WPCum |S .`n!TC50y] °7UnS4H-cBKŸ;+_ tˬqĄ'n:BhNhiﱁ\r @@$!W}b)Fދ)ŵk 9>?+yzhrHѐ 51!pħ?0a(q= B>vn6˜J^Z\1̵j?KʭE~/FtžbD!# V;^hٸge{ޝ:Uj*Kӈ]%ebTs©i#Alfemcu=PQp о"jIpS|Z>my:;?lrphompDiG2_OǴɷ#م_?D%Dlx7bgEi{2_zQCB4!%f#^ U %a 0g w 4 U8N zU    m U>    Y 0N 0 0=E 0 0CUNVv U@%T%B?+-X/Z4n6t;> 0U#A 0xA 0[B 0 C 0C 0DbKE 0SE 0F 0F 0HG 0 H 0H 0I 0>J 0J 0K 0!L 0L 0CM 0N 0N 0O 0-P 0P 0oQ 0R 0R#STzYY"G]G]G]G]G]G]G]G]G]G] 0i]i]i]i] BT^T^ 0q^ D5_ D-J_ 0Kw_w_ AS_` 0` 0Da Aaaanb^jHP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 6,,,,0t-s (`$.8dd8    ,-ocsDOCS`[("  Z6Times New Roman Regular 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|x U\  `&Times New RomanLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5P! 8Body Text 2Body Text 2            H! 4Body TextBody Text            H0% 4heading 2heading 2&            '    H0% 4heading 1heading 1&            '    ($      R6$      4  a  _ThisisnotthefirstoccasionwhentheOfficeoftheAttorneyGeneralhasfailedtofileatimelyrequestforan H extensionoftimetoansweraprisonerspetition.Hickmanv.TennesseeBd.ofParoles,78S.W.3d285,288(Tenn.Ct.   App.2001).(@ Z6Times New Roman Regular } R6$      1  a  _Mr.Jeffriessconvictionwasaffirmedonappeal.Statev.Jefferies,No. aaC.C.A.88131III,#a a# aa1989WL4938#a a'#, H at*1(Tenn.Crim.App. aaJan.24,1989)#a a#.Histwolaterattemptstocollaterallyattackhisconvictionwereunsuccessful.   ЀJefferiesv.State,No. aa01C019502CC00044,#a az#1995WL408255(Tenn.Crim.App.July6,1995)perm.app.denied  (Tenn.Nov.27,1995);Jefferiesv.Bowlen,No.03C019708CC00345,1998WL473885(Tenn.Crim.App.Aug.14, L 1998)(NoTenn.R.App.P.11applicationfiled).InhisthreeappealstotheTennesseeCourtofCriminalAppeals,Mr. X Jeffriessnameappearsas HiltonGlenJefferies. R6$      7  a  _U.S.Const.amend.XIV,1.  R6$      5  a  _Regrettably,themotionforsummaryjudgment,likesomanysimilarmotionsfiledbytheOfficeoftheAttorney H Generalincasesofthissort,failedtocomplywithTenn.R.Civ.P.7.02becauseitdidnotstatewithparticularitythe   groundsforthemotion.See,e.g.,Hickmanv.TennesseeBd.ofParoles,78S.W.3dat287;Pendletonv.Mills,73  S.W.3d115,119n.7(Tenn.Ct.App.2001);Robinsonv.Clement,65S.W.3d632,635n.2(Tenn.Ct.App.2001). l R6$      9  a  _ԀThefederalcourtsaresplitonwhethertherationaleofSandinv.Connershouldbeextendedtoproperty H interestclaimsarisingfromprisonconditions.InadditiontotheFifthCircuit,theSixthandNinthCircuitshave   suggested,withoutdirectlyholding,thataprisonerspropertyinterestsarenotaffectedbySandinv.Conner.InWoodard  v.OhioAdultParoleAuth.,107F.3d1178,118283(6thCir.1997),revdonothergrounds,523U.S.272,118S.Ct. L 1244,140L.Ed.2d387(1998),theSixthCircuitnotedthat theSupremeCourthasmadeitclear[inSandinv.Conner] X thatbothstatelawandtheDueProcessClauseitselfmaycreate[aliberty]interest,while accordingtoprevailing  doctrine,statelawcontrolsastotheexistenceofapropertyinterest.TheNinthCircuitconcludedinanunpublished  opinionthatunderSandinv.Conner,aprisoner hadnolibertyinterestinhisprisonjob,butitruledthattheprisoner \ hadnopropertyinterestinhisprisonjobbecausestatelawlefttheemploymentofprisonerstothediscretionofprison h  officialsandtheprisoner failedtocitetoanyprisonregulationwhichmandatesaparticularclassification.Martinv. ,   Upchurch,67F.3d307,No.9316907,1995WL563744,at*2,n.2(9thCir.Sept.13,1995)(unpublishedopinion).    Ontheothersideofthedebate,theTenthCircuithasexpresslyheldthatSandinv.Connersatypicalandsignificant  l  deprivationrationaleappliestopropertyclaimsbyprisoners.Coscov.Uphoff,195F.3d1221,122324(10thCir.1999). x 0  TheSeventhCircuithassuggested,withoutdirectlyholding,thatSandinv.Connercontrolspropertyclaimsbyprisoners. <  AbdulWadoodv.Nathan,91F.3d1023,1025(7thCir.1996);Loganv.Gillam,No.943794,96F.3d1450,1996WL   508618,at*3(7thCir.Aug.29,1996)(unpublishedopinion).(9 Z(Times New Roman   R6$      12  a  _Theadmissibilityandefficacyofthisaffidavitareopentoquestion.Incertiorariproceedings,judicialreview H isgenerallylimitedtotherecorddevelopedbythetribunalbelow,andthetribunalisgenerallyboundbyitsownrecord.   InaccordancewithTenn.CodeAnn.279111(b)(2000),partiesmayintroduceadditionalevidenceregardingfraud,  corruption,orwhetherthetribunalexceededitsjurisdictionorotherwiseactedillegally.Hemontolorv.WilsonCounty L Bd.ofZoningApp.,883S.W.2d613,618(Tenn.Ct.App.1994);Armstrongv.BoardofDir.ofFayetteCountyGen. X Hosp.,553S.W.2d77,80(Tenn.Ct.App.1976).Additionalevidenceregardingproceduralirregularitiesthatdonot  appearinthetribunalsrecordmayalsobeintroduced.Bienzv.CityofDayton,566P.2d904,922(Or.Ct.App.1977).  However,additionalevidencemaynotbeusedtoimpeachorcontradictmattersreflectedinthelowertribunalsrecord \ unlessthereisaclaimthattherecorddoesnotaccuratelyreflecttheproceedingsbeforethelowertribunal.See h  Commonwealthv.Blose,53Pa.D.&C.2d106,12122,1971WL14242,at*10(Pa.Com.Pl.1971). 