ÿWPC>  ì\¶õ»i»7<„ÝR$3»n¯ÍñõXKbp¦Iìù*†pX•¼ojjDW;×Ð-BŒUa\$á4ÇíG½”-^à¿çƒZ'—½öeF]HêÓM:ÍÏ~õäpÞhOÉL¹PB+(á«ÃŽ7õÜz»•ÑÇ˾Íci›`H†$«C‚®#€æ*"_ÜgE¿7’f£T û0¡e¾-ÄÄñMý_;ׂUÏ+†`Ã0˜ž9“‘RE³GÈ[–)E„œ¤¨„³"ëy˜-˜Gaº}À #õ©q:wA¬òº<éÂZ9N0…QÊÒe‚Ñ ³Ó­‹ŒþÙÏ‘ÖÜ?ë’¼ U–5ûC¬"–¬‘pJĹÞ} «hìç\î¯á‹.yÝ-˜SX2×[´˜&ž¼à¹¢œ*ׯ‹Ùã=D?Ü#‚òpô—;tA¦¯Û¸ªl+×ZÉÍëüNŸ+Ρ7¹:ÕnÛ€Ù(ßGŒm߬L%;òú±ÄëÛU¬,'Öš~O¸PßuåòZ¶¬å&-×â÷½â¥ªa&!Ú¹–¶à_´²*o´ „¯]QïgÍÈËÿ|áü'AH¶vñÈ^Wn”q¶ÀHðÒ§Ò²³`Sz¼²:©ä®ª^1êFDù.*# LU:W %‘ 0(—b ¿w@Ë4 L.z‚U:…………………………………………………… AQ¿Æ 0DÖ 0D 0D^ ^ D/¢ BÑ Bî D3 ˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLlÎ, øð AZ‹"Arial RegularX($¡¡- ù - EEPD Ó€*ìu[%x3|x*C:\OFFICE\WPWIN\TEMPLATE\STANDARD.WPT ùÝ ƒ"¯"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€ XÀXXXÔÔ€ ¤_X XÀÔÓ  Óò òÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€ XÀX ¤_ÔÐ  ÐÌOctober€30,€1998ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔdAhÔó ó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular!"#$&Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó(('÷ÿ dxd düÿP Pd'''''ÿÿdxdÝ ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýñ ñ›ñ ñÑ°ÑÒ€°ÒÒ„°ÒÑTR[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ€ÑÑ7€ÀXXdæXXdð7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  Ñò òÔ€¼¶O¼XXÔÓ  Óñ*ññ ñßr€ )<,(j 8` `€€@Eô ` 8ttxP,ð  rßñ ññ*ññ*ññ*ññ*ññ ñ›ñ ññ*ññ*ñßt€ )>.*jx¹å` `€€@E­í` 8ttxPå%ð È tß›ñ*ñà@  êàIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÌà@¦¦(êàAT€NASHVILLEó óÔ€XÀX¼¼¶OԈР ÐÌÌÌÌTHOMAS€CALVIN€MANEY,à 8 àà  à)Ð È À Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)Ìà Ø àPetitioner/Appellant,à 8 àà  à)Ð ”Œ Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)à è àAppeal€No.Ð zr  Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)à è à01„A„01„9710„CV„00562Ð `X  ÐVS.à Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)Ð F>  Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)à è àDavidson€ChanceryÐ ,$  Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)à è àNo.€œ96C›„3572Ð   ÐTENNESSEE€BOARD€OF€PAROLES,à  à)à è àà @ àà ˜ àà ð àà H! àà  # àÐ øð  Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)Ìà Ø àRespondent/Appellee.à 8 àà  à)Рļ ÐÌÌà@U U êàAPPEALED€FROM€THE€CHANCERY€COURT€OF€DAVIDSON€COUNTYˆÌà@#êàAT€NASHVILLE,€TENNESSEEˆÌÌà@X X êàTHE€HONORABLE€THOMAS€W.€BROTHERS,€JUDGEˆÌÌÌÌTHOMAS€C.€MANEY,€#216056ÌSoutheastern€Tennessee€StateÌ€€€Regional€Correctional€FacilityÌRoute€4,€Box€600ÌœPikeville›,€Tennessee€37367Ìà Ø àPro€œSe›/Petitioner/AppellantÌÌJOHN€KNOX€WALKUPÌAttorney€General€&€ReporterÌÌJOHN€R.€MILESÌCounsel€for€the€StateÌœCordell›€Hull€Building,€Second€FloorÌ425€œ5th›€Avenue€NorthÌNashville,€Tennessee€37243„0488Ìà Ø àAttorney€for€Respondent/AppelleeÌÌÌÌà@¤¤$êàAFFIRMED€AND€REMANDEDˆÌÌÌÌà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è àBEN€H.