WPC CwIXBU'čH8rM# Ѳ54GEG+O@]G1Qx;+фeb(%wm&ٮI)0GrksMLcl]J^L\Q0%Gvl4&7KiSَ1{o& э9U1-8{){+QAƏigI)7FIEU]NfH:O'R1\̲2;lQe0ѸC^da&Z EKBw<*͑uY ϯY$F{JȌ |NOf:a N Rc`hs@ UquP3m<?vG?/<\:la# % ^ 0 UNi w 4 z I  * m, C K NcccEeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeebgggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggg 0oooo BZZ 0w D3 D-N 0K{{ AS 0 0D A D5r BHP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 5e,,,,0 {* (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regular}*bk1v 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|xU Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5- -(|G22$ !.8A=dd8         0  % d(|3x$ !.8A=dd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3x$ !.8A=dd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK)!dxdxP Pd !.8A=dd8     _  A=8 XXdd8  @ OA=INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @kk$ATNASHVILLE#A=O #Ԉ &   AssignedonBriefsMarch14,2001 L X XA= #A=XX #MICHAELD.MARTINv.RODERICKSCOTT,etal.X XA=  J @@ AppealfromtheChanceryCourtforDavidsonCounty  J @@No.992754IIrvinB.Kilcrease,Chancellor  6 @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.M200002330_COA_ԄR3CVFiledJuly31,_2001_   AV) ` dE<|` A }     MichaelD.Martin,anincarceratedstateprisoner,filedaPetitionforWritofCertiorarichallenging x  aprisondisciplinaryproceedingwherebyhewasconvictedbythePrisonDisciplinaryBoardof d burglaryandsentencedtotendayspunitivesegregationanda$4.00fine.TheChancellordismissed P thepetitionandweaffirmtheChancellor. <  Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheChanceryCourtAffirmed  d   #A=X {#X X.A=WilliamB.Cain,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichBenH.Cantrell,P.J.,M.S.and < PatriciaJ.Cottrell,J.,joined. ( MichaelD.Martin,Pikeville,Tennessee,ProSe.  PaulG.Summers,AttorneyGeneralandReporter;MichaelE.Moore,SolicitorGeneralandAshley  S.Old,AssistantAttorneyGeneral,Nashville,Tennessee,fortheappellees,RoderickScott,Lt.Ed t Brown,GilbertMathis,GaryTittle,FloraHolland,DonalCampbellandVirginiaLewis. `  OPINION #A=XX !#X XA= 8!  #A=XX #  X XA=  MichaelMartinassertsinhisPetitionforCertiorarithathewasconvictedbythePrison #`" DisciplinaryBoardonSeptember9,1999ofburglaryandsentencedtotendayspunitivesegregation #L# anda$4.00fine. $8 $   Claimingdueprocessandequalprotectionviolations,heseeksawritofcommonlaw &"& certiorari. '"'   ThedefendantsfiledaMotiontoDismisswhichwasgrantedbytheChancellorina )$) MemorandumandOrderofJuly14,2000,whereinheheld: p*%* 8   ` Petitioner,prose,isaninmatelawfullyinthecustodyoftheTennessee H,', DepartmentofCorrectionatLoisDeBerrySpecialNeedsFacilityinPikeville,TN. 4-(- PetitionerhasfiledapetitionforawritofcertioraripursuanttoTenn.CodeAnn.  278101and278102seekingreviewofanadversedecisionmadebythe  DisciplinaryBoard(hereinafter theBoard).8@\  Petitionercontendsthatthedecisionwasillegal,  arbitraryandinviolationofhisproceduraldueprocessrights.Heseeksanewhearingbeforea t tribunalandexpungementoftheburglarycharge. ` 8   ` Thismatterisbeforethecourtonrespondentsmotion,byandthroughthe 8  officeoftheTennesseeAttorneyGeneral,todismisspursuanttoTenn.R.Civ.P. $ t 12.02(1)and(6)forlackofsubjectmatterjurisdictionandfailuretostateaclaim  ` uponwhichreliefcanbegranted,respectively. L      ScopeofReview $    8   ` Thescopeofreviewunderthecommonlawwritofcertioraricoversonly[an]   inquiryintowhethertheBoardhasexceededitsjurisdictionorisactingillegally,   fraudulentlyorarbitrarily.Powellv.ParoleEligibilityBoard,879S.W.2d123   (Tenn.App.1981).Thereviewislimitedtowhethertheprocessofreachinga p decisionislegal,asopposedtowhetherornotthedecisioniscorrect.