ÿWPCN Q³M’‘¢çFnÂÉu* áßÑ>ÇÛ+á2K"µy`Æ£·ÆÀ,ÉsÄۀEpº4²Ð%œ™káo—€¼ýüHBÂÊr„—©u'Ú:è­Ýg .à¶k<wXá¹V¢;V'0H§Õ Úä3ÙÆᚉÚ˜Q¿7@š©ÜÉYÝ„u„8§A/¬èn¼L¿ì§Š"‘s¡éÁ1½ÂqîǨqðú½’ãßú¸¡<Ë"ï@ ”õ@’1Ïs’á]°ç¯ÈbÕfg!&ͤ±ÅX4ÐEFÒar=•QhÈΕ»¡‡îr/wV2ÃÊi ì'b%g+X‚Âé ±­úsþà3³ OUâ£@ZBûŒî^Á£}uÔJ¨„‹­`]˜“§(Ì"{ñÑ·±ÿŽwœc×)TüîR%ŒŸUõùˆ=¼ëU˜b#Á\ % U@# 0ˆc U Në ^ 9 wE zI Òà 4• © ¸ mº ÆÑ Æ— Æ] Æ#éNû 0DýýEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAbCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC 0ëKKKK B66 0¤S D3÷ D-* 0KWW AS¢Æõ 0¤» 0D_ A«£˜HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 6ÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0»(ÆúI Z‹(Times New Roman (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman RegularU%-s  ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt9‚±,˜C ¡bk¤¤©3|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 Ý ƒRñG$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôì=ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔWe€note€that€this€court€has€previously€upheld€both€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„501€and€Tennessee€DepartmentÐ ° Ðof€Correction€Policy€#502.02€against€constitutional€challenge.€€òòSee€Smith€v.€Campbellóó,€995€S.W.2d€116€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.Ð tÄ Ð1999);€òòÔ_ÔOgburnÔ_Ô€v.€Tennessee€Dept.€of€Correctionóó,€983€S.W.2d€677€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1998).(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó- ù-(|G2ñG$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€DU»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôì=ò»»Ô d(|3 U$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€DU»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3 U$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€DU»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€DU»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÔ€¼DU»»»ÔÑ8€XXdì»»d8ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼DU»»¼DUÔà@ü ü ìàÔ‡î‹ÍDUÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@kk$ìàAT€NASHVILLEÔ#†¼DU»îî‹Í+#ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  ÓAssigned€on€Briefs€February€22,€2002Ð üL ÐÔ‡XX»¼DUÔÌò òÔ#†¼DU»XX #ÔTHOMAS€DYERòòóó€v.€TENNESSEE€DEPARTMENT€OF€CORRECTIONòòóóÔ‡XX»¼DUÔó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò ò€Appeal€from€the€Chancery€Court€for€Davidson€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€01„885„I€€€€€€Irvin€H.€Ô_ÔKilcreaseÔ_Ô,€Jr.,€ChancellorÐ æ 6 ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€M2001„01446„Ô_ÔCOAÔ_Ô„R3„CV€„€Filed€September€5,€Ô_Ô2002Ô_ÔÐ ¥õ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓThe€release€eligibility€date€of€a€prisoner€was€extended€by€30%€after€he€assaulted€a€correctionalÐ xÈ  Ðemployee.€€The€prisoner€petitioned€for€judicial€review€of€the€extension,€arguing€that€it€amounted€toÐ d´ Ðan€unconstitutional€violation€of€the€ex€post€facto€prohibition,€double€jeopardy,€and€separation€ofÐ P  Ðpowers.