ÿWPCµ ^n^i‹WúVLR¯t‹f­WÓ²« uÕj!4S}ECÝGv•ØÂvX1 ÙÙ© <ð‹h"¢ÞmJ1¡³€þ.ㇰ*4´A>°áЉ¥4p°® Éè²å?(-Üd¯;ŠDÉx†pžÛ’Ò¯_ŒpHý˜'×N*©c)†w5¿¿:ã½ @¨j^¤¡O˜á¬ùP̨ò‚¾[®œÕùÚ™šH¬%{#>(ÐUÒËß ¾ "Ó*ÿL¬‘œJ­þ¬õTsèmSq¦ëM… øøF{MßEœRô—Á—éh”áƒé©2`œÍ¤1 žÚ¸˜/­ØçÀÿʪ|L9Ίr÷’¸H"ƒ¬Îƒÿ)x*­ëml)h§q[5V6¹ä;OûlUÐÆL!æ²Æ†¿ðuº¦ÈC.ODsUûÞ7/(¯,†Ì-Çò±Gñ1$†ž•£‚Æ–:6<_ÐÀ4E¨mR¦Q»!.-Ôyý|ÚÝ™:òt¸ïüÖ<ñp”O Í»ƒTˆ5æ\0š™ôðpšïld‚šú׿s嬈}Ï3‡Ã@c[*åMÇ¢B.¬)j‡àêz_õNûBÊuí}Ѳ í«â’’â£èŸÏ¡EÌ +ÓºÕs¾ÁfÕÄkb#Á\ % U @# 0ˆc U Në 0D9 1} z Ò„ 72V 1uˆ 0cý ` Æh Æ.Æôƺ 72€N²¨´^ \Ehwj4n‚‘ m“““““““““““““““““““bªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªª 0ë²²²² B 0¤º D3^ D-‘ 0K¾¾ AS Æ\ 0¤" 0DÆ A« ˜HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 6ÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0»(ÆúI Z‹(Times New Roman (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(¦ÙCEMU]emu}AutoList1(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1) ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt(1)3#37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)(;3£$´´Ô2#ÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0  à Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 i) žÝ ƒR$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôö]ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€ôö]òòôö]Ô€The€length€of€Mr.€Franklinððs€sentence€is€not€found€in€the€record€of€this€case,€but€a€search€of€unpublishedÐ ° ÐTennessee€opinions€reveals€that€in€the€case€of€òòState€v.€Cedric€Franklinóó,€€No.€02C01-9710-CR-00380€(Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.Ð tÄ Ðat€Jackson,€July€29,€1998),€the€defendant€was€sentenced€to€concurrent€terms€of€twenty€and€thirty„five€years€upon€hisÐ 8ˆ Ðguilty€plea€to€charges€of€aggravated€robbery€and€second€degree€murder.€˜h+s 8n_+˜Cbk1ø ¤3|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ- ù-(|G2$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€C»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôö]ò»»Ô d(|3‡q$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€C»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3‡q$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€C»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€C»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÔ€¼C»»»ÔÑ8€¹XXdì»»d8ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼C»»¼CÔà@ü ü ìàÔ‡î˜ÅCÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@kk$ìàAT€NASHVILLEÔ#†¼C»îî˜Å+#ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  ÓAssigned€on€Briefs€August€2,€2001€Ð üL ÐÔ‡X¹X»¼CÔÌò òÔ#†¼C»XX¹#ÔCEDRIC€FRANKLINòòóó€v.€TENNESSEE€DEPARTMENT€OF€CORRECTIONòòóóÔ‡X¹X»¼CÔó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò ò€Appeal€from€the€Chancery€Court€for€Davidson€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€00„2094„I€€€€€€Irvin€H.€Ô_ÔKilcreaseÔ_Ô,€Jr.,€ChancellorÐ æ 6 ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€M2001„00279„Ô_ÔCOAÔ_Ô„R3„CV€„€Filed€November€8,€Ô_Ô2001Ô_ÔÐ ¥õ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓA€prison€disciplinary€board€found€a€minimum€security€prisoner€to€be€guilty€of€violation€of€state€law.