WPC CN&Z /d=O qL f]'Mzց,e CNW0_5$Oْ Bj-Tx*V*]c%ULv*ZzޤUiB`cY U>XD| b|3&4a {4k,£Ȇ{c LĨ\M%*X8-m 5Q<[+^dddzi {yW9(.Sdm 5T؆1SGe!H S̨+1+k& cgtKHeTd g0Aꨆ\Hy ŒYCp?5 :Ly/&Ew,uO]~ OJp#?5*LU7\A$J)PP zc֭.,ќ(kd-M$zL Uab{VQF6`# @UNK % 0(w@4  * b2 :: t 0P @Lf om AQpU:ttttttttttttttt B 0D 0D D/ BH D3eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee 0D A D?] BGHP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nLl(9 Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($ UDDDӀu[%3|x- - 0#Xd#    /Q+ d  q] ;+'h 0  ` { gEx@8[ xx@8q((3/Q$ !   d C:\OFFICE\WPWIN\GRAPHICS\DRAFT.WPGWPCD%&1D%&1''3XXXX,,51.+3 `! ''i((S)c))"G*"G*))|)|)|)-). )(k(<(y'&[%{%U %<I%&|&''j'\'3'3'T'T''13N `"0(0(''r&%%+&\O&=&9&6'b{''<](x(0(0(13 `#T#+T#+T#+'H+'H+'H+t+t+O+O+O+-++*\*U`*\ *\ *B$*B$**<*I*n*n***e)e)e))))Q)5)4)g((:(:(R(R(R((()))))*=*****I+I+ `$ c, c, h, i, u, ^, H, ;, $,s ,^ ,I ,0 , D, D, , ,H -H -H -1 -$--,-,Y,l+6+++*5*5*?*?*Te++ ,/k,,a,F,,+5O++*[*|)))) J*p * + x+ k+; ~+ + + , c, c,13N `%e +e + + + \+t #+M * *[*r?*Cl**)*+++ &, &,13J `& 50 50 0 / /U // F/! . . G.\ .\ .v -v -B -1 -w-w- e- e- e- N- N- N-k -k -k - - - k- k- k-\ - , [, [,R ,R , - - - - -} .} .( e.( e.( e.v .v .v . $/ $/ $/ 5/ 5/ L/ L/ L/h .P . . . . .` .k 8/ / / / / /( /( / / / / 0 0 50 50 `'/// / / / k/ J/t +/O /1 / . . / ,/ U/j u/j u/ 0 0 a0> 0 0 0 1 1z 1z 1z 1 0 0 50q h0` }0, 0 c0 F0 / / / / s/ c/ +/ +/ / / / / / ;/ O/< |/< |/ . .P m.P m.P m. .. W.{ . #/ U///!"T$&C<< C ""  Xf&XXX9,XXf&   Ad FILEDXf&X9,  December16,1998CecilW.CrowsonAppellateCourtClerkdAh ,cAZ"Arial Regular dLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3$ !  ($$   1  ((' dxdP Pd 'dxd(3$ !  T^y  <<= 8C____3 TripledxdCTriple 1+| d d d !  ݛ 2XX'XDXX'TR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'T   &3ќ r)<,(j 8` `@E` 8ttxP,  rROGERSMcKINLEY,   D )    0      D ) Petitioner/Appellant, D )   @ AppealNo.     0      D )   @ 01A019804CH00205 0 v.  0      D ) @   0      D )   @ DavidsonChancery  P t)>.*jx` `@E- ` 8ttxP  tߛCHARLESTRAUGHBERand D )   @ No.973877I  ` ROBERTBYRD,     D )  p   0      D ) Respondents/Appellees. D )   @    COURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEEAPPEALFROMTHEDAVIDSONCOUNTYCHANCERYCOURTATNASHVILLE,TENNESSEETHEHONORABLEIRVINH.KILCREASE,JR.,CHANCELLOR  ROGERMcKINLEY,ProSeRoute4Box600Pikeville,Tennessee37367JOHNKNOXWALKUPAttorneyGeneralandReporterMICHAELMOORESolicitorGeneralPAMELAS.LORCHAssistantAttorneyGeneralCivilRightsandClaimsDivisionSecondFloor,CordellHullBuilding425FifthAvenueNorthNashville,Tennessee372430488 ATTORNEYSFORCHARLESTRAUGHBER  ӜAFFIRMEDANDREMANDED &37eXXdXXd7    &3#Xd#       &37eXXdXXd7   WILLIAMB.CAIN,JUDGE h;67w  &37eXXdXXd7    &37HXXdXXd7     + 2OPINION      2+Thisappealinvolvesastateprisoner'schallengetothedecisionofthe p