€€The€trial€court€dismissed€his€petition.€€We€affirm.Ô#†¼DU»XX£#ÔÔ‡XX»¼DUÔÐ <Œ ÐÓÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Chancery€CourtÐ d ÐAffirmed€and€Remandedó óÐ P ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼DU»àXä#ÔÔ‡XX.¼DUÔBen€H.€Cantrell,€P.J.,€M.S.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòWilliam€B.€Cain,€J.óó,Ð Ø( Ðjoined.€€òòWilliam€C.€Koch,€Jr.,€J.,óó€filed€a€concurring€opinion.€Ð Ä ÐÌThomas€Dyer,€Mountain€City,€Tennessee,€Pro€Se.Ð œì ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter;€Michael€E.€Moore,€Solicitor€General;€DawnÐ tÄ ÐJordan,€Assistant€Attorney€General,€for€the€appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð `° ÐÓ·ÓÌò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼DU»XXæ#ÔÔ‡XX»¼DUÔÐ 8!ˆ  ÐÌòòóóÔ#†¼DU»XX- #ÔÔ‡XX»¼DUÔÓ  Óà@§§ìàò òI.€€òòA€Disciplinary€Infractionóóó óˆÐ #`" ÐÌà  àThomas€Dyer€was€convicted€of€burglary€and€grand€larceny€in€1985,€smuggling€of€contrabandÐ è$8 $ Ðin€1986,€and€felony€escape€in€1990.€€He€received€separate€sentences€of€imprisonment€for€eachÐ Ô%$!% Ðoffense.€€On€May€17,€1993,€he€came€before€the€prison€disciplinary€board€for€assault€on€a€staffÐ À&"& Ðmember,€and€was€convicted€of€the€violation.€€As€a€consequence,€the€Release€Eligibility€Date€(RED)Ð ¬'ü"' Ðon€all€his€offenses€was€extended€30%.Ð ˜(è#( ÐÌà  àOn€March€21,€2001,€Mr.€Dyer€filed€a€petition€in€the€Chancery€Court€of€Davidson€County,Ð p*À%* Ðwhich€he€styled€as€a€Petition€for€Judicial€Review/Declaratory€Judgment/Petition€for€Common€LawÐ \+¬&+ ÐWrit€of€Certiorari.€€He€contended€that€the€Department€of€Correction€had€exceeded€its€jurisdiction€andÐ H,˜', Ðacted€illegally€by€extending€the€RED€for€his€1985€and€1986€offenses.€€He€alleged€that€the€policy€thatÐ 4-„(-ý Ðallowed€the€Department€to€extend€the€time€he€had€to€serve€before€becoming€eligible€for€release€wasÐ ° Ðenacted€in€1989,€and€that€it€therefore€was€a€violation€of€the€ex€post€facto€prohibition€to€apply€it€toÐ œì Ðoffenses€committed€before€that€date.€Ð ˆØ ÐÌà  àThe€Department€filed€a€motion€to€dismiss€on€April€17,€2001,€for€failure€to€state€a€claim€forÐ `° Ðwhich€relief€can€be€granted.€òò€Seeóó€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€12.02(6).€€Mr.€Dyerððs€response€to€the€motion€addedÐ L œ Ðallegations€that€the€extension€of€his€RED€also€violated€his€rights€against€double€jeopardy,€and€thatÐ 8 ˆ ÐTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„501€and€Tennessee€Department€of€Correction€Policy€#502.02€(whichÐ $ t Ðauthorize€extensions€to€an€inmateððs€RED)€violate€the€separation€of€powers€doctrine.€€òòSeeóó€TennesseeÐ  ` ÐConstitution€Art.€2,€ðð€2.Ð ü L  ÐÌà  àOn€May€24,€2000,€the€trial€court€dismissed€the€petition€in€its€entirety.€€The€chancellor€foundÐ Ô$  Ðthat€the€petition€was€not€timely€filed,€and€that€in€any€case€the€Department€had€acted€pursuant€to€itsÐ À  Ðauthority€to€defer€an€inmateððs€RED€for€violation€of€any€of€the€rules€of€the€Department€of€Correction.