Ð xÈ  ÐThe€prisoner€filed€a€Petition€for€Writ€of€Certiorari,€claiming€that€the€board€had€denied€him€dueÐ d´ Ðprocess.€€The€trial€court€dismissed€the€petition.€€We€affirm.€€€€Ô#†¼C»XX¹¥#ÔÔ‡X¹X»¼CÔÐ P  ÐÓÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Chancery€CourtÐ (x ÐAffirmed€and€Remandedó óÐ d ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼C»àX¹u#ÔÔ‡X¹X.¼CÔBen€H.€Ô_ÔCantrellÔ_Ô,€Ô_ÔP.J.Ô_Ô,€M.S.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòWilliam€B.€Cain,€J.óó,Ð ì< Ðjoined.€€òòWilliam€C.€Koch,€Jr.,€J.óó,€filed€a€concurring€opinion.€€Ð Ø( ÐÌCedric€Franklin,€Ô_ÔHenningÔ_Ô,€Tennessee,€Pro€Se.Ð ° ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter;€Michael€E.€Moore,€Solicitor€General;€DawnÐ ˆØ ÐJordan,€Assistant€Attorney€General,€for€the€appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð tÄ ÐÓHÓÌò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼C»XX¹w#ÔÔ€X¹X»¼CÔÐ L œ ÐÓ  ÓÌà@ä ä ìàò òòòI.€€Five€Bottles€in€a€Black€Plastic€BagóóˆÐ $"t! Ðó óÌà  àThis€case€involves€a€disciplinary€proceeding€against€Cedric€Franklin,€a€minimum€securityÐ ü#L# Ðprisoner€at€West€Tennessee€State€Prison€in€Ô_ÔHenningÔ_Ô.€€The€events€from€which€the€proceeding€aroseÐ è$8 $ Ðoccurred€on€April€4,€2000.€€According€to€the€disciplinary€report€by€Correctional€Officerò òó ó€CharlesÐ Ô%$!% ÐRing,€the€officer€was€driving€down€a€road€on€the€prison€grounds€at€7:00€a.m.€on€that€day,€and€heÐ À&"& Ðnoticed€a€black€plastic€bag€lying€on€the€side€of€the€road.€€Officer€Ring€opened€the€bag,€and€found€itÐ ¬'ü"' Ðto€contain€four€plastic€bottles€of€clear€liquid€and€one€bottle€of€amber„colored€liquid.€€The€bottles€hadÐ ˜(è#( Ða€strong€smell€of€alcohol€when€they€were€opened.€€Officer€Ring€brought€the€bottles€to€his€lieutenant,Ð „)Ô$) Ðwho€had€him€replace€the€bottles€with€rocks,€and€return€the€bag€to€where€he€found€it.€Ð p*À%* ÐÌà  àSergeant€Boyd€was€assigned€to€watch€the€bag.€€He€notified€Officer€Ring€by€radio€that€twoÐ H,˜', Ðprisoners€on€a€tractor€pulling€a€cart€had€stopped€and€picked€up€the€bag.€€The€two€prisoners€wereÐ 4-„(-ý ÐÔ_ÔCedric€Franklin€and€Robert€Brown.€€The€tractor€proceeded€towards€the€recycle€area,€where€anotherÐ ° Ðprisoner,€Gary€Reeves,€emerged€from€the€recycle€building,€and€moved€towards€the€tractor.€OfficerÐ œì ÐRing€stopped€the€tractor€and€asked€Mr.€Franklin€where€the€bag€was.€€He€said€that€he€didnððt€have€it,Ð ˆØ Ðbut€Sergeant€Boyd€located€it€near€the€cardboard€area.€€Mr.€Franklin€then€said€that€Mr.€Reeves€hadÐ tÄ Ðtold€him€to€pick€the€bag€up.€€Franklin,€Reeves€and€Brown€were€charged€with€violation€of€state€law,Ð `° Ðand€placed€in€segregation€pending€a€disciplinary€hearing.Ð L œ ÐÌà  àMr.€Franklinððs€disciplinary€hearing€was€conducted€on€April€25.€€The€hearing€summaryÐ $ t Ðindicates€that€three€members€of€the€disciplinary€committee€were€present.€€The€prisoner€pled€notÐ  ` Ðguilty.