TennesseeBoardofParolesdenyinghimparole.ThepetitionerfiledaprosepetitionforawritofcertiorariinthechancerycourtseekingreviewoftheBoard'sdecision.Thetrialcourtgrantedtherespondent'smotiontodismisspursuanttoRule12.02(6)oftheTennesseeRulesofCivilProcedure.Weaffirm. OnNovember21,1997,RogerMcKinleyfiledapetitionintheChanceryCourtofDavidsonCountyforawritofcertioraritoreviewhisparoledenial.InhispetitionheassertsthathehadaparolehearingbeforehearingofficerRobertByrdonSeptember10,1997.Thehearingofficerrecommendeddenialofparole,andtheparoleboardapprovedtherecommendationonNovember12,1997.InMr.McKinley'spetitionhestates:"ItisonrecordthatCharlesTraughber,ChairmanoftheBoardhasmadethestatementthataoffendermeetingaparoleboardmemberhasamuchbetterchanceofmakingparolethanonewhomeetsahearingofficer.Petitioner'scaseisoneofthetypesofcaseslistedthatshouldbeheardbyaparoleboardmember."Hefurtherassertsthathehasneverbeengrantedapsychologicalevaluation,andwithoutsuchevaluation,hecannothaveacomplete,fullandfairhearing.Heasksthecourtto"granthimafullboardhearingoratleastahearingbeforeaboardmember..." Respondent,CharlesTraughber,respondedwithamotiontodismisspursuanttoCivilProcedureRule12.02(6)whichthechancellorgrantedonMarch31,1998therebydenyingtheapplicationforcertiorari.OnApril9,1998,petitionerfiledanoticeofappealfromthedecisionofthechancellor.OnthatsamedaterespondentsfiledamotiontoalteroramendthejudgmentpursuanttoTennesseeRulesofCivilProcedure59.04.Bythismotionrespondentssoughttocorrectanallegederroroffactinthejudgment.8 Onthelastpageofthejudgment,thecourtstatesthattheboarddeterminedthatthepetitionerisnoteligibleforparolebecausehedidnotcompletethesexualoffendertreatmentprogram.However,asdocumentedbytheattachedaffidavit,thepetitionerwasdeniedparolereleasebecauseoftheseriousnessofhisoffense.(see,attachedtoaffidavit,exhibit1entitled"noticeofboardactionreleasehearing,"sectionentitled"reasonsfordecline").  ! !  985? Thus,themotiontoalteroramendsoughtcorrectionoftheMarch31,1998ordersoastoreflectwhatwasactuallyshownbyaformentitled"noticeofboardactionparolereleasehearing"whichrelatedtotheSeptember10,1997hearing. OnMay19,1998,thechancellorsetasidetheorderofMarch31,1998dueto"amisstatementoffact"thereinandfiledcontemporaneouslyaneworderwhichagaindeniedtheapplicationforcertiorari.Initsorder,thecourtremovedthereferencetothesexualoffendertreatmentprogramasabasisfordenyingparole.Indeed,therecordshowsthattheparoleapplicationofMr.McKinleywasdeniedbyhearingofficialRobertByrdsolelyuponafindingthat"releaseatthistimewoulddepreciateseriousnessofoffense;orpromotedisrespectofthelaw."TherecordfurthershowsthatthisrecommendationwasthereafterapprovedbytheBoardofPardonsandParoles. Thetrialcourtdelineatedtherelevantlawwithaccuracyandclarityasfollows:8  0 Tenn.CodeAnn.4028105(d)(2)and(4)providethatthechairoftheboardmayappointhearingofficerstoconducthearingsandmakerecommendationstotheboardregardingthegrant,denial,revocationorrecisionofparole.FurtherRule110011.02(3)oftheTennesseeBoardofparolesprovidesthat:  ! !  8 0 Afterbecomingeligibleforparoleconsideration,aprisonerisaffordedahearingbeforeeitherahearingofficerorapaneloftheBoard.Ifaparolehearingisconductedbyahearingofficer,thehearingofficer'sdecisionisadvisoryonlyandmustbeeitheraccepted,modified,orrejectedbyamajorityofthemembersoftheBoard. 