\     I. 4   8   ` PetitionerassertsthattheBoardviolatedhisproceduraldueprocessrights  \ whentheysentencedhimtotendaypunitivesegregationandassesseda$4.00fine. H Whendeterminingwhetheradueprocessviolationhasoccurred,thecourtmustfirst 4 identifytheexistenceofaprotectedright.InSandinv.Conner,115S.Ct.2293,132   L.Ed.2d418(1995),theSupremeCourtheldthatalibertyinterestisonlycrated   whenprisonproceduresimposeatypicalandsignificanthardshipontheinmatein  relationtotheordinaryincidentsofprisonlife.TheSandincourtconcludedthatthe  placementofaninmateinpunitivesegregationwasnotsuchadeprivationthatwould  entitletheinmatetodueprocessprotections.Id.SeealsoE.L.Reidv.Sundquist, l 1998WL83669(Tenn.App.)Thus,itistheopinionofthiscourtthattherestrictions X  placedonthepetitionerdidnotimposesuchatypicalandsignificanthardshipsonthe D! petitionersuchastocreatealibertyinterestthatwouldinvokedueprocess 0"  requirements.#l!     II. $D #   8   ` PetitioneradditionallyassertsthattheBoardactedunlawfullywhenitallowed &"% thecrossexaminationofhiswitnessesandenteredanadversedecisionbasedupon '#& insufficientevidence.Itiswellsettled,thatthiscourtsreviewofagencydecision (#' islimitedtowhethertheprocesswaslegalandnotaninquiryintothecorrectnessof )$( thedecision.Crossexaminationofwitnessesisalawfulpartofadisciplinary |*%) proceeding.Thus,thiscontentioniswithoutmerit.Inaddition,areviewofthe h+&* sufficiencyofevidencewouldrequirethiscourttoexaminetheintrinsiccorrectness  oftheBoardsdecision.Thiscourtiswithoutsuchauthority.     TheChancellorcorrectlyheldthatunderthelimitedreviewallowedincommonlaw t certiorari,thecourtislimitedtodeterminingwhetherornottheBoardexceededitsjurisdictionor ` actedillegally,fraudulently,orarbitrarily.Thisreviewistodeterminewhetherornottheprocess L  usedbytheDisciplinaryBoardconformstolawandisnotareviewofthecorrectnessofthe 8  decision.Powellv.ParoleEligibilityBoard,879S.W.2d123(Tenn.Ct.App.1981). $ t   TheassertionsofMartinarepracticallythesameassertionsrejectedinGaryT.Dotsonv.  L  TennesseeDepartmentofCorrection,1999WL430405(Tenn.Ct.App.June29,1999),whereinthis  8  Courtheld: $  8   ` TheTrialCourtprincipallyreliedonacasedecidedbytheSupremeCourtof   theUnitedStatesingrantingthesummaryjudgmentandemployedthefollowing   language:      8 ` InSandinv.OConner,515U.S.472,115S.Ct.2293,132L.Ed.2d \ 418(1995),thecourtheldthataprisonerdidnothaveaprotected H libertyinterestinremainingfreefromdisciplinarysegregation.The 4 courtheldthatthepunishmentofincarceratedprisonersdoesnot  p imposeretributioninlieuofavalidconviction,ratheriteffectuates  \ prisonmanagementandprisonerrehabilitativegoals.Thecourtnoted H thatwhileprisonersdonotshedallconstitutionalrightsattheprison 4 gate, lawfulincarcerationbringsaboutthenecessarywithdrawalof   limitationofmanyprivilegesandrights,aretractionjustifiedbythe   considerationsunderlyingourpenalsystem.Thecourtruledthat   [d]isciplinebyprisonofficialsinresponsetoawiderangeof  misconductfallswithintheexpectedparametersofthesentence  imposedbyacourtoflaw.Inthecaseofaprisoner,theDueProcess l Clauseprotectsagainsttheimpositionofatypicalandsignificant X  hardshipontheinmateinrelationtotheordinaryincidentsofprison D! life.0" ` x` x   8 ` Inthecaseathand,thedisciplinaryboardpunishedMr.Dotsonas #l! follows:(1)five(5)daysofpunitivesegregation,suspendedforsixty $X" (60)days;(2)lossofsix(6)monthsofvisitationprivileges;and(3) $D # paymentofseventeendollarsandfiftycents($17.50)forthedrug %0!$ screen.Thispunishmentfailstorisetothelevelofimposingan &"% atypicalandsignificanthardshipontheinmateinrelationtothe '#& ordinaryincidentsofprisonlife.SeeFriedmanv.Bass.Accordingly, (#' thedefendantsmotionforsummaryjudgmentisgranted.)$(` x` x 8  h+&*     8 ` WeconcurintheTrialCourtsapplicationofSandintothefactof  thiscase.` x` x 1999WL430405,*1. t   Justasfivedayspunitivesegregationanda$17.50chargeforadrugscreendidnotriseto L  the_Sandin_requiredlevelofatypicalandsignificanthardship,sotendayspunitivesegregationand 8  a$4.00finedoesnotrisetosuchalevelandtherearenodueprocessimplicationsinvolvedasto $ t MichaelMartin.  `   ThejudgmentoftheChancellorisinallrespectsaffirmedandcostsareassessedagainst  8  MichaelMartin. $    Thecaseisremandedtothetrialcourtforcollectionofcosts.      `     h     ___________________________________  p    `     h     WILLIAMB.CAIN,JUDGE