€CANTRELL,€Ìà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è àPRESIDING€JUDGE,€M.S.ÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌKOCH,€J.ÌCAIN,€J.ÌÓÓò òÔ€„Ì„XXÀÔòòà@tt(êàO€P€I€N€I€O€Nóóó óÔ€XÀX„„ÌԈР´9¬28‡ Їà Ø àà 0 àA€prisoner€at€the€Lake€County€Regional€Correctional€Facility€filed€aÏPetition€for€Writ€of€Certiorari€in€the€Circuit€Court€of€Davidson€County,€claiming€that€theÏBoard€of€Paroles€had€acted€illegally€in€revoking€his€parole,€and€in€refusing€toÏreconsider€the€revocation.€€The€circuit€court€granted€summary€judgment€to€the€BoardÏof€Paroles.€€We€affirm.ÌÌà@››êàò òI.€€Parole€Revocation€Proceedingsó óˆÐ ÐÈ  ÐÌà Ø àà 0 àThomas€Calvin€Maney€was€convicted€of€cocaine€possession€onÏFebruary€13,€1993,€and€received€an€eight€year€sentence.€€He€was€released€on€paroleÏon€August€30,€1995.€€At€the€time€of€his€release,€he€signed€a€Certificate€of€Parole,Ïwhich€set€out€ten€general€rules€or€conditions€of€parole€and€three€special€conditionsÏthat€he€was€obligated€to€comply€with.ÌÌà Ø àà 0 àOn€March€6,€1996,€Donna€Maples,€Mr.€Maneyððs€live„in€girlfriend,€sworeÏout€a€criminal€warrant€against€him,€alleging€that€he€had€assaulted€her€on€February€13,ÏFebruary€22,€and€February€29,€and€that€she€had€to€go€to€the€emergency€room€forÏtreatment€following€the€assault€of€February€13.€€Ms.€Maples€also€moved€out€of€Mr.ÏManeyððs€home€on€March€6,€and€moved€in€with€an€aunt.€€Upon€learning€of€the€warrant,ÏMr.€Maneyððs€parole€officer,€Ms.€J.€Gale€Reed,€contacted€Mr.€Maney€and€told€him€toÏhave€no€further€contact€with€Ms.€Maples€or€her€family,€either€directly€or€indirectly.ÌÌà Ø àà 0 àThe€parole€officer€also€telephoned€Ms.€Maples,€and€told€her€to€documentÏany€attempts€by€Mr.€Maney€to€contact€her.€€The€next€day,€Ms.€Maples€told€Ms.€ReedÏthat€a€female€friend€of€hers€had€telephoned,€and€told€her€that€Mr.€Maney€was€veryÏsorry€for€what€he€had€done,€that€he€would€pay€her€hospital€bills,€that€he€wanted€to€getÏback€together€with€her,€and€that€he€wanted€her€to€drop€the€charges.€€Ms.€Maples€saidÏthat€she€could€hear€Mr.€Maneyððs€voice€in€the€background,€telling€the€friend€what€toÏsay.€€Ms.€Reed€was€able€to€confirm€this€account€by€making€a€call€to€the€friend.Ð d9\28 Їà Ø àà 0 àOn€March€7,€Mr.€Maney€himself€allegedly€made€two€calls€to€Ms.€Maples,Ïand€she€hung€up€on€him.€€On€the€morning€of€March€11,€Mr.€Maney€called€Ms.€MaplesÏand€asked€her€to€drop€the€charges€against€him.€€On€March€18,€Ms.€Maples€telephonedÏMs.€Reed,€and€told€the€parole€officer€that€she€wanted€to€drop€the€charges€against€Mr.ÏManey.€€She€told€Ms.€Reed€that€Mr.€Maneyððs€family€had€agreed€to€help€her€with€herÏbills,€that€she€would€be€able€to€move€back€into€Mr.€Maneyððs€home,€and€that€Mr.€ManeyÏhad€agreed€to€go€to€counseling€for€his€problems.ÌÌà Ø àà 0 àThe€parole€officer€generated€a€parole€violation€report€on€March€7,€citingÏMr.