WPC %:Qϖ}) S79%9NU/^ Ԕ,gz\.z%L}k )S JEϞZcd R=%?uTu'IeZ=)J ׺0Gu[f>X;57Fh([ ֓\C|>JbVΙNb#\ % U@# 0c U N ^ 9 wE zI  4   m   ] ##NEb 0 B 0 D3 D- 0K ASL 0e 0D  AMHP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 6,,,,0(I Z(Times New Roman (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman RegularlH-s  C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt,-.reì3|xULevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5- -(|G2$ !.8Gdd8         0   d(|3$ !.8Gdd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3$ !.8Gdd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8Gdd8     _  G8 1XXdd8  GG@ GINTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @kk$ATNASHVILLE#G+#Ԉ &   AssignedonBriefsFebruary2002 L X 1XG #GXX 1#THOMASDYERv.TENNESSEEDEPARTMENTOFCORRECTIONX 1XG  J @@ AppealfromtheChanceryCourtforDavidsonCounty  J @@No.01885IIrvinH._Kilcrease_,Jr.,Chancellor  6 @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.M200101446_COA_ԄR3CVFiledOctober8,_2002_   AV) ` dE<|` A }   OPINIONDENYINGPETITIONFORREHEARING  x     #GX 1#X 1X.GBenH.Cantrell,P.J.,M.S.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichWilliamC.Koch,Jr. < andWilliamB.Cain,JJ.,joined. (x   ThomasDyerhasfiledarespectfulandtimelyPetitiontoRehear.Hestatesthatouropinion < mistakenlyassertedthathefailedtopetitiontheDepartmentforaDeclaratoryOrder.Uponfurther ( examinationoftherecord,weareobligatedtoconcludethatheiscorrect.Therecordshowsthathe  indeedfiledaPetitionforDeclaratoryOrder,andthatthepetitionwasdenied.Thus,wewere  mistakentoconcludethatwelackedjurisdictiontoconsiderhisPetitionforaDeclaratoryJudgment  underthe_UAPA_.    However,ouranalysisofhiscasedidnotendwiththequestionofjurisdiction.Inour ` opinion,wediscussedthethreeconstitutionalquestionsheraisedonappeal,andfoundthatnoneof L  thementitledhimtothereliefhesought.Twoofthosethreequestions(expostfactoconcernsand 8!  doublejeopardy)wereincludedinhisPetitionforDeclaratoryOrder,andwererejectedbythe $"t! Departmentonthebasisofreasoningthatwasvirtuallyidenticaltothereasoningweusedin #`" reachingthesameconclusions.NothinginthePetitiontoReheargivesusreasontochangethose #L# conclusions. $8 $   Wenotethatinthecurrentpetition,Mr.Dyeradvancesyetanotherconstitutionalargument: &"& thattoorderanextensionofhisreleaseeligibilitydatethroughanadministrativeprocedurerather '"' thanthroughajudicialtrialamountstoanunconstitutionalbillofattainder.Aswestatedinour (#( opinion,theCriminalSentencingReformActof1982providedthataprisonersreleaseeligibility )$) datemaybedeferredatthediscretionoftheCommissioner.Itthusappearsthatthepossibilityof p*%* anadministrativeextensionofMr.DyersREDwaspartofhisoriginaljudiciallydetermined \+&+ sentence,andthusthatthereisnoconstitutionalviolation,solongastheextensiondoesnotresult H,', inasentenceofgreaterdurationthanthatimposedbythecourt. 4-(- Ї  ThePetitiontoRehearisdenied.#GXX 1#X 1XG      [ #GXX 1#X 1XG#GXX 1|#  X 1XG   `     h   _________________________________________ 8     `     h   BENH.CANTRELL,PRESIDINGJUDGE,M.S.