8 R6$      16  a  _Anafterthefactaffidavitprovidingmoredetailedinformationregardingapurportedwaiverthanthe  informationappearinginthehearingsummerydoesnotcurethedefect.ItiscontrarytoTenn.DeptCorr.PolicyNo. t 502.01(VI)(E)(2)(a).Inaddition,affidavitsofthissortprecipitatefactualdisputesthatarenoteasilyresolvableina 8 commonlawcertiorariproceeding. w R6$      2  a  _Mr.Jeffriesalsosoughtastatutorywritofcertiorari.Becausethecommonlawwritofcertiorariistheproper H vehicleforreviewingtheactionsofaprisondisciplinaryboard,wewillnotconsiderthisclaim._ KilcreaseJefferiesBowlenPikevilleBledsoeDunawayAkheenBufordFrugePeralesBirmanGoodloeShadrickCokerPendletonArmoneit BainconclusoryCawoodMcCarleyAssnMilomPenleySeaton HCAServs House]xceptNewsomeLovato S.CtSandin restitutionaryAhkeenDep'tBlackmonBulgerArney KanWenzlerG.R.C.C.WoodardrevdUpchurchCoscoUphoffHewittHickmanGreenholtzMorrisseySundquist L.EdWadoodGillamHobbsAngelone ECRGillihanShillingeri]nterestp]etitioneri]nmateHemontolorFayetteBienzBloseTOMIS n]o t]he COAJeffries  R6$      13  a  _aaThechairpersonofadisciplinaryboardhasanaffirmativeobligationtoinquirewhethertheprisonerhas H waivedhisorherrighttotwentyfourhoursnoticeandtorecordtheinmatesanswer inthefindingsoftheboard.   Tenn.DeptCorr.PolicyNo.502.01(VI)(E)(2)(a)(1).#aa#  R6$      8  a  _Robinsonv.Clement,65S.W.3dat637(twentydaysinpunitivesegregation,a$5fine,andlossofaprison H job);aaAhkeenv.Campbell,No.M200002411COAR3CV,2001WL1346250,at*3(Tenn.Ct.App.Nov.2,2001)   (NoTenn.R.App.P.11applicationfiled)(fivedaysinpunitivesegregation,suspendedforsixtydays,and$20fine);  Sealsv.Bowlen,2001WL840271,at*6(placementinmaximumsecurity,$5fine,tendaysinpunitivesegregation,and L lossofonemonthofgoodtimecredits);Bufordv.TennesseeDep'tofCorr.,No.M1998-00157-COA-R3-CV,1999WL X 1015672,at*5(Tenn.Ct.App.Nov.10,1999)(NoTenn.R.App.P.11applicationfiled)(fifteendaysinpunitive  segregation,$4fine,andfour-monthpackagerestriction);Blackmonv.Campbell,No.01A01-9807-CH-00361,1999  WL85518,at*2(Tenn.Ct.App.Feb.23,1999)(NoTenn.R.App.P.11applicationfiled)(removalfromaprisonjob).#aa #  R6$      3  a  _Mr.Jeffriesfiledhispetitioninthewrongcounty.Tenn.CodeAnn.4121803(1997)requiredthepetition H tobefiledinBledsoeCountywherethePikevillefacilityislocated.Hawkinsv.TennesseeDeptofCorr.,No.M2001   00473COAR3CV,2002WL1677718,at*78(Tenn.Ct.App.July,25,2002)(NoTenn.R.App.P.11application  filed).WewillnotvacatethejudgmentinthiscasebecauseMr.JeffriesfiledhispetitionbeforewedecidedHawkins L v.TennesseeDeptofCorr.andbecauseneitherpartyquestionedvenueinthetrialcourt.  R6$      6  a  _Ms.Frazierstatesintheaffidavitsthat________________she_Ԁwouldhavetestifiedthat_Mr.Jeffriesneversolicitedherassistance H andhehadnotrequestedhertoprovidehimtheofficesuppliesortousetheStatescopyingmachine.*+ (_2623  ..*G+G (_25   /%` ` hp x /23  ../%` ` hp x /   *8+8 (_24  ," hp x ,23  ..," hp x ,  *5+5 (_23 ` ) hp x )23  ..) hp x ) ` *2+2 (_22  &hhp x &23  ..&hhp x &  */+/ (_21  #p x #23  ..#p x #  - -*,+, (_20 h  p x 23  .. p x h *)+) (_19  pp x 23  ..pp x   *&+& (_18   x 23  .. x   *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   (&& &_9   x 23  Ԁ x   (AA &_8  5+ ` hp x 523  5+ ` hp x 5  (GG &_7   /%` ` hp x /23  /%` ` hp x /   (88 &_6  ," hp x ,23  ," hp x ,  (55 &_5 ` ) hp x )23  ) hp x ) ` (22 &_4  &hhp x &23  &hhp x &  (// &_3  #p x #23  #p x #  (,, &_2 h  p x 23   p x h ()) &_1  pp x 23  pp x   &&& $_   x 23   x     R6$      14  a  _aaThesignaturelineforacknowledgingthewaiverofthisrightcontainsanotation refusedtosignin H handwritingthatdoesnotresembleMr.Jeffriesssignature.#aa#  R6$      17  a  _ThispanelsdecisionregardingMr._Jeffries_ssentencetofivedaysinpunitivesegregationwouldhavebeen  differenthadpunitivesegregationbeentheonlypunishmentMr.Jeffriesreceived.Inthatcircumstance,JudgesCain t andCottrell,relyingonJudgeCottrellsmajorityopinioninWillisv.TennesseeDept.ofCorr.,wouldhaveconcluded 8 thatthetrialcourtproperlydismissedMr._Jeffries_sclaimsregardinghisfivedaysentenceinpunitivesegregation L becausethesentencedoesnotinfringeuponhislibertyinterests.JudgeKochwouldhaveconcludedthatthetrialcourt  erredbydismissingtheseclaimsfortworeasons.First,therecordcontainsagenuinedisputeofmaterialfactregarding  theadequacyofthenoticeMr.Jeffriesreceivedofthehearingonthelarcenycharge.Second,therecorddoesnot H  supporttheDepartmentsclaimthatMr.Jeffrieswaivedhisrighttopresentexculpatoryevidence.  \  p R6$      15  a  _Intheabsenceofanauthoritativerecord,thereviewingcourtshavenopracticalavenueforresolvingfactual H disputesliketheoneinvolvedinthiscase.Remandingthecasetothetrialcourtforfurtherreviewoftherecordwillgain   littlebecausecredibilitydeterminationscannotbemadeonaffidavitsalone.Itwouldbenotonlyimpracticalbutalso  unwisetoordertheprisonerandthechairpersonoftheprisondisciplinaryboardtoappearpersonallytoenablethetrial L courttomakeacredibilitydetermination.ThesepracticalconstraintsunderscorethenecessityofcompliancewithTenn. X DeptCorr.PolicyNo.502.01(VI)(E)(2)(a)(3).    (|G26$ !.8edXXd8         0  a d(|3$ !.8edXXd8     VVVV)!dxdx)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3$ !.8edXXd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK  R6$      10  a  _Althoughweareawareofauthoritytothecontrary,i.e.Washlefskev.Winston,234F.3d179,18586(4th H Cir.2000),_certdenied__532U.S.983,121S.Ct.1627(2001),_Ԁwe_havedeterminedthatthebetterreasonedpositionis   that__prisoners_Ԁhaveapropertyinterestinthefundsintheirinmatetrustaccounts.Singletonv.Page, SӀNo.962637,202  F.3d274,1999WL1054594,at*1(7thCir.Nov.17,1999)(unpublishedopinion);Schneiderv.CaliforniaDept.of L Corr.,151F.3d1194,1201(9thCir._1998)____________________________________;_ԀHamptonv.Hobbs,106F.3d1281,1287(6thCir.1997);Scottv.Angelone, X No.CV9000589ECR,980F.2d738,1992WL354598,at*2(9thCir.Nov.27,1992)(unpublishedopinion);Gillihan  v.Shillinger,872F.2d935,939(10thCir.1989);Campbellv.Miller,787F.2d217,222(7thCir.1986);Quickv.Jones,  754F.2d1521,1523(9thCir.1985). h  T R6$      11  a  _ԀForinstance,Tenn.DeptCorr.PolicyNo.208.01(VI)(J)statesthat [i]nterestearnedfromtrustfund H investmentswillonlybeutilizedtopurchaserecreationalsuppliesthatdirectlybenefitthemajorityoftheinmate   population.TheDepartmentmayalsorequireaprisonertocontributetowardthecostofhisorhercareinaccordance  withTenn.CodeAnn.4121905(Supp.2001).Followingaprisonersrelease,theDepartmentwillsendtheprisoner L acheckforthebalanceofhisorhertrustfundaccountafterdeductinganyoutstandingobligations.Tenn.DeptCorr. X PolicyNo.208.01(VI)(F). !.8edd8     _TRY,3'Avery 5160 AddressX3' Letter 3'$Avery 5160 Address3'TH  e8 XXdd8  HdO @ ׄeINTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE H @kk$ATNASHVILLE#eׄ#Ԉ n&   AssignedonBriefsMay14,2002 L X Xe #eXX }#HILTONJEFFRIESv.TENNESSEEDEPARTMENTOFCORRECTIONX Xe  J @@ AppealfromtheChanceryCourtforDavidsonCounty  J @@No.01534IIrvinH.Kilcrease,Jr.,Chancellor ~ 6 @@*AV) ` dE<U ` A V   @@TTNo.M200102300COAR3CVFiledDecember31,_2002_ Q  AV) ` dE<(` A_ )     Thisappealinvolvesaprisondisciplinaryproceeding.AprisonerattheSoutheastRegional $  CorrectionalFacilitywaschargedwithfourseriousdisciplinaryinfractions.Hepleadedguiltyto   threecharges,andaprisondisciplinaryboardfoundhimguiltyofthefourth.Theboardplacedthe  prisonerinpunitivesegregationforfivedaysandorderedhimtopay$810inrestitutionfromhis  inmatetrustfundaccount.Theprisonerfiledapetitionforcommonlawwritofcertiorariinthe  ChanceryCourtforDavidsonCountyalleging(1)thathisguiltypleashadbeencoercedand(2)that x hehadbeendenieddueprocessonthefourthchargebytheboardsfailuretoprovidehimtwenty d fourhoursnoticeofthehearinganditsinterferencewithhisopportunitytopresentexculpatory P evidence.ThetrialcourtgrantedtheTennesseeDepartmentofCorrectionsmotionforsummary < judgmentanddismissedtheprisonerspetition.Wehavedeterminedthatthetrialcourterredby p( grantingthesummaryjudgmentwithregardtothe$810restitutionorderbecausetherecordcontains \ materialfactualdisputesregardingwhethertheprisonerwaivedhisrighttotwentyfourhoursnotice H ofthehearingandwhethertheboardrefusedtopermithimtocallanexculpatorywitness. 4 #eXX #X Xe8 Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheChanceryCourtAffirmedinPart   andReversedinPart     #eX o #X X.eWilliamC.Koch,Jr.,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichWilliamB.Cain#eX k #X X.eand   PatriciaJ.Cottrell#eX #X X.e,JJ.,joined.  t! HiltonJeffries,Only,Tennessee,ProSe. "L# PaulG.Summers,AttorneyGeneralandReporter;MichaelE.Moore,SolicitorGeneral;andDawn l$$!% Jordan,AssistantAttorneyGeneral,fortheappellee,TennesseeDepartmentofCorrection. X%"& <  OPINION #eXX #X Xe 0'#( #eXX %#  X Xe@) I.  )%*   HiltonG.Jeffrieswasindictedforaggravatedrapein1987afterhiseightyearolddaughter *', complainedtoherstepmotherthathehadrepeatedlyrapedandengagedinoralsexwithher.A +(-  MontgomeryCountyjuryfoundhimguiltyofaggravatedrapeandsentencedhimtoservefortyyears ,p).9 D_inthestatepenitentiary.   1      ׀Mr.JeffrieswaseventuallyhousedintheSoutheasternTennesseeState H  RegionalCorrectionalFacilityinPikeville. 4   AfterarrivingatthePikevillefacility,Mr.JeffriesstruckupafriendshipwithShelbyA.   Frazier,aprisonemployeewhoworkedinthesameareawherehisprisonjobwaslocated.Afterthe  wardenoftheinstitutiondeclinedMr.Jeffriessrequestforassistanceonsomesortofpersonal  matter,Ms.FraziertookituponherselftobeginhelpingMr.Jeffries.Accordingly,Ms.Frazier  loanedMr.JeffrieshercellulartelephonewhichheusedtomakepersonalcallstoFloridaandother  t locationsatMs.Fraziersexpense.SheprovidedMr.Jeffrieswithpaper,envelopes,andmailing  ` labelsthatshehadpurchasedforhimfromlocalretailers.Ms.Frazieralsousedastateowned  L  copyingmachineduringherworkinghourstomakecopiesforMr.Jeffries.  8    Sometimein2000,theinstitutionbegananinternalinvestigationintoMs.Fraziers X  relationshipwithMr.Jeffries.Duringthisinvestigation,aninternalaffairsofficerdiscoveredthe D  cellulartelephone,theofficesupplies,andthecopieddocumentsinMr.Jeffriessworkarea.The 0  officerfileddisciplinarychargesagainstbothMs.FrazierandMr.Jeffries.OnNovember28,2000,   Mr.Jeffriesreceivedwrittennoticethathehadbeenchargedwithfourviolationsofinstitutional  rules:(1)possessionofcontrabandforhavingacellphone;(2)abuseoftelephoneprivilegesfor  usingthecellphone;(3)solicitationofstaffforstrikingupafriendshipwithMs.Frazierandusing  herforhispersonalgain;and(4)larcenyforacquiringofficesuppliesandusingastateownedcopy  machine. p   Mr.JeffrieswasimmediatelytransferredtotheNortheastCorrectionalComplexinMountain H City;however,hewasreturnedtothePikevillefacilityonNovember29,2000foradisciplinary |4 hearing.Atthattime,Mr.Jeffriespleadedguiltytothepossessionofcontraband,theabuseof h  telephoneprivileges,andthesolicitationofstaffcharges.Aprisondisciplinaryboardthen T  conductedahearingonthelarcenychargeandultimatelyfoundMr.Jeffriesguilty.Theboard @ orderedMr.Jeffriestoservefivedaysinpunitivesegregationandpay$810restitutionfortheoffice , suppliesandthecostofthecopiesmadeontheprisonscopyingmachine.    