€€He€claimed€he€didnððt€know€anything€about€the€bag.€€Officer€Ring€and€Sergeant€BoydÐ ü L  Ðtestified,€and€Mr.€Franklin€apparently€had€the€opportunity€to€question€them.€€A€photo€of€the€bottlesÐ è 8  Ðwas€submitted€in€evidence.€€The€Board€found€the€prisoner€to€be€guilty€of€violation€of€state€law€byÐ Ô$  Ðthe€preponderance€of€the€evidence.€€As€a€result€of€his€conviction,€Mr.€Franklin€received€ten€daysÐ À  Ðpunitive€segregation,€loss€of€minimum€trusty€status,€and€loss€of€his€job.Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà  àThe€prisoner€appealed€his€conviction€to€the€Warden,€and€then€to€the€Commissioner.€€HeÐ „Ô  Ðargued€in€both€appeals€that€there€was€no€proof€presented€to€the€Board€as€to€what€the€substances€inÐ pÀ Ðthe€five€bottles€actually€were;€that€it€was€not€proven€that€he€himself€picked€up€the€bag;€that€even€ifÐ \¬ Ðhe€had,€picking€up€a€bag€of€rocks€could€not€be€considered€a€violation€of€state€law;€and€finally,€thatÐ H˜ Ðthe€disciplinary€report€did€not€specify€exactly€what€state€law€he€was€alleged€to€have€violated,€thusÐ 4„ Ðeffectively€preventing€him€from€marshaling€an€effective€defense.€€The€Warden€and€theÐ  p ÐCommissioner€both€affirmed€the€action€of€the€Disciplinary€Board.€Ð  \ ÐÌà  àMr.€Franklin€then€filed€a€timely€Petition€for€Writ€of€Certiorari€in€the€Chancery€Court€ofÐ ä4 ÐDavidson€County,€claiming€that€he€had€been€denied€due€process,€because€of€the€lack€of€specificityÐ Ð  Ðin€the€disciplinary€charge€against€him.€€The€petition€named€the€Warden,€the€Chairman€of€theÐ ¼  ÐDisciplinary€Committee,€and€the€Department€of€Correction€as€respondents.€€The€State€filed€a€MotionÐ ¨ø Ðto€Dismiss€for€Failure€to€State€a€Claim€upon€which€relief€may€be€granted.€€òòSee€óóRule€12.02(6)€Tenn.Ð ”ä ÐR.€Civ.€P.Ð €Ð ÐÌà  àMr.€Franklin€filed€a€response,€to€which€he€attached€a€disciplinary€report€that€was€preparedÐ X ¨ Ðjust€weeks€after€he€was€charged€and€found€guilty,€as€an€example€of€a€document€in€conformity€withÐ D!” Ðdue€process€requirements.€€In€that€report,€six€inmates€were€charged€with€ð ðConspiracy€to€Violate€StateÐ 0"€  ÐLaw,€TCA€39„16„201,€the€introduction€of€contraband€into€a€penal€facility.ðð€€Ð #l! ÐÌà  àOn€November€13,€2000,€the€chancery€court€filed€its€Memorandum€and€Order.€€The€court€heldÐ ô$D # Ðthat€the€claim€against€the€individual€defendants€had€to€be€dismissed€because€the€only€properÐ à%0!$ Ðrespondent€under€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€27„9„104€was€the€Disciplinary€Board€itself.€€The€court€alsoÐ Ì&"% Ðfound€that€under€the€circumstances€of€this€case,€Mr.€Franklin€did€not€possess€a€liberty€interestÐ ¸'#& Ðsufficient€to€trigger€his€due€process€rights,€and€it€accordingly€dismissed€his€petition.€€This€appealÐ ¤(ô#' Ðfollowed.Ð )à$( Ðò òó óÌÐ h+¸&* Ðà@ìàò òòòII.€€Constitutional€Due€Processóóó óˆÐ ° ÐÌà  àThe€Department€of€Correction€has€promulgated€detailed€procedures€to€govern€disciplinaryÐ ˆØ Ðprocedures€in€the€stateððs€prisons.