Ð ¬ü  ÐòòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„501(k).€€This€appeal€followed.Ð ˜è  ÐÌà@//ìàò òII.ó ó€ò ò€òòTimeliness€and€Jurisdictionóóó óˆÐ pÀ ÐÌà  àAs€the€chancellor€correctly€observed,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€27„9„102€requires€that€a€petitionÐ Lœ Ðfor€writ€of€certiorari€be€filed€no€later€than€sixty€days€from€the€date€of€the€administrative€action€ofÐ 8ˆ Ðwhich€the€petitioner€complains.€€Failure€to€file€within€the€statutory€time€limit€results€in€the€decisionÐ $t Ðbecoming€final,€which€deprives€the€court€of€jurisdiction.€€òòSeeóó€òòÔ_ÔFairhavenÔ_Ô€Corporation€v.€TennesseeÐ ` ÐHealth€Facilities€Commission,óó€566€S.W.2d€885€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1976).€€The€action€that€wasÐ üL Ðchallenged€in€this€case€occurred€on€May€17,€1993.€€The€petition€for€certiorari€was€not€filed€untilÐ è8 Ðalmost€seven€years€later.€€It€was€clearly€untimely.€€Ð Ô$ ÐÌà  àWe€note€also€that€two€types€of€declaratory€judgment€actions€have€been€recognized€by€ourÐ ¬ü ÐLegislature.€€The€Declaratory€Judgment€Act,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€29„14„102,€has€been€held€not€toÐ ˜è Ðapply€to€suits€against€state€entities€such€as€the€Tennessee€Department€of€Correction.€€òòSee€Watson€v.Ð „Ô ÐTennessee€Dept.€Of€Correction,óó€970€S.W.2d€494€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1998).€€A€party€may€petition€theÐ pÀ Ðcourt€for€a€declaratory€judgment€against€a€state€agency€under€the€Uniform€Administrative€ProceduresÐ \ ¬ ÐAct,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€4„5„101,€et€seq.,€but€only€if€the€complainant€has€first€petitioned€the€agencyÐ H!˜ Ðfor€a€declaratory€order,€and€the€agency€has€refused€to€issue€such€an€order.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÐ 4"„  Ð4„5„225.€There€is€nothing€in€the€record€to€indicate€that€Mr.€Dyer€petitioned€the€Department€ofÐ  #p! ÐCorrection€for€a€declaratory€order.€€Thus,€whether€we€consider€his€petition€to€be€one€for€a€writ€ofÐ  $\" Ðcertiorari€or€for€a€declaratory€judgment,€it€is€clear€that€he€is€not€entitled€to€relief.€Ð ø$H # ÐÌà@MMìàò òIII.€€òòConstitutional€Questionsóóó óˆÐ Ð& "% ÐÌà  àMr.€Dyer€argues€that€a€constitutional€question€can€be€raised€at€any€time.€€That€is€not€quiteÐ ¨(ø#' Ðcorrect.€€It€would€be€more€accurate€to€say€that€normal€procedural€rules€may€sometimes€be€relaxedÐ ”)ä$( Ðwhen€a€complaining€party€demonstrates€that€a€challenged€statute€or€rule€is€facially€unconstitutional.Ð €*Ð%) ÐòòSee€Caldwell€v.€State,€óó917€S.W.2d€662€(Tenn.€1996);€òòRichardson€v.€Tenn.€Board€of€Dentistryóó,€913Ð l+¼&* ÐS.W.2d€446€(Tenn.€1995).€€Even€though€neither€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„501€nor€TennesseeÐ ° ÐDepartment€of€Correction€Policy€#502.02€appear€to€be€facially€unconstitutional,€we€will€brieflyÐ œì Ðaddress€the€constitutional€issues€raised€by€the€petitioner.