OnFebruary16,2001,Mr.Jeffriesfiledapetitionforcommonlawwritofcertiorari"(   2      ׀inthe  ChanceryCourtforDavidsonCounty.&x   3      ׀Inadditiontoallegingthathisthreeguiltypleashadbeen  coerced,heallegedthatthedisciplinaryboarddeniedhimdueprocessbydisregardingthe    DepartmentsUniformDisciplinaryProceduresintwoways.First,heassertedthathehadnotbeen H giventherequiredtwentyfourhoursnoticeofthechargesandthathewasforcedtoproceedwith 4 thehearingevenafterherefusedtowaivehisrighttonotice.Second,heassertedthathewasdenied   therighttopresentexculpatoryevidenceatthehearing.     OnJuly10,2001,afterobtainingtwo45dayextensionsforreasonsthatarenotapparentin  therecord,   4      ׀theOfficeoftheAttorneyGeneralrespondedtoMr.Jeffriesspetition.Thisresponse  consistedofcertifiedcopiesoftheinstitutionalrecordsregardingMr.Jeffriessfourdisciplinary  t offenses,anaffidavitofthechairpersonoftheprisondisciplinaryboard,amotionforsummary  ` judgment,   5      ׀andastatementofundisputedfacts.Mr.JeffriesrespondedtotheAttorneyGenerals  L  motionbyfilinghisownaffidavitaswellastwoaffidavitsbyMs.Frazier'   6      ׀andacopyofaletter  8  fromthewardenoftheSoutheastRegionalCorrectionalFacilitystatingthatMs.Frazierhadbeen l $  terminatedforprovidingtheofficesupplieswhichservedthebasisforthepunishmentMr.Jeffries X  received.OnSeptember5,2001,thetrialcourtenteredanordergrantingtheDepartmentasummary D  judgmentanddismissingMr.Jeffriesspetitionwithoutexplanation.Mr.Jeffrieshasappealed. 0  @) II.  @hhTheStandardofReview     Wecannotreviewthisappealusingthestandardsofreviewnormallyassociatedwith  commonlawwritsofcertioraribecausetheDepartmentelectedtofileamotionforsummary p judgmenttodisposeofMr.Jeffriesspetition.Thisisacurioustacticalchoiceinlightofthefact \ thattheDepartmenthadfileditscompleterecordofMr.Jeffriesshearingbeforetheprison H disciplinaryboard.Ordinarily,oncethecompleterecordhasbeenfiled,thereviewingcourtmay |4 proceedtodeterminewhetherthepetitionerisentitledtoreliefwithoutanyfurthermotionsand,if h  thecourtchooses,withoutahearing.Indoingso,thereviewingcourtmayresolveanymaterial T  factualdisputesthatmayexistintherecord. @   TheDepartmentsdecisiontomoveforasummaryjudgmentpreventsthetrialcourtfrom  simplyreviewingtherecordtodeterminewhetherthepetitionerisentitledtoreliefbecauseTenn.  R.Civ.P.56doesnotpermitthetrialcourttograntthemotioniftherecordcontainsmaterialfactual  disputes.Thus,byfilingthemotion,theDepartmenthasintroducedaconsiderationintothe  decisionmakingprocesstheexistenceofmaterialfactualdisputesthatisnotordinarilypartof    acertiorariproceeding.TheDepartmenthaselectedtouseTenn.R.Civ.P.56asthevehiclefor !l! disposingofMr.Jeffriesspetition.Therefore,theDepartmentmustdancebythetuneithasasked "X" thepipertoplay. #D #   Thestandardsforreviewingsummaryjudgmentsonappealarewellsettled.Summary H judgmentsareproperinvirtuallyanycivilcasethatcanberesolvedonthebasisoflegalissuesalone. 4 Frugev.Doe,952S.W.2d408,410(Tenn.1997);Byrdv.Hall,847S.W.2d208,210(Tenn.1993);   Churchv.Perales,39S.W.3d149,156(Tenn.Ct.App.2000).Theyarenot,however,appropriate   whengenuinedisputesregardingmaterialfactsexist.Tenn.R.Civ.P.56.04.Thus,asummary  judgmentshouldbegrantedonlywhentheundisputedfacts,andtheinferencesreasonablydrawn  fromtheundisputedfacts,supportoneconclusion!thatthepartyseekingthesummaryjudgment  isentitledtoajudgmentasamatteroflaw.Webberv.StateFarmMut.Auto.Ins.Co.,49S.W.3d  t 265,269(Tenn.2001);Brownv.BirmanManagedCare,Inc.,42S.W.3d62,66(Tenn.2001);  ` Goodloev.State,36S.W.3d62,65(Tenn.2001).  L    Thepartyseekingasummaryjudgmentbearstheburdenofdemonstratingthatnogenuine l $  disputeofmaterialfactexistsandthatitisentitledtoajudgmentasamatteroflaw.Shadrickv. X  Coker,963S.W.2d726,731(Tenn.1998);Pendletonv.Mills,73S.W.3dat121;Armoneitv.Elliott D  CraneServ.,65S.W.3d623,627(Tenn.Ct.App.2001).Inordertobeentitledtoajudgmentasa 0  matteroflaw,themovingpartymusteitheraffirmativelynegateanessentialelementofthenon   movingpartysclaimorestablishanaffirmativedefensethatconclusivelydefeatsthenonmoving  partysclaim.Byrdv.Hall,847S.W.2dat215n.5;Cherryv.Williams,36S.W.3d78,8283(Tenn.  Ct.App.2000).    