€Maney€for€three€violations€of€Rule€2€(ð ðI€will€obey€the€lawðð),€one€violation€of€RuleÏ7€(ð ðI€will€abide€by€all€special€conditions€of€parole€and€carry€out€all€instructions€of€myÏparole€officerðð)€and€one€violation€of€Rule€9€(ð ðI€will€pay€all€applicable€fees,€unlessÏotherwise€exempted.ðð)€€She€also€contacted€Mr.€Maney,€and€instructed€him€to€reportÏto€the€Bradley€County€Jail€the€following€day,€to€have€the€parole€violation€warrantÏserved.€€He€failed€to€do€so,€and€the€parole€officer€added€another€violation€of€Rule€7Ïas€a€possible€reason€for€parole€revocation.€ÌÌà Ø àà 0 àMr.€Maney€was€given€a€notice€of€the€charges€against€him€and€anÏexplanation€of€his€rights€on€March€15.€€On€that€date,€he€agreed€to€waive€a€preliminaryÏparole€revocation€hearing,€and€requested€that€the€final€revocation€hearing€be€held€asÏsoon€as€possible.€€The€hearing€took€place€on€April€11,€1996.€€At€that€time,€assaultÏcharges€were€still€pending€against€him€in€Bradley€County.€ÌÐ ¨9 26 Ðà Ø àà 0 àAt€the€hearing,€the€hearing€officer€explained€Mr.€Maneyððs€rights€to€him,Ïand€he€was€represented€by€an€attorney,€who€was€permitted€to€cross„examine€theÏwitnesses.€€As€a€preliminary€matter,€the€Rule€9€violation€was€dismissed.€€After€threeÏand€a€half€hours€of€testimony,€including€testimony€by€Ms.€Reed,€Ms.€Maples,€Mr.ÏManey€and€Mr.€Maneyððs€father,€the€hearing€officer€sustained€one€count€of€the€Rule€2Ïviolation,€and€both€counts€of€the€Rule€7€violation,€and€recommended€to€the€Board€thatÏMr.€Maneyððs€parole€be€revoked.€€On€May€15,€1996,€the€€Board€voted€to€adopt€theÏhearing€officerððs€recommendation.€€ÌÌà Ø àà 0 àOn€June€26,€1996,€Mr.€Maney€filed€an€administrative€appeal€with€the€ÏBoard,€asking€for€a€new€hearing€on€his€parole€revocation,€on€the€basis€of€what€heÏcalled€ð ðsignificant€new€evidence.ðð€€The€purported€new€evidence€was€that€Ms.€MaplesÏhad€recanted€her€earlier€statements,€and€the€assault€charges€against€Mr.€Maney€hadÏbeen€dismissed€on€June€7.€€The€Board€denied€Mr.€Maneyððs€administrative€appeal.ÌÌà Ø àà 0 àMr.€Maney€then€filed€a€Petition€for€Common€Law€Writ€of€Certiorari€in€theÏCircuit€Court€of€Davidson€County.€€He€argued€that€the€€Board€acted€illegally€byÏrevoking€his€parole€on€the€basis€of€a€pending€criminal€charge,€and€that€he€wasÏconstitutionally€entitled€to€another€revocation€hearing€upon€the€dismissal€of€thatÏcharge.€€The€trial€court€did€not€agree,€and€granted€summary€judgment€to€the€BoardÏof€Paroles.€€This€appeal€followed.€ÌÌà@þþ&êàò òII.€€Due€Processó óˆÐ H0@), ÐÌà Ø àà 0 àThe€appellant€contends€that€simply€being€arrested€and€charged€with€anÏoffense€is€not€œispo›€facto€a€violation€of€his€parole.òò€€State€v.€Carteróó,€No.€œ03C01›„9506„Ð è5à.2 ÐCR„00159€(filed€Knoxville,€April€œ16,›€1996).€€We€agree.