€€These€are€found€in€Index€#502.01€of€the€Departmentððs€Manual€ofÐ tÄ ÐAdministrative€Policies€and€Procedures.€€Index€#502.01(V)€describes€the€policy€of€the€DepartmentÐ `° Ðin€general€terms€as€follows:Ð L œ ÐÒ°ÒÒ°ÒÌFair€and€impartial€disciplinary€proceedings€will€be€administered€against€inmatesÐ $ t Ðcharged€with€disciplinary€infractions.€€The€procedures€contained€herein€shall€governÐ  ` Ðthe€disciplinary€process.€€This€policy€is€not€intended€to€create€any€additional€dueÐ ü L  Ðprocess€guarantees€for€inmates€beyond€those€which€are€constitutionally€required.Ð è 8  ÐMinor€deviations€from€the€procedures€set€forth€below€shall€not€be€grounds€forÐ Ô$  Ðdismissal€of€a€disciplinary€offense€unless€the€inmate€is€able€to€show€some€prejudiceÐ À  Ðas€a€result€and€the€error€would€have€affected€the€disposition€of€the€case.€Ð ¬ü  ÐÌÒ°ÒÒ°Òà  àIf€the€Departmentððs€policies€do€not€create€any€additional€due€process€guarantees,€then€whatÐ „Ô  Ðdue€process€is€constitutionally€required€in€cases€like€the€present€one?€€The€answer€is€to€be€found€byÐ pÀ Ðstudying€the€opinions€of€the€United€States€Supreme€Court,€which€is€the€final€judicial€authority€onÐ \¬ Ðthe€meaning€of€the€Constitution.€€Ð H˜ ÐÌà  àIn€€òòWolff€v.€McDonnellóó,€418€U.S.€539,€556€(1974),€the€Court€observed€that€"[p]risonÐ  p Ðdisciplinary€proceedings€are€not€part€of€a€criminal€prosecution,€and€the€full€panoply€of€rights€due€aÐ  \ Ðdefendant€in€such€proceedings€does€not€apply."€€The€Court€reasoned€that€the€need€to€maintain€orderÐ øH Ðand€discipline€within€prisons€required€a€retraction€of€many€of€the€rights€and€privileges€that€areÐ ä4 Ðavailable€to€the€ordinary€citizen,€and€concluded€that€when€due€process€rights€are€applicable€to€prisonÐ Ð  Ðdisciplinary€proceedings,€those€rights€cannot€be€as€broad€as€those€exercised€in€other€tribunals.€Ð ¼  ÐÌà  àThe€rights€that€the€òòWoolfóó€court€said€are€necessary€to€meet€due€process€requirements€in€theÐ ”ä Ðcontext€of€prison€disciplinary€proceedings€are:€€written€notice€of€the€claimed€violation€at€least€24Ð €Ð Ðhours€in€advance,€a€limited€right€to€call€witnesses€and€present€documentary€evidence,€an€impartialÐ l¼ Ðdecision€maker,€and€a€written€statement€of€the€evidence€relied€upon,€with€the€reasons€stated€for€theÐ X ¨ Ðaction€taken.€€418€U.S.€at€563„566.€Ð D!” ÐÌà  àIn€òòSandin€v.€Connoróó,€515€U.S.€472€(1995),€however,€the€Supreme€Court€has€ruled€that€evenÐ #l! Ðthose€limited€rights€are€not€mandatory€in€every€disciplinary€proceeding€that€takes€place€in€prison.Ð $X" ÐDemont€Conner,€a€convicted€murderer€serving€an€indeterminate€sentence€of€thirty€years€to€life,€wasÐ ô$D # Ðsentenced€to€thirty€days€in€disciplinary€segregation€after€being€found€guilty€of€resisting€an€officer'sÐ à%0!$ Ðattempt€to€perform€a€body€search.€€Mr.€Conner€complained€that€alleged€irregularities€in€theÐ Ì&"% Ðdisciplinary€proceedings€violated€his€due€process€rights.