OncethemovingpartydemonstratesthatithassatisfiedTenn.R.Civ.P.56srequirements, p thenonmovingpartymustdemonstratehowtheserequirementshavenotbeensatisfied.Bainv. \ Wells,936S.W.2d618,622(Tenn.1997).Mereconclusorygeneralizationswillnotsuffice. H Cawoodv.Davis,680S.W.2d795,79697(Tenn.Ct.App.1984).Thenonmovingpartymust |4 convincethetrialcourtthattherearesufficientfactualdisputestowarrantatrial(1)bypointingto h  evidenceeitheroverlookedorignoredbythemovingpartythatcreatesafactualdispute,(2)by T  rehabilitatingevidencechallengedbythemovingparty,(3)byproducingadditionalevidencethat @ createsamaterialfactualdispute,or(4)bysubmittinganaffidavitinaccordancewithTenn.R.Civ. , P.56.07requestingadditionaltimefordiscovery.McCarleyv.WestQualityFoodServ.,960S.W.2d  585,588(Tenn.1998);Byrdv.Hall,847S.W.2dat215,n.6.Anonmovingpartywhofailstocarry  itsburdenfacessummarydismissalofthechallengedclaimbecause,asourcourtshaverepeatedly  observed,the failureofproofconcerninganessentialelementofthecauseofactionnecessarily  rendersallotherfactsimmaterial.Alexanderv.MemphisIndividualPracticeAssn,870S.W.2d    278,280(Tenn.1993);Straussv.Wyatt,Tarrant,Combs,Gilbert&Milom,911S.W.2d727,729 !l! (Tenn.Ct.App.1995). "X"   Summaryjudgmentsenjoynopresumptionofcorrectnessonappeal.Scottv.Ashland x$0!$ HealthcareCtr.,Inc.,49S.W.3d281,285(Tenn.2001);Penleyv.HondaMotorCo.,31S.W.3d d%"% 181,183(Tenn.2000).Accordingly,appellatecourtsmustmakeafreshdeterminationthatthe P&#& requirementsofTenn.R.Civ.P.56havebeensatisfied.Hunterv.Brown,955S.W.2d49,5051 <'#' (Tenn.1997);Masonv.Seaton,942S.W.2d470,472(Tenn.1997).Wemustconsidertheevidence (($( inthelightmostfavorabletothenonmovingparty,andwemustresolveallinferencesinthenon )%) movingpartysfavor.Doev.HCAHealthServs.,Inc.,46S.W.3d191,196(Tenn.2001);Memphis *&* Hous.Auth.v.Thompson,38S.W.3d504,507(Tenn.2001).Whenreviewingtheevidence,we *'+ mustdeterminefirstwhetherfactualdisputesexist.Ifafactualdisputeexists,wemustthen +(,  determinewhetherthefactismaterialtotheclaimordefenseuponwhichthesummaryjudgment ,|)- ispredicatedandwhetherthedisputedfactcreatesagenuineissuefortrial.Byrdv.Hall,847 H S.W.2dat214;Rutherfordv.PolarTankTrailer,Inc.,978S.W.2d102,104(Tenn.Ct.App.1998). 4  @* X XXX   III.   TheGuiltyPleas  D   WeturnfirsttoMr.Jeffriessclaimthathisguiltypleastothechargesof #X XXX C#Ԁpossessionof  contraband,abuseoftelephoneprivileges,andsolicitationofstaffX XXX Ԁwerecoerced.Heassertsthatthe  t internalaffairsofficerthreatenedhimbytellinghimthatheshouldpleadguiltytoavoidbeingplaced  ` inmaximumsecurity,beingchargedwithmoreseriousoffenses,andbeingpreventedfrom  L  defendinghimself.TheDepartmenthaspresentednoevidencetorebuttheseassertions.  8    Anotherwisevalidguiltypleaisnotrenderedinvoluntarysimplybecauseitismotivatedby X  anaccusedsdesiretolimitthepenaltyheorsheisfacing.#X XXX RE#ԀNewsomev.State,995S.W.2d129,134 D  (Tenn.Crim.App.1998);Hicksv.State,983S.W.2d240,248(Tenn.Crim.App.1998).Thus,an 0  accusedwhomakesarationaldecisiontopleadguiltytoavoidthreatenedharsherpunishmentcannot   laterassertthathisorherguiltypleawasinvoluntary.Lovatov.State,No.03C019108CR00244,  1992WL10896,at*3(Tenn.Crim.App.Jan.28,1992),perm.app.denied(Tenn.May18,1992).    Thereisnothingarbitraryorillegalaboutthreateningaprisonerwiththeharsherpunishment  inordertoinduceaguiltypleatoadisciplinaryinfraction.DespitethefactthatMr.Jeffriess p assertionthathewasthreatenedwithharsherpunishmentunlesshepleadedguiltytothreeofthe \ disciplinarychargesstandsuncontradicted,itisalsouncontradictedthatMr.Jeffriesmadeaknowing H andrationalchoicetopleadguiltyinordertoreceivemorelenientpunishment.Inlightofthis |4 decision,Mr.Jeffriesisinnopositiontochallengethevoluntarinessofhisguiltypleastothreeof h  thefourdisciplinarychargesfiledagainsthim. T  @dd) IV.  , @   TheAllegedDueProcessViolations     Mr.Jeffriesalsoassertsthattheprisondisciplinaryboardviolatedhisdueprocessrightswith  regardtothelarcenychargebyfailingtoabidebytheDepartmentsUniformDisciplinary  Procedures.TheDepartmentsresponseistwofold.First,theDepartmentdeniesthatthe    disciplinaryboardfailedtocomplywiththeUniformDisciplinaryProcedures.Second,relyingon !l! Sandinv.Conner,515U.S.472,115S.Ct.2293(1995),itarguesthatanypossibledeparturefrom "X" theUniformDisciplinaryProcedurescannotprovidethebasisforadueprocessclaimbecausethe #D # punishmentMr.Jeffriesreceiveddidnotimposeanatypicalandsignificanthardshiponhim. x$0!$   Becausethetrialcourtfailedtoexplainthelegalbasisforitsdecisiontograntthe P&#& Departmentsmotionforsummaryjudgment,wepresumethatitmusthaveagreedwithbothofthe <'#' Departmentstheories.WehavedeterminedthattheDepartmentsandthetrialcourtsrelianceon (($( Sandinv.Connerismisplaced.Wehavealsodeterminedthattherecordcontainsmaterialfactual )%) disputesregardingtheDepartmentscompliancewithitsUniformDisciplinaryProcedures. *&*  -h*. @) A.  H @  TheApplicationofSandinv.Conner  4   DenialofdueprocessclaimssuchastheoneMr.Jeffriespresentsinthiscaseareanalyzed   usingatwopartinquiry.Thefirstquestioniswhethertheplaintiffhasidentifieda libertyor   propertyinterestthatisentitledtoprotectionbytheDueProcessClause.   7      ׀Anaffirmativeanswer  tothisquestionrequirestheconsiderationofasecondquestion!whatprocessisdueunderthe  particularcircumstances?BoardofRegentsv.Roth,408U.S.564,57173,92S.Ct.2701,270607  t (1972).Theanswertothesecondquestionissituationalbecausedueprocessisaflexibleconcept  ` thatcallsforonlythoseproceduralprotectionsthattheparticularsituationdemands.Greenholtzv.  