€€But€we€must€also€point€out,Ïhowever,€that€a€conviction€for€a€criminal€offense€is€not€necessarily€a€prerequisite€forÐ ¨9 26 Ða€parole€revocation€based€upon€failure€to€obey€the€law.€€One€reason€for€this€is€theÏdifference€between€the€standard€of€proof€required€to€secure€a€conviction,€and€thatÏrequired€to€revoke€a€parole.ÌÌà Ø àà 0 àWe€must€also€point€out€that€a€Petition€for€a€Common€Law€Writ€ofÏCertiorari€affords€the€petitioner€a€very€limited€scope€of€review.€€The€reviewing€courtÏdoes€not€examine€the€intrinsic€correctness€of€the€decision€of€the€ð ðinferior€courtðð€(in€thisÏcase€the€Board€of€Paroles).€€It€is€authorized€to€order€the€inferior€court€to€send€up€theÏrecord€for€review€only€if€the€reviewing€court€determines€that€the€inferior€courtÏexceeded€its€jurisdiction€or€acted€illegally,€fraudulently€or€arbitrarily.€òò€Powell€v.€ParoleÐ èà ÐEligibility€Review€Board,óó€879€S.W.2d€871€(Tenn.€App.€1994);òòœYokley›€v.€Stateóó,€632Ð ÈÀ ÐS.W.2d€123€(Tenn.€App.€œ19ññ8ññññ9ññ1).›ÌÌà Ø àà 0 àIllegality€in€the€context€of€a€Petition€for€Writ€of€Certiorari€usually€involvesÏallegations€of€failure€to€conform€to€the€requirements€of€due€process.€€Our€SupremeÏCourt€has€stated€that€the€full€of€panoply€rights€due€a€criminal€defendant€who€has€notÏyet€been€convicted€of€any€crime€do€not€apply€in€parole€revocation€proceedings.€òò€StateÐ %  Ðv.€Wadeóó,€863€S.W.2d€406€œ(ññññZTEññññññññtENN.ññññññññà 8 àññññññTenn.€ññ1993).›€œññ€ññBut›€a€parolee€is€entitled€to€a€measure€of€dueÐ è&à" Ðprocess,€because€the€proceedings€put€his€conditional€liberty€at€risk.ÌÌà Ø àà 0 àRelying€upon€an€opinion€of€the€United€States€Supreme€Court,€òòœGagnon›Ð ˆ,€%( Ðv.€œScarpelli›óó,€411€U.S.€778€(1973),€the€òòWadeóó€Court€has€set€out€the€minimum€dueÐ h.`'* Ðprocess€requirements€for€final€parole€revocation€hearings€as€follows:€ÌÒ0 €ÒÒ„ÒÓÓ€"(a)€written€notice€of€the€claimed€violations€of€[probation€or]Ïparole;€(b)€disclosure€to€the€[probationer€or]€parolee€ofÏevidence€against€him;€(c)€opportunity€to€be€heard€in€personÏand€to€present€witnesses€and€documentary€evidence;€(d)€theÏright€to€confront€and€cross-examine€adverse€witnessesÏ(unless€the€hearing€officer€specifically€finds€good€cause€forÏnot€allowing€confrontation);€(e)€a€'neutral€and€detached'Ïhearing€body€such€as€a€traditional€parole€board,€members€ofÏwhich€need€not€be€judicial€officers€or€lawyers;€and€(f)€a€writtenÐ ¨9 26 Ðstatement€by€the€fact€finders€as€to€the€evidence€relied€on€andÏreasons€for€revoking€[probation€or]€parole."Ì€€ÌÒ€0 ÒÒ„ÒÓÓ863€S.W.2d€at€408.ÌÌà Ø àà 0 àExamining€the€record€of€this€case,€we€find€that€the€parole€revocationÏproceedings€against€Calvin€Maney€met€all€the€due€process€requirements€listed€above.ÏWe€further€find€that€the€hearing€officer€conducted€the€hearing€with€a€scrupulous€regardÏfor€Mr.€Maneyððs€due€process€rights.