountyagainstEdGore,DirectorofManagementInformationServices( Appellee).T  #  4      ׀  Mr.DeBerryaskedthecourttoissueawritcommanding [t]hatpetitionerDeBerry[sic]sentence  berecalculatedbythedefendantstoratiocinate[sic]aLifeSentencepursuanttotheSentence k ReformActof1989,asaStandardRangeOneOffenderwithaReleaseEligibilityDateofThirty T Percent(30%).Inhispetition,Mr.DeBerryassertedthatthecourtshouldissuethewritbecause =  hehadnootheradequateremedyatlaw. & v   TheTDOCfiledaMotiontoDismisswiththetrialcourtaskingthecourttodismissMr.  H DeBerryspetitionpursuanttoTennesseeRuleofCivilProcedure12.02.Specifically,theTDOC  1  assertedthatthepetitionforwritofmandamusshouldbedismissedbecauseMr.DeBerrysproper    remedywasfirsttoseekadeclaratoryorderfromtheTDOCpursuanttotheTennesseeUniform   AdministrativeProceduresAct( UAPA).ThetrialcourtagreedandenteredanorderonDecember   4,2003,dismissingMr.DeBerryspetitiononthegroundsthathefailedtoexhausthis   administrativeremediesintestingtheTDOCscomputationofhissentence. n    Mr.DeBerryfiledanappealtothisCourtaskingustoconsiderseveralissues,allofwhich @ canbesummarizedintothefollowingissue:WhethertheTDOChastheauthoritytoalterthe )y judgmentofatrialcourtrelatingtotheclassificationofaninmateunderthesentencingguidelines? b Forthereasonsstatedbelow,weaffirmthetrialcourtsdismissalofthepetition. K    0 @ StandardofReview     0  AmotiontodismisspursuanttoTennesseeRuleofCivilProcedure12.02(6) admitsthe(#(# truthofallrelevantandmaterialavermentscontainedinthecomplaint,butassertsthatsuchfacts  donotconstituteacauseofaction.Steinv.DavidsonHotelCo.,945S.W.2d714,716(Tenn. t 1997);seealsoSweattv.Conley,No.01A019706CH00247,1997WL749482,at*2(Tenn.Ct. ] App.Dec.5,1997). Thefailuretostateaclaimuponwhichreliefcanbegrantedisdeterminedby F anexaminationofthecomplaintalone.Gunterv.Lab.Corp.ofAm.,121S.W.3d636,639(Tenn. / 2003). WhenreviewingadismissalofacomplaintunderRule12.02(6),thisCourtmusttakethe h factualallegationscontainedinthecomplaintastrueandreviewthetrialcourtslegalconclusions  Q denovowithoutgivinganypresumptionofcorrectnesstothoseconclusions.Willisv.Tenn.Dept  : ofCorr.,113S.W.3d706,710(Tenn.2003). Becauseamotiontodismissacomplaintunderrule !#  12.02(6)challengesonlythelegalsufficiencyofthecomplaint,courtsshouldgrantamotionto " !  dismissonlywhenitappearsthattheplaintiffcanprovenosetoffactsinsupportoftheclaimthat #" wouldentitletheplaintifftorelief.Gorev.Tenn.DeptofCorr.,132S.W.3d369,373(Tenn.Ct.  App.2003).  `      ApplicableLawandAnalysis k    Ӏ ThelawcontrollingtheavailabilityoftheextraordinaryremedyoftheWritof ?  MandamusiswellsettledinTennessee.Stateexrel.Weaverv.Ayers,756S.W.2d217,220(Tenn. ( x 1988).  