L  InmatesofNebraskaPenalandCorr.Complex,442U.S.1,1213,99S.Ct.2100,2106(1979);  8  Morrisseyv.Brewer,408U.S.471,481,92S.Ct.2593,2600(1972). l $    ItisaxiomaticthattheDueProcessClauseisnottriggeredbythedeprivationofaninterest D  thatisneitheralibertyinterestnorapropertyinterest.Rowev.BoardofEduc.,938S.W.2d351,354 0  (Tenn.1996);Robinsonv.Clement,65S.W.3dat636.Inthecontextoflitigationsuchasthiscase,   theUnitedStatesSupremeCourthasheldthatstateprisonersdonothavealibertyinterestinthe  proceduralrightscreatedbyinternalprisondisciplinaryregulationsunlessthepunishmentthey  receive imposesatypicalandsignificanthardshipontheinmateinrelationtotheordinaryincidents  ofprisonlife.Sandinv.Conner,515U.S.at48384,715S.Ct.at2300.Accordingly,thefateof  thedueprocessclaimsofaprisonerseekingjudicialreviewofinternaldisciplinaryproceedings p dependsuponthepunishmenttheprisonerreceived. \   TheTennesseeSupremeCourthasyettoaddresstheapplicationofSandinv.Connerto |4 commonlawcertiorariproceedingssuchastheoneinvolvedinthiscase.However,manymembers h  ofthiscourthaveembracedthedecisionandhaveuseditfrequentlytodisposeofpetitionsfiledby T  prisonersseekingjudicialreviewofprisondisciplinaryproceedings.See,e.g.,Willisv.Tennessee @ DeptofCorr.,No.M200001397COAR3CV,X XXX 2002WL1189730,at*4#X XXX ^#(Tenn.Ct.App.June5, , 2002)perm.app.granted(Tenn.Dec.9,2002);Reidv.Sundquist,No.01A019709CH00494,  1998WL83669,at*1(Tenn.Ct.App.Feb.27,1998)(NoTenn.R.App.P.11applicationfiled).  Typically,thesecasesholdthatplacementinmaximumsecurity,thelossofgoodtimecredits,the  lossofaprisonjob,andsmallfines,eitherseparatelyorincombination,donottriggerdueprocess  concernsbecausethepunishmentsdonotimposeanatypicalandsignificanthardshipontheprisoner    inrelationtotheordinaryincidentsofprisonlife.%T   8      ׀ !l!   ThiscourtcurrentlydiffersonthelengthofSandinv.Connersreach.󀀀Willisv.Tennessee #D # Dept.ofCorr.,2002WL1189730,at*15(Koch,J.,dissenting).Howeverthesedifferencesare x$0!$ limitedtotheapplicationofSandinv.Connersreasoningincaseswhereaprisonerclaimstheloss H ofalibertyinterestbasedonthedenialofproceduralrightsinprisondisciplinaryhearings.Wehave 4 notheretoforedirectlyconsideredtheapplicationofSandinv.Connersreasoningtopunishmentthat   involvesthelossofapropertyinterest.WenowconcludethatSandinv.Connerdoesnotapplyto   aprisonersdueprocessclaimspredicatedonthelossofapropertyinterest.    Sandinv.Connersfocuson freedomfromrestraintcannotbeappliedinthecontextofa  takingofaprisonersproperty.Itscentralholdingthatdueprocessisnotnecessaryaslongasthe  t prisonerspunishmentisnotdisproportionatetotherigorsofprisonlifedoesnotapplywhenthe  ` actionsofaprisonofficialdepriveaprisonerofhisorherproperty.Bulgerv.U.S.Bureauof  L  Prisons,65F.3d48,50(5thCir.1995);Arneyv.Simmons,923F.Supp.173,177,n.4(D.Kan.  8  1996);Wenzlerv.WardenofG.R.C.C.,949F.Supp.399,402,n.1(E.D.Va.1996).   9      ׀Thus,aprison l $  disciplinaryboardmustfollowallapplicableproceduralruleswhenitimposesamoneyjudgment X  againstaninmateifthejudgmentdeprivestheprisonerofapropertyinterest. D    StateprisonersinTennesseehaveapropertyinterestinthefundsintheirprisontrustfund   accounts.d    10      ׀WhiletheDepartmenthastheauthoritytowithdrawmoneyfromaprisonersaccount  tocovervariouscostsandfees,theprisonerstillretainsapropertyinterestinthemoneyinhis  account.SeeTenn.CodeAnn. X XXX 4025143#X XX X k# X XXX ,4121237#X XX X -l#(2002);Tenn.DeptCorr.PolicyNo.  208.01.Therefore,thedueprocessclauseprotectsaprisonerspropertyinterestinhisorhertrust   fundaccount,andtheDepartmentcannottakethatmoneywithoutdueprocessoflawunlessthe p statutesortheDepartmentspoliciesprovideotherwise.e   11      ׀Itfollows,therefore,thatMr.Jeffriesis H  entitledtoreliefiftheprisondisciplinaryboardinfringeduponhisdueprocessrightsbyfailingto 4 followtheUniformDisciplinaryProcedureswhenitconvictedhimoflarcenyandorderedthat$810   bedeductedfromhisinmatetrustfundaccountasrestitution.     NoteverydeparturefromtheUniformDisciplinaryProceduresamountstoadueprocess  violationwarrantingreliefthroughawritofcommonlawcertiorari.Tenn.DeptCorr.PolicyNo.  502.01(V)itselfprovidesthat minordeviationsfromtheproceduresthatdonotprejudicethe  t prisonerdonotrequiredismissalofthedisciplinaryoffense.Totriggerjudicialrelief,adeparture  ` fromtheUniformDisciplinaryProceduresmusteffectivelydenytheprisonerafairhearing.  