Ð ¸'#& ÐÌà  àThe€Supreme€Court€reasoned€that€the€constitutional€imperative€that€no€person€may€beÐ )à$( Ðð ðdeprived€of€life,€liberty€or€property€without€due€process€of€law,ðð€is€of€limited€applicability€inÐ |*Ì%) Ðprisons,€where€an€inmateððs€liberty€interest€has€already€been€greatly€reduced€upon€because€of€a€validÐ h+¸&* Ðconviction€of€crime€and€resulting€imprisonment.€€The€Court€held€that€a€liberty€interest€which€entitlesÐ ° Ðan€inmate€to€limited€due€process€exists€in€the€context€of€a€disciplinary€proceeding€only€when€theÐ œì Ðsanctions€imposed€for€an€alleged€infraction€subject€the€inmate€to€a€deprivation€or€hardship€which€isÐ ˆØ Ðatypical€in€relation€to€the€ordinary€incidents€of€prison€life.€€515€U.S.€at€486.€€The€Court€found€thatÐ tÄ Ðthirty€days€in€disciplinary€segregation€was€well€within€the€normal€circumstances€that€Mr.€ConnerÐ `° Ðmight€expect€from€his€lengthy€prison€term,€and€that€it€did€not€trigger€a€liberty€interest€protected€byÐ L œ Ðdue€process€guarantees.Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌà  àIn€the€present€case,€Mr.€Franklin€was€sentenced€to€ten€days€punitive€segregation.€€He€also€lostÐ  ` Ðhis€minimum€security€trusty€status€and€his€job.€€Ten€days€of€segregation€is€less€than€the€thirty€daysÐ ü L  Ðserved€by€Mr.€Conner,€and€cannot€be€considered€atypical€of€the€sort€of€restriction€that€Mr.€FranklinÐ è 8  Ðwould€be€likely€to€face€during€the€course€of€his€own€presumably€lengthy€sentence.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Further,€thereÐ Ô$  Ðis€no€constitutional€right€to€any€particular€classification€or€job€assignment€in€prison,€as€these€areÐ À  Ðdetermined€by€the€security€requirements€and€needs€of€the€individual€institutions.Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà  àWe€note€that€Mr.€Franklin€argued€at€one€point€that€his€conviction€might€adversely€affect€hisÐ „Ô  Ðchances€for€parole.€€The€Court€addressed€a€similar€argument€in€òòSandin€v.€Conneróó,€and€observed€thatÐ pÀ Ðparole€decisions€are€based€on€a€myriad€of€considerations,€ruling€that€ð ð[t]he€chance€that€a€finding€ofÐ \¬ Ðmisconduct€will€alter€the€balance€is€simply€too€attenuated€to€invoke€the€procedural€guarantees€of€theÐ H˜ ÐDue€Process€Clause.ðð€€515€U.S.€at€487.€€Ð 4„ ÐÌà  àMr.€Franklin€has€attached€a€copy€of€òòTaylor€v.€Rodriguezóó,€238€F.3d€188€(2d€Cir.€2001)€to€hisÐ  \ Ðreply€brief.€€In€that€case,€a€federal€appeals€court€found€that€a€prison€disciplinary€body€had€failed€toÐ øH Ðgive€an€inmate€sufficient€notice€of€the€charges€against€him,€and€therefore€that€the€summary€judgmentÐ ä4 Ðagainst€the€inmateððs€42€U.S.C.€ðð€1983€claim€had€to€be€reversed.€€Mr.€Franklinððs€implied€€argumentÐ Ð  Ðis€that€the€Disciplinary€Boardððs€failure€to€cite€the€state€law€that€he€is€accused€of€violating€is€anÐ ¼  Ðequivalent€omission,€and€that€we€should€accordingly€reverse€the€summary€judgment€in€his€case.Ð ¨ø ÐÌà  àWe€note,€however,€that€as€a€result€of€his€ð ðsecurity€threatðð€conviction,€Inmate€Taylor€wasÐ €Ð Ðsentenced€to€an€indefinite€term€of€close€custody;€that€he€was€confined€to€close€custody€for€almostÐ l¼ Ðfive€months€before€his€complaint€was€filed;€and€that€the€confinement€continued€long€beyond€that.