€ÌÌà Ø àà 0 àRule€1100„1„1„.13(9)(I)€of€the€Administrative€Rules€&€Regulations€of€theÏState€of€Tennessee,€provides€that€ð ð[œa]ll›€parole€revocation€hearings€shall€be€conductedÏin€a€manner€as€informal€as€is€consistent€with€due€process,€and€the€technical€rules€ofÏevidence€shall€not€apply€to€such€hearings.ðð€€It€is€instructive€to€note€how€the€hearingÏin€the€present€case€played€itself€out€in€light€of€this€informality.ÌÌà Ø àà 0 àThe€chief€witness€against€Mr.€Maney€was€Ms.€Reed,€who€testified€as€toÏboth€sides€of€her€conversations€with€Mr.€Maney,€Ms.€Maples€and€others.€€She€alsoÏnoted€Mr.€Maneyððs€prior€history€of€assaultive€behavior.€€Mr.€Maneyððs€attorney€objectedÏto€much€of€this€testimony€on€the€ground€of€hearsay.€€But€even€the€attorneyÏacknowledged€that€hearsay€is€not€prohibited€in€a€parole€revocation€hearing.€€We€noteÏthat€the€effect€of€this€relaxation€in€the€normal€rules€of€procedure,€which€made€it€easierÏfor€the€State€to€present€its€case,€was€balanced€by€the€effect€of€another€deviation€fromÏnormal€courtroom€procedure,€which€benefited€the€parolee.ÌÌà Ø àà 0 àMr.€Maneyððs€attorney€was€permitted€to€lead€his€own€witnesses€on€directÏquestioning,€a€procedure€that€would€have€elicited€strenuous€objection€if€attempted€atÏa€formal€trial.€€His€chief€witness€was€Ms.€Maples,€who€attempted€to€recant€her€earlierÏstory.€€Ms.€Maples€did€not€contradict€Ms.€Reedððs€testimony€as€to€the€content€of€herÐ ¸8°15 Ðconversations€with€the€parole€office€and€others,€but€she€stated€that€she€had€made€upÏthe€story€of€Mr.€Maneyððs€assaults€on€her€out€of€anger€at€him,€because€he€wanted€toÏend€their€relationship.ÌÌà Ø àà 0 àShe€explained€her€injuries€as€resulting€from€an€altercation€with€anotherÏwoman€at€work.€€She€also€claimed€that€she€herself€had€initiated€the€phone€calls€withÏMr.€Maney€that€she€reported€to€Ms.€Reed.€€Mr.€Maneyððs€attorney€was€able€to€lead€herÏthrough€this€new€version€of€events€step„by„step,€requiring€her€assent€alone€toÏestablish€large€portions€of€her€testimony.ÌÌà Ø àà 0 àThe€attorney€also€led€Mr.€Maney€to€establish€that€during€the€course€ofÏhis€parole,€Mr.€Maney€faithfully€reported€to€his€parole€officer,€worked€regularly€at€hisÏconstruction€job,€and€was€in€the€process€of€purchasing€his€own€home.€€Mr.€Maney€alsoÏdenied€that€he€had€ever€hit€or€injured€Ms.€Maples.€€ÌÌà Ø àà 0 àWe€note€that€the€standard€of€proof€for€violation€of€parole€is€theÏpreponderance€of€the€evidence,€not€guilt€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€See€œAdmin›.ÏRules€&€œRegs›€1100„1„1„.13(9)(f).€€Thus€the€hearing€officer€and€the€€Board€wereÏentitled€to€weigh€the€contradictory€versions€of€the€truth€that€were€presented€to€them,Ïand€to€choose€which€they€considered€the€most€believable,€which€they€did.€€They€wereÏnot€obligated€to€give€Mr.€Maney€the€benefit€of€a€presumption€of€innocence.ÌÌà@++#êàò òIII.