L  @) B.  l $  @PP The$810RestitutionOrder  X      BasedonourunanimousdecisionthatSandinv.Connerdoesnotapplytoordersdepriving 0  prisonersofpropertyinterests,weproceedtothemeritsofMr.Jeffriessclaimsregardingthe$810   restitutionorder.Mr.Jeffriesassertsthathewasdenieddueprocessinthehearingonthelarceny  chargeintwoways.First,heallegesthathedidnotreceivetwentyfourhoursnoticeofthehearing  asrequiredbyTenn.DeptCorr.PolicyNo.502.01(VI)(A)(3)(c).Second,heallegesthatthe  disciplinaryboardwouldnotpermithimtopresentexculpatoryevidenceaspermittedbyTenn.Dept  Corr.PolicyNo.502.01(VI)(E)(2)(c)(6). p   TheDepartmentrespondsbyassertingcategoricallythatitaffordedMr.Jeffriesallthe H proceduralsafeguardstowhichhewasentitledundertheUniformDisciplinaryProcedures.Italso |4 assertsthatMr.Jeffrieswaivedhisrighttopresentexculpatoryevidence.TheDepartmentsupported h  theseclaimsinthetrialcourtbyfiling(1)certifiedcopiesoftheTOMISdisciplinaryreportandthe T   DisciplinaryReportHearingSummaryfortheNovember29,2000hearingregardingMr.Jeffriess @ larcenychargeand(2)anaffidavitpreparedbythechairpersonoftheprisondisciplinaryboard. (   12      ׀ , WehavedeterminedthatthesematerialsdonotsupporttheDepartmentsarguments.    @) 1.  H @ TheNoticeoftheHearing  4   Tenn.DeptCorr.PolicyNo.502.01(VI)(A)(3)(c)statesthat [n]odisciplinaryhearingshall   beheldinlessthantwentyfourhoursaftertheinmatehasbeenchargedwithadisciplinary  infraction,unlessamorepromptdispositionisrequestedbythesubjectinmateandhe/shewaives  therighttoatwentyfour(24)hournoticeinwriting.ThepolicyreflectstheUnitedStatesSupreme  Courtsconclusionthatprisonerschargedwithdisciplinaryinfractionsareentitledto nolessthan  t 24hourswrittennoticepriortoadisciplinaryboardhearing.Wolffv.McDonnell,418U.S.539,  ` 564,94S.Ct.2963,2979(1974).  L    TheTOMISdisciplinaryreportinvolvingthelarcenyinfractionstatesthatMr.Jeffrieswas l $  providedwrittennoticeofthechargeat2:11P.M.onNovember28,2000andthatherefusedtosign X  thereportacknowledgingthathereceivedit.TheDisciplinaryReportHearingSummaryofthe D  November29,2000hearingonthelarcenyinfractiondoesnotreflectthetimethatthehearing 0  convened.However,itcontainsanotationconfirmingthatMr.Jeffrieswasgiventhe offense   citationonNovember28,2000.ItalsoreflectsthatMr.Jeffriesdidnotwaivehisrighttotwenty  fourhoursnoticebecause(1)hedidnotsignthesummaryinthespaceprovidedacknowledgingthat  hewaivedthisrightand(2)thesummarydoesnotcontainanotationbythechairpersonthatMr.  Jeffrieswaivedhisrighttonotice.$   13      ׀Infact,onthesignaturelineforacknowledgingawaiverofthe  righttonotice,someone,presumablythechairperson,wrotetheword giveninhandwritingthat p clearlydiffersfromMr.Jeffriesssignature. \   BecausetheDepartmentdoesnotinsistthatMr.Jeffrieswaivedhisrighttotwentyfourhours |4 notice,thepivotalfactualissueregardingMr.Jeffriessnoticeclaimiswhetherthedisciplinary h  hearingonthelarcenyinfractioncommencedbeforeorafter2:11P.M.onNovember29,2000.By T  assertingthathedidnotreceiveadequatewrittennotice,Mr.Jeffriesisnecessarilyassertingthatthe @ hearingcommencedbefore2:11P.M.Similarly,byassertingthatMr.Jeffriesreceivedthenotice , requiredbytheUniformDisciplinaryProcedures,theDepartmentisnecessarilyassertingthatthe  hearingcommencedafter2:11P.M.    Nothinginthisrecordprovidesanauthoritativebasisforresolvingthisfactualimpasse.The  hearingsummarydoesnotstatewhenthehearingcommenced,andthechairpersonsaffidavitis    equallysilentonthepoint.Withtheevidenceinequipoise,thetrialcourtshouldhavedeniedthe !l! DepartmentsmotionforsummaryjudgmentwithregardtoMr.Jeffriessnoticeclaimbecausethe "X" Departmentfailedtodemonstratetheabsenceofmaterialfactualdisputesregardingthetimewhen #D # thedisciplinaryhearingcommenced. x$0!$ @) 2.  P&#& @$ $ X XXX  TheWaiveroftheOpportunitytoPresentExculpatoryEvidence  <'#'   TheUniformDisciplinaryProceduresalsoaffordprisonersfacingdisciplinarychargeswith )%) alimitedrighttopresentexculpatoryevidence.Tenn.DeptsCorr.PolicyNo.501.02(VI)(E)(2) *&* (c)(6)providesthat [t]heinmateshallbepermittedtopresentthetestimonyofrelevantwitness(es), H unlessallowingawitnesstoappearwouldposeathreattoinstitutionalsafetyororder.Thispolicy 4 reflectstheUnitedStatesSupremeCourtsconclusionthatprisonerschargedwithdisciplinary   offenses shouldbeallowedtocallwitnessesandpresentdocumentaryevidencein[their]defense   whenpermitting[them]todosowillnotbeundulyhazardoustoinstitutionalsafetyorcorrectional  goals.#X XXX J#Wolffv.McDonnell,418U.S.at566,94S.Ct.at2979.    Mr.Jeffriesassertsthathewasdeprivedofdueprocessbybeingpreventedfromcalling  t witnessesonhisbehalfandthathedidnotwaivethisrightattheNovember29,2000hearing.The  ` DisciplinaryReportHearingSummaryreflectsonlythatMr.Jeffriesdeclinedtosignthewritten  L  acknowledgmentthathehadwaivedhisrighttocallwitnessesonhisbehalf.D   14      ׀Itdoesnotreflect,  8  bynotationofthechairpersonorotherwise,thatMr.Jeffriesorallywaivedhisrighttocallwitnesses l $  duringthehearing.However,thechairpersonofthedisciplinaryhearingboardlaterpreparedan X  affidavitstatingthat [i]nmateJeffriesinitiallyrequestedtohavewitnessespresent,buteventually D  decidedagainstcallinganywitnesses.Inresponse,Mr.Jeffriessubmittedhisownaffidavit 0  assertingthat [p]etitionerwasnotallowedtocallanywitnessesinhisbehalf,wasdeniedtheright   topresentdocumentaryproofofhisinnocenceofthechargesagainsthim[SwornAffidavitofShelby  A.Frazier],andwasthreatenedbythereportingofficial.    