0 !0 ! 8  0 Tennesseelawspecificallyprovidesthataparoleboardhearingcanbeconductedbyahearingofficer.Thepetitionerdoesnotciteanystatuteorregulationtosupporthisclaimthathiscaseisthetypeofcasethatshouldbeheardbytheboard.Therefore,thepetitioner'sclaimthatitwasimproperforthehearingofficertopresideoverhisparolehearingiswithoutmerit.T$T$MT$ ! ! P1,2 Thesestatutesandparoleboardrulescontrol.Inlightofthislaw,thestatementofopinionbyChairmanTraughberasallegedinMr.McKinley'spetitionisofnoconsequence. WithregardtoMr.McKinley'srighttoapsychologicalevaluation,the 9 5< chancellorobserved:8  0 Finally,thepetitionercontendsthatbecausehedidnotreceiveapsychologicalevaluationpriortohishearing,hedidnothaveafullandfairhearing.Thepetitionerdoesnothaveanyrighttoapsychologicalevaluationpriortohisparolehearing.Tenn.CodeAnn.4028116(a)(2)and4121235(4)(c)andRule110011.10(2)oftheRulesoftheTennesseeBoardofParolesprovidethatnosexoffendershallbereleasedonparoleunlessapsychiatristorlicensedpsychologisthasevaluatedtheinmateanddeterminedthathedoesnotposethelikelihoodofcommittingsexualassaultsuponrelease.Theseprovisionsmerelymakeapsychologicalevaluationnecessaryoncetheboardhasmadeadeterminationthatthesexoffenderisotherwiseacandidateforparolerelease.Theboardhasdeterminedthatthispetitionerisnototherwiseeligibleforparole.Therefore,heisnotentitledtopsychologicalevaluation.  ! ! ClearlythechancelloriscorrectinthisholdingastherecordshowsconclusivelythattheBoardofPardonsandParolespreemptedthepsychologicalevaluationquestionbydeterminingthatMr.McKinleyisnoteligibleforparolebecausereleaseatthistimewoulddepreciatetheseriousnessoftheoffenseforwhichhewasconvicted. InTennesseethegrantofparoleisadiscretionarymattervestedexclusivelyintheBoardofParoles. Doylev.Hampton ,207Tenn.399,340S.W.2d891 `! (1960).WithrespecttoreviewingtheBoard'sdecisions,thiscourthasheldasfollows: 0  $# 8  0 Thescopeofreviewunderthecommonlawwrit,however,isverynarrow.ItcoversonlyaninquiryintowhethertheBoardhasexceededitsjurisdictionorisactingillegally,fraudulently,orarbitrarily, Yokleyv.State ,632S.W.2d123(Tenn.App.1981). [)$( Conclusorytermssuchas"arbitraryandcapriciouswillnotentitleapetitionertothewrit. Id. Attheriskofoversimplification,onemay }+&* saythatitisnotthecorrectnessofthedecisionthatissubjecttojudicialreview,butthemannerinwhichthedecisionisreached.Iftheagencyorboardhasreacheditsdecisioninaconstitutionalorlawfulmanner,thenthedecisionwouldnotbesubjecttojudicialreview.  ! !  Powellv.ParoleEligibilityReviewBd. ,879S.W.2d871,873(Tenn.App.1994). 2?.1 WecannotsaythattheBoardabuseditsdiscretionbyexceedingitsjurisdictionorbyactingillegally,fraudulently,orarbitrarily. Wefindthepetitionforcertiorariiswithoutmeritandthejudgmentofthe R949 chancellorisinallrespectsaffirmed.ThecostsofthisappealshouldbetaxedtoMr.McKinley.  0      D ________________________________