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Ð ˆØ ÐÌà@ÓÓìàò òA.€€òòEx€Post€Facto€Concernsóóó óˆÐ `° ÐÌà  àMr.€Dyer€contends€that€he€is€entitled€to€serve€each€of€his€sentences€in€accordance€with€theÐ 8 ˆ Ðlaws€in€effect€at€the€time€of€sentencing,€and€that€because€of€the€constitutional€prohibition€against€exÐ $ t Ðpost€facto€laws,€his€1985€and€1986€sentences€could€not€be€altered€by€a€Department€of€CorrectionÐ  ` Ðregulation€that€was€enacted€in€1989.€€It€is€beyond€dispute€that€a€law€that€inflicts€a€greater€punishmentÐ ü L  Ðthan€the€law€attached€to€the€crime€when€it€was€committed€would€be€an€ex€post€facto€violation.€€òòSeeÐ è 8  ÐState€v.€Ô_ÔWyrickÔ_Ô,óó€62€S.W.3d€751€(Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.€2001);€òòWheeler€v.€Tennessee€Dept.€of€Correction,óóÐ Ô$  Ð36€S.W.3d€824€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€2000);€òòState€v.€Rogersóó€992€S.W.2d€393€(Tenn.€1999);€òòÔ_ÔKaylorÔ_Ô€v.Ð À  ÐBradleyóó,€912€S.W.2d€728€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1995).à  àÐ ¬ü  ÐÌà  àWe€note,€however,€that€as€part€of€the€Criminal€Sentencing€Reform€Act€of€1982,€theÐ „Ô  ÐTennessee€Legislature€provided€that€a€prisonerððs€release€eligibility€date€may€be€deferred€at€theÐ pÀ Ðdiscretion€of€the€Commissioner,€for€a€violation€of€any€of€the€rules€of€the€Department€of€Correction,Ð \¬ Ðwith€two€limitations:€€The€extension€must€not€exceed€the€full€sentence€originally€imposed€by€theÐ H˜ Ðcourt,€and€it€must€be€imposed€pursuant€to€regulations€which€give€notice€of€the€length€of€discretionaryÐ 4„ Ðincreases€that€may€be€imposed€for€a€violation€of€each€of€the€rules€of€the€Department.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€CodeÐ  p ÐAnn.€ðð€40„35„501(k).€€Ð  \ ÐÌà  àThe€ex€post€facto€prohibition€is€based€on€considerations€of€basic€fairness.€€It€was€establishedÐ ä4 Ðto€ensure€that€individuals€receive€fair€notice€that€certain€behavior€is€unlawful,€as€well€as€theÐ Ð  Ðconsequences€of€engaging€in€such€behavior.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„501€was€enacted€three€yearsÐ ¼  Ðbefore€Mr.€Dyerððs€first€offense.€€Thus,€he€should€have€been€aware€that€his€RED€could€be€extended,Ð ¨ø Ðdepending€on€his€conduct€in€prison.€€He€acknowledges€that€Rule€502.02€was€first€promulgated€inÐ ”ä Ð1989,€four€years€before€his€1993€assault,€and€he€does€not€dispute€that€it€authorizes€the€DepartmentÐ €Ð Ðto€extend€an€inmateððs€RED€up€to€30%€of€his€maximum€sentence€for€the€violation€of€certain€rules.Ð l¼ ÐThere€is€clearly€no€ex€post€facto€violation€here.Ð X ¨ ÐÌà@33!ìàò òB.€òòDouble€Jeopardyóóó óˆÐ 0"€  ÐÌà  àMr.€Dyer€argues€that€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„501€authorizes€multiple€punishments€for€theÐ $X" Ðsame€offense,€and€that€this€constitutes€double€jeopardy.€€He€notes€that€escape€and€assault€may€beÐ ô$D # Ðprosecuted€in€the€criminal€courts,€and€be€the€subject€of€disciplinary€proceedings€as€well.