€€A€Rational€Basisó óˆÐ H0@), ÐÌà Ø àà 0 àAs€a€general€proposition,€the€decision€of€an€administrative€board€isÏconsidered€to€be€arbitrary€if€it€lacks€a€rational€basis.€òò€œMobilcomm›€of€Tennessee€v.Ð è5à.2 ÐTennessee€Public€Service€Commissionóó,€876€S.W.2d€101,€104€(Tenn.€App.€1993).€€WeÐ È7À04 Ðshould€not€have€to€search€the€record€of€a€parole€revocation€proceeding€in€order€toÐ ¨9 26 Ðdetermine€upon€what€basis€parole€was€revoked,€for€this€information€should€beÏcontained€in€the€œfactfinder›ððs€written€statement.€€See€section€(f)€of€the€excerpt€fromÏòòState€v.€Wadeóó€quoted€above.€€€€Ð È À ÐÌà Ø àà 0 àIn€the€present€case,€it€might€have€been€sufficient€for€the€fact€finder€toÏsummarize€the€evidence€upon€which€his€findings€were€based,€and€to€state€that€theÏtestimony€of€Ms.€Reed€was€more€worthy€of€belief€than€that€of€Ms.€œMaplesññððññ,›€in€order€toÏpreclude€the€trial€court€from€granting€the€Petition€for€a€Writ€of€Certiorari€on€the€basisÏof€arbitrariness.€€But€the€hearing€officer€went€beyond€that,€and€stated€his€reasons€forÏbelieving€Ms.€Maplesðð€first€account€of€the€origin€of€her€injuries€rather€than€her€laterÏrecantation.ÌÌà Ø àà 0 àThese€included€Ms.€Maplesðð€economic€dependence€upon€Mr.€Maney€andÏhis€family,€the€consistency€between€her€statements€to€the€parole€officer,€and€thoseÏshe€made€to€law€enforcement€and€medical€personnel€in€the€hospital,€and€theÏcloseness€in€time€between€those€statements€and€the€time€of€the€incidents€in€question.ÏThe€hearing€officer€also€noted€that€Mr.€Maney€had€admitted€during€the€hearing€thatÏhe€had€grabbed€Ms.€Maplesðð€shoulders€to€calm€her€down,€and€that€he€admitted€to€atÏleast€indirect€contact€with€Ms.€Maples€after€he€was€warned€to€avoid€all€contact€with€herÏ(though€he€did€state,€as€did€Ms.€Maples,€that€she€was€the€one€who€initiated€theÏcontact).€€Considering€the€reasoning€of€the€hearing€officer,€we€cannot€conclude€thatÏthe€initial€decision€of€the€€Board€was€arbitrary€or€that€it€lacked€a€rational€basis.ÌÌà Ø àà 0 àIt€also€follows€that€there€was€a€rational€basis€for€the€Boardððs€refusal€toÏconvene€another€hearing€after€the€assault€charges€against€Mr.€Maney€wereÏdismissed.€€Contrary€to€Mr.€Maneyððs€assertions,€the€Boardððs€refusal€was€not€precludedÏby€ð ðsignificant€new€evidence.ðð€Ms.€Maples€made€it€abundantly€clear€at€the€revocationÏhearing€that€she€did€not€intend€to€press€charges€or€testify€against€Mr.€Maney.€€UnderÐ ¨9 26 Ðthat€circumstance,€and€considering€the€heightened€burden€of€proof€required€for€aÏcriminal€conviction,€it€is€not€at€all€surprising€that€the€Bradley€County€Court€dismissedÏthe€charges.€€Ms.€Maplesðð€decision€to€change€her€story€may€have€saved€Mr.€ManeyÏfrom€another€conviction€and€an€additional€jail€term,€but€it€was€not€sufficient€to€preventÏhis€parole€from€being€revoked.€€ÌÌà@oo-êàò òIV.