Ð X ¨ ÐThe€appeals€court€analyzed€the€punishment€imposed€upon€Mr.€Taylor€in€light€of€òòSandin€v.€Connoróó,Ð D!” Ðsupra,€and€found€that€because€of€the€duration€of€his€confinement€to€close€custody,€Mr.€Taylor€mayÐ 0"€  Ðhave€suffered€an€atypical€and€significant€hardship€that€would€trigger€the€due€process€rights€discussedÐ #l! Ðin€òòWoolf€v.€OððDonnellóó,€supra.€€Thus,€we€do€not€believe€that€òòTaylor€v.€Rodriguezóó€furnishes€groundsÐ $X" Ðfor€reversing€Mr.€Franklinððs€ten€day€sentence.€€€Ð ô$D # Ðâ âÐ à%0!$ Ðà  àIn€sum,€Mr.€Franklin€is€not€entitled€to€a€reversal€of€the€trial€courtððs€judgment€because€of€anyÐ ° Ðâ âalleged€violations€of€his€constitutional€due€process€rights.Ð œì ÐÌò òà@˜˜ìàòòIII.€€Writ€of€Certiorarióóó óˆÐ tÄ ÐÌà  àThe€writ€of€certiorari€is€an€extraordinary€remedy,€which€is€only€available€in€cases€where€anÐ L œ Ðinferior€tribunal€has€exceeded€its€jurisdiction,€or€has€acted€illegally,€fraudulently€or€arbitrarily.€€€òòSeeóóÐ 8 ˆ ÐòòPowell€v.€Parole€Eligibility€Review€Boardóó,€879€S.W.2d€871€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.1994);€òòYokley€v.€Stateóó,Ð $ t Ð632€S.W.2d€123€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1981).€€It€is€thus€conceivable€that€the€writ€could€be€granted€inÐ  ` Ðsituations€where€constitutional€due€process€would€not€apply.€€€€€€€Ð ü L  ÐÌà  àAs€the€trial€court€correctly€pointed€out,€however,€the€scope€of€review€under€the€common€lawÐ Ô$  Ðwrit€of€certiorari€is€very€narrow.€€€It€does€not€involve€an€inquiry€into€the€intrinsic€correctness€of€theÐ À  Ðdecision€of€the€tribunal€below,€but€only€into€the€manner€in€which€the€decision€is€reached.€òò€PowellÐ ¬ü  Ðv.€Parole€Eligibility€Review€Boardóó,€879€S.W.2d€871,€873.€€The€writ€is€not€available€as€a€matter€ofÐ ˜è  Ðright,€but€is€granted€under€unusual€or€extraordinary€circumstances.€òò€Clark€v.€Metro€Government€ofÐ „Ô  ÐNashvilleóó,€827€S.W.2d€312,€316€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.1991).€€Its€grant€or€denial€is€within€the€soundÐ pÀ Ðdiscretion€of€the€trial€court,€and€will€not€be€reversed€on€appeal€in€the€absence€of€abuse€of€thatÐ \¬ Ðdiscretion.€òò€Boyce€v.€Williamsóó,€389€S.W.2d€272€(Tenn.1965).Ð H˜ ÐÌà  àIn€the€present€case,€Mr.€Franklin€has€alleged€several€irregularities€in€the€way€that€theÐ  p ÐDisciplinary€Board€proceeded€against€him.€€For€example,€he€complained€that€the€Board€neverÐ  \ Ðordered€the€liquid€in€the€bottles€tested€to€determine€if€it€was€in€fact€alcoholic.€€We€note€that€theÐ øH Ðfamiliar€rules€of€evidence€do€not€apply€to€disciplinary€proceedings,€but€that€under€the€rules€for€suchÐ ä4 Ðproceedings€"[t]he€board/hearing€officer€shall€consider€all€evidence€which€it€finds€to€be€reliable,Ð Ð  Ðwhether€or€not€such€evidence€would€be€admissible€in€a€court€of€law."€€Index€#502.01(VI)(E)(2)(c)(2).Ð ¼  ÐòòSee€alsoóó€òòWoodrow€Wilson€v.