a ` ` Ourcourtswillissuewritsofmandamusonlywhenthefollowing  J threeelementscoexist:(1)theplaintiffsclearrighttotherelief  3  sought,PeerlessConstr.Co.v.Bass,158Tenn.518,520,14S.W.2d    732,733(1929);(2)thedefendantscleardutytoperformtheactthe   plaintiffseekstocompel,Stateexrel.Weaverv.Ayers,756S.W.2d   217,221(Tenn.1988);and(3)theabsenceofanyotherspecificor   adequateremedy,Stateexrel.Motlowv.Clark,173Tenn.81,87, p  114S.W.2d800,802!03(1938). Y  ` 9"` +"Stateexrel.Hayesv.CivilServ.CommnoftheMetro.GovtofNashvilleandDavidsonCounty, +{ No.01A019002CH00061,1990WL165073,at*2(Tenn.Ct.App.May26,1992).Upon d reviewingtherecord,itisabundantlyclearthatMr.DeBerryspetitionfailedtostateaclaimfora M writofmandamusbecause,asamatteroflaw,hehadotherremediesavailabletotestthechanges 6 madetohisreleaseeligibilitydatebytheTDOC.SeeSweattv.Conley,No.01A019706CH  00247,1997WL749482,at*3(Tenn.Ct.App.Dec.5,1997);Williamsv.Bradley,No.01A01  9411CH00511,1995WL70573,at*2!3(Tenn.Ct.App.Feb.22,1995).    SincetheTDOCisastateagency,itissubjecttotheprovisionsoftheUAPA.Meltonv. s Bradley,No.01A019401CH00028,1994WL590012,at*2(Tenn.Ct.App.Oct.28,1994)(citing \ Brighamv.Lack,755S.W.2d469,471(Tenn.Crim.App.1988)). Ifthepetitionerclaimsthatthe E TennesseeDepartmentofCorrectionhasincorrectlycalculatedhissentencesorincorrectly .~ interpretedtheactionoftheBoardofParoles,theappropriateremedyisfoundundertheUniform g AdministrativeProceduresAct.Ferrellv.State,No.01C019610CR00454,1997WL578999,  P at*1(Tenn.Crim.App.Sept.19,1997). TheUniformAdministrativeProceduresActprovides  9 thejurisdictionalprerequisitesforseekingreviewofanagencysactionsthroughadeclaratory !"  judgmentproceeding.Davisv.Sundquist,947S.W.2d155,156(Tenn.Ct.App.1997). " !   Adeclaratoryjudgmentshallnotberenderedconcerningthevalidityorapplicabilityofa $# statute,ruleororderunlessthecomplainanthaspetitionedtheagencyforadeclaratoryorderand v% $ theagencyhasrefusedtoissueadeclaratoryorder.  #  5      ׀Tenn.CodeAnn.45225(b)(2003). A _&!% declaratoryjudgmentactionisprematureifthepetitionerproceedsdirectlytojudicialreview H'"& withoutseekinganadministrativedetermination.Davis,947S.W.2dat156.Wehavethoroughly  reviewedthecomplaintandtheentirerecord,givingeverypossiblebenefittoMr.DeBerryasapro  selitigant.SeeHessmerv.Hessmer,138S.W.3d901,903!04(Tenn.Ct.App.2003).Theclear  resultisthatMr.DeBerryfailedtoseekadeclaratoryorderfromtheTDOCpriortoseekingjudicial k reviewoftheTDOCsactions.Therefore,thepetitionfailstoallegeactswhichwouldconfer T jurisdictionuponthetrialcourt,andthetrialcourtproperlydismissedMr.DeBerryspetition =  becauseawritofmandamuscouldnotbeissuedasamatteroflaw.SeeJohnsonv.Tenn.Deptof & v Corr.,No.M200102424COAR3CV,2003WL22794498,at*3(Tenn.Ct.App.Nov.25,2003);  _ Bonnerv.Tenn.DeptofCorr.,84S.W.3d576,583(Tenn.Ct.App.2001);McCameyv.Tenn.  H DeptofCorr.,No.01A019701CH0003,1997WL210841,at*3(Tenn.Ct.App.Apr.30,  1  1997);Millsv.Campbell,No.01A019604CH00190,1996WL491817,at*1(Tenn.Ct.App.    Aug.30,1996);Williamsv.Bradley,No.01A019411CH00511,1995WL70573,at*2!3(Tenn.   Ct.App.Feb.22,1995).     Conclusion n     ӀFortheforegoingreasonsweaffirmthetrialcourtsdismissaloftheAppellantsPetition B forWritofMandamus.CostsofthisappealaretaxedagainsttheAppellant,MaxDeBerry,for +{ whichexecutionmayissueifnecessary.#XXXX97 ##XX #XX d    `     h     ___________________________________     `     h     ALANE.HIGHERS,JUDGE