ó óˆÐ H@  ÐÌà Ø àà 0 àThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.€€Remand€this€cause€to€theÏCircuit€Court€of€Davidson€County€for€further€proceedings€consistent€with€this€opinion.ÏTax€the€costs€on€appeal€to€the€appellant.ÌÌÓÓÌÌÌà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 à______________________________________Ìà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àBEN€H.€CANTRELL,€PRESIDING€JUDGE,€M.S.ÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌÌ_____________________________ÌWILLIAM€C.€KOCH,€JR.,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌÌ_____________________________ÌWILLIAM€B.€CAIN,€JUDGEÌÌÐ  (2 +. ÐÑ  ÑÔ€¼W®¼XX dÔò òà@êê.êàœññIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ  Ðà@™™(êàAT€NASHVILLEññó óññÔ€X dX¼¼W®ÔˆÐ  ÐœÌÌÌTHOMAS€CALVIN€MANEY,à 8 àà  à)Ð  ü Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)Ìà Ø àPetitioner/Appellant,à 8 àà  à)à è àAppeal€No.Ð ä Ü Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)à è à01„A„01„9710„CV„00562Ð ÔÌ Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)à è àРļ  ÐVS.à Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)à è àDavidson€ChanceryÐ ´¬  Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)à è àNo.€96C„3572Ð ¤œ  Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)à è àÐ ”Œ  ÐTENNESSEE€BOARD€OF€PAROLES,à  à)à è àAffirmed€andà ˜ àà ð àà H! àà  # àÐ „|  Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)à è àRemandedÐ tl  Ðà Ø àRespondent/Appellee.à 8 àà  à)Ð d\ ЛÌÔ€¼W®¼XX dÔò òòòà@uu'êàJ€U€D€G€M€E€N€Tóóó óˆÐ D< ÐÌÓÓÔ€X dX¼¼W®Ôà Ø àà 0 àThis€cause€came€on€to€be€heard€upon€the€record€on€appeal€from€theÐ ph ÐœChancery€Court›€of€œDavidson€County,›€œand€briefs›€œof›€counsel;€upon€considerationÏwhereof,€this€Court€is€of€the€opinion€that€in€the€decree€of€the€Chancellor€there€is€œnoÏreversible€error.›Ìà Ø àà 0 àIn€accordance€with€the€opinion€of€the€Court€filed€herein,€it€is,€therefore,Ïordered€and€decreed€by€this€Court€that€the€decree€œis€affirmed.›€€The€cause€isÏremanded€to€the€œChancery€Court›€of€œDavidson€County›€for€the€enforcement€of€theÏdecree€and€for€the€collection€of€the€costs€accrued€below.Ìà Ø àà 0 àCosts€of€this€appeal€are€taxed€against€œThomas€Calvin€Maney.›ÌÓÓÌÌÌà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àœ_____________________________________Ìà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àBEN€H.€CANTRELL,€PRESIDING€JUDGE,€M.S.›Ìœà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 à›ÌÌà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àœ_____________________________________Ìà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àWILLIAM€C.€KOCH,€JR.,€JUDGE›ÌÌÌà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àœ_____________________________________Ìà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àWILLIAM€B.€CAIN,€JUDGEÌññ›