Tenn.DeptCorr.PolicyNo.502.01(VI)(E)(2)(a)requiresthechairpersonofaprison  disciplinaryboard inthefindingsoftheboardthefactualinformationregardingaprisonerswaiver p oftheproceduralrightsidentifiedinWolffv.McDonnell.Thispolicyservesatleastthreebeneficial \ purposes.First,itprovidesdefinitive,persuasiveevidencethatwillavoidfactualdisputeslikethis H oneshouldaprisonerseekjudicialreviewofthedisciplinaryboardsaction.F   15      ׀Second,itprotects |4 theprisoneragainstcollateralconsequencesstemmingfromamisunderstandingoftheproceeding. h  Third,ithelpsensurethatprisonofficials,facedwithpossiblescrutinybystateofficials,thepublic, T  andthecourts,willactfairly.Wolffv.McDonnell,418U.S.at565,94S.Ct.at2979. @   Makingarecordofthissortisnotburdensome.Thehearingsummaryformcontains  preprintedwaiversoftherighttonotice,therighttopresentexculpatoryevidence,andtherightto  havethereportingofficialpresentwhichneedonlybesignedbytheprisonertoacknowledgethat  heorshehaswaivedoneoralloftheserights.Iftheprisonerdeclinestosignthehearingsummary  formacknowledgingthatheorshehaswaivedoneormoreoftheserights,thechairpersonneedonly    recordontheformthattheprisonerwaivedtherightbutdeclinedtosigntheform. !l!   Inthiscase,thechairpersonoftheprisondisciplinaryboarddidnotcomplywiththe #D # requirementsofTenn.DeptCorr.PolicyNo.502.01(VI)(E)(2)(a).Theonlyinformationinthe x$0!$ hearingsummaryregardingMr.Jeffriesslarcenyinfractionisanambiguous,handwrittenstatement d%"% HdO  HH H  thatMr.Jeffries refusedtosigntheform.Thisnotationisequallyconsistentwiththeinference  thatMr.Jeffriesrefusedtosigntheformbecauseherefusedtowaivehisrighttocallwitnessesand  withtheinferencethathewaivedhisrighttocallwitnessesbutnonethelessrefusedtosigntheform.     t   TheDepartmentsUniformDisciplinaryProceduresplacetheonusonthechairpersonto ` makeacontemporaneousrecordofaprisonerswaiverofthefundamentalrightsidentifiedinWolff L  v.McDonnell.TheDepartmentsdefensestoaprisonerspetitionforcommonlawwritofcertiorari 8  must,therefore,standorfallontherecorditsemployeeshaveprepared.!   16      ׀Failuretoadequately $ t documentaprisonerswaiverofoneormoreoftheserightscreatestworelatedpersuasive  ` inferences:first,thattheprisonerdidnotwaivehisorherrightsandsecond,thattheprisonerwas,  L  therefore,notaffordedtherightspurportedlywaived.  8    TheambiguousnotationonthesummaryofthehearingonMr.Jeffriesslarcenyinfraction   constitutesafailuretoadequatelydocumentMr.Jeffriesspurportedwaiverofhisrighttopresent   exculpatoryevidence.Intheabsenceofanadequatecontemporaneousrecordofhiswaiver,we   concludethattheDepartmenthasnotestablisheditsclaimthatMr.Jeffrieswaivedhisrightto   presentexculpatoryevidence.Therefore,thetrialcourterredbygrantingthesummaryjudgment p dismissingMr.Jeffriesschallengetohisconvictiononthelarcenyinfraction. \   WehavealsoconcludedthattherecordasitstandsdemonstratesthatMr.Jeffriesisentitled 4 toajudgmentasamatteroflaw.Failuretoaffordconstitutionallyprotectedrightstoaprisoner  p facingthelossofapropertyinterestamountstoanillegalityforthepurposeofdeterminingwhether  \ reliefpursuanttoacommonlawwritofcertiorariiswarranted.BecausetheDepartmentfailedto H provethatMr.Jeffrieswaivedhisrighttopresentexculpatoryevidence,Mr.Jeffriessclaimthathe 4 waspreventedfrompresentingexculpatoryevidencestandsessentiallyunrebutted.Accordingly,he   hasadequatelydemonstratedthattheDepartmentactedillegallybypreventinghimfrompresenting   exculpatoryevidence.Onremand,wedirectthetrialcourttoenteranordervacatingtheNovember  29,2000decisionoftheprisondisciplinaryboardfindingMr.Jeffriesguiltyofthelarcenyinfraction  andremandingtheproceedingtotheDepartmentwithdirectionseithertodismissthelarcenycharge  againstMr.Jeffriesortoaffordhimahearingconsistentwiththerequirementsofdueprocess. l @) C.  D! @  TheFiveDaysinPunitiveSegregation  0"    Wemust,asafinalmatter,addressMr.Jeffriesschallengetotheprisondisciplinaryboards $X" decisiontosentencehimtofivedaysinpunitivesegregation.BecausewehavedeterminedthatMr. $D # Jeffriessconvictiononthelarcenyinfractionmustbevacatedwithregardtothe$810restitution %0!$ order,weunanimouslyfindthattheportionoftheboardsordersentencinghimtofivedaysin &"% punitivesegregationmustlikewisebevacated.E   17      ׀Aconvictionofadisciplinaryinfractionthatis  invalidforonepurposeisinvalidforallpurposes.Therefore,onremand,wedirectthetrialcourt  tolikewisevacatetheboardsdecisiontosentenceMr.Jeffriestofivedaysinpunitivesegregation  andtoremandtheproceedingtotheDepartmentforfurtherproceedingsconsistentwiththisopinion. t @) V.  L    WeaffirmthedismissalofMr.Jeffriessclaimsregardinghisthreeguiltypleas,andwe $ t reversethedismissalofhisclaimsregardinghisconvictiononthelarcenydisciplinaryinfraction.  ` Weremandthecasetothetrialcourtwithdirections(1)toenteranordervacatingtheNovember29,  L  2000decisionoftheprisondisciplinaryboardfindingMr.Jeffriesguiltyofthelarcenyinfraction  8  andremandingand(2)todirecttheDepartmenteithertodismissthelarcenydisciplinarycharge $  againstMr.JeffriesortoaffordhimahearingconsistentwithdueprocessandtheUniform   DisciplinaryProcedures.WealsotaxthecostsofthisappealtotheTennesseeDepartmentof   Correction.      `     h     _____________________________ \    `     h     WILLIAMC.KOCH,JR.,JUDGE