€€TheÐ à%0!$ Ðâ âpetitioner€appears€to€lack€standing€to€raise€this€issue,€since€his€prior€conviction€for€escape€is€not€atÐ Ì&"% Ðissue€in€this€case,€and€he€does€not€allege€that€attempts€were€made€to€prosecute€him€criminally€for€hisÐ ° Ð1993€assault.Ð œì Ðâ âÌà  àIn€any€event,€this€issue€has€been€litigated€many€times,€and€our€courts€have€always€reachedÐ tÄ Ðthe€same€conclusion.€€Disciplinary€proceedings€that€do€not€lengthen€the€sentence€a€prisoner€wasÐ `° Ðserving€at€the€time€he€breached€the€prisonððs€rules€are€essentially€administrative€in€nature.€€They€areÐ L œ Ðnot€in€conflict€with€proceedings€in€the€criminal€courts€which€can€result€in€a€new€conviction€and€newÐ 8 ˆ Ðsentence€for€the€defendant,€even€when€the€same€conduct€is€the€subject€of€both€proceedings.€€òòSeeóóÐ $ t ÐòòÔ_ÔOgburnÔ_Ô€v.€Tennessee€Dept.€of€Correctionóó,€983€S.W.2d€677€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1998);€òòRay€v.€Stateóó,€577Ð  ` ÐS.W.2d€681€(Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.€1978);€òòState€ex€rel.€Turner€v.€Goreóó,€175€S.W.2d€317€(Tenn.€1943).Ð ü L  ÐÌà@GGìàò òC.€€òòSeparation€of€Powersóóó óˆÐ Ô$  ÐÌà  àMr.€Dyerððs€separation€of€powers€argument€is€based€entirely€upon€a€case€from€the€OhioÐ ¬ü  ÐSupreme€Court,òò€State€ex€rel€Ô_ÔBaryÔ_Ô€v.€Russellóó,€729€N.E.2d€359€(Ohio€2000).€€In€that€case,€the€courtÐ ˜è  Ðfound€that€an€Ohio€statute€would€allow€that€stateððs€parole€board€to€extend€the€length€of€an€inmateððsÐ „Ô  Ðincarceration€beyond€the€original€judicially„imposed€sentence.€€The€court€found€this€to€be€anÐ pÀ Ðencroachment€upon€the€judicial€power€by€the€executive,€and€thus€a€violation€of€the€separation€ofÐ \¬ Ðpowers€mandated€by€the€Ohio€constitution.Ð H˜ ÐÌà  àEven€if€we€put€aside€the€fact€that€in€this€case€we€are€not€dealing€with€Ohio€statutes€or€theÐ  p ÐOhio€constitution,€we€find€Mr.€Dyerððs€situation€to€be€quite€different.€€The€disciplinary€boardÐ  \ Ðextended€the€amount€of€time€he€had€to€remain€incarcerated€òòwithin€his€original€sentenceóó€beforeÐ øH Ðbecoming€eligible€for€release.€€It€did€not€extend€the€length€of€his€sentence,€but€changed€one€of€theÐ ä4 Ðconditions€under€which€it€was€to€be€served.€€The€change€was€within€both€the€parameters€of€a€statuteÐ Ð  Ðin€effect€at€the€time€of€his€conviction,€and€the€executive€power€to€regulate€discipline€within€theÐ ¼  Ðstateððs€prisons.€€The€separation€of€powers€argument€is€without€merit.€€€€Ð ¨ø ÐÌà@dd)ìàò òIV.ó óˆÐ €Ð ÐÌà  àThe€order€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.€€Remand€this€cause€to€the€Chancery€Court€ofÐ X ¨ ÐDavidson€County€for€further€proceedings€consistent€with€this€opinion.€€Tax€the€costs€on€appeal€toÐ D!” Ðthe€appellant,€Thomas€Dyer.€€Ð 0"€  ÐÌÌÌÌÔ#†¼DU»XX‹ #ÔÔ€XX»¼DUÔà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à_________________________________________€Ð Ì&"% Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àBEN€H.€CANTRELL,€PRESIDING€JUDGE,€M.S.