€South€Central€Correctional€Facility€Disciplinary€Boardóó,€No.Ð ¨ø ÐM2000-00303-COA-R3-CV€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€Sept.€28,€2000).Ð ”ä ÐÌà  àPerhaps€the€only€real€irregularity€alleged€by€Mr.€Franklin€involved€the€vagueness€of€theÐ l¼ Ðcharge€against€him.€€ð ðViolation€of€State€Lawðð€is€the€73òòrdóó€and€final€disciplinary€offense€listed€in€IndexÐ X ¨ Ð#502.05(VI)(A).€€The€definition€of€this€catch„all€offense€reads€as€follows:Ð D!” ÐÒ°ÒÒ°ÒÌ73.€òòViolation€of€State€Law€(VSL)(Class€A€or€B)óó:€Any€violation€of€TCA€notÐ #l! Ðspecifically€addressed€in€this€policy.€€The€incident€report€shall€cite€the€state€law€andÐ $X" ÐTCA€code.Ð ô$D # ÐÌÒ°ÒÒ°Òà  àIt€is€undisputed€that€the€incident€report€simply€stated€that€Inmates€Franklin,€Brown€andÐ Ì&"% ÐReeves€were€charged€with€violation€of€state€law,€without€any€specific€citation.€€Perhaps€under€theÐ ¸'#& Ðunusual€circumstances€of€this€case,€the€charging€officer€was€simply€at€a€loss€as€to€how€to€classify€theÐ ¤(ô#' Ðviolation.Ð )à$( Ðâ âÐ |*Ì%) Ðà  àIn€any€event,€Mr.€Franklin€argues€that€without€knowledge€of€the€exact€state€law€he€is€allegedÐ ° Ðâ âto€have€violated,€he€was€deprived€of€the€opportunity€to€mount€an€effective€defense.€€We€agree€thatÐ œì Ðgreater€specificity€would€have€been€preferable,€and€would€have€more€closely€complied€with€theÐ ˆØ ÐDisciplinary€Procedures€mandated€by€the€Department.Ð tÄ ÐÌà  àBut€it€appears€to€us€that€the€general€allegation€was€clear€to€Mr.€Franklin:€€he€was€accused€ofÐ L œ Ðbeing€involved€in€some€way€in€a€scheme€to€bring€alcoholic€beverages€into€the€prison.€€TheÐ 8 ˆ Ðpossession,€use,€or€sale€of€intoxicants€are€specifically€defined€as€separate€disciplinary€offenses€in€theÐ $ t ÐRules€and€Regulations€of€the€Department.€€Index€#502.05(VI)€(35),€(36),€and€(37).€€Mr.€Franklin€wasÐ  ` Ðable€to€present€a€defense,€which€apparently€was€that€he€had€nothing€to€do€with€any€illegal€activity,Ð ü L  Ðand€was€simply€guilty€of€being€in€the€wrong€place€at€the€wrong€time.€€The€Disciplinary€Board€choseÐ è 8  Ðnot€to€believe€his€defense,€and€found€him€guilty€by€the€preponderance€of€the€evidence.€€Ð Ô$  ÐÌà  àAfter€thoroughly€considering€the€record,€we€have€found€nothing€to€show€that€the€DisciplinaryÐ ¬ü  ÐBoard€exceeded€its€jurisdiction,€or€that€it€acted€illegally,€fraudulently€or€arbitrarily.€€We€thereforeÐ ˜è  Ðcannot€find€that€the€trial€court€abused€its€discretion€in€declining€to€grant€Mr.€Franklin€the€Writ€ofÐ „Ô  ÐCertiorari.Ð pÀ ÐÌà@dd)ìàò òIV.ó óˆÐ H˜ ÐÌà  àThe€order€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.€€Remand€this€cause€to€the€Chancery€Court€ofÐ  p ÐDavidson€County€for€further€proceedings€consistent€with€this€opinion.€€Tax€the€costs€on€appeal€toÐ  \ Ðthe€appellant,€Cedric€Franklin.€€Ð øH ÐÌÌÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à_________________________________________€Ð €Ð Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àBEN€H.€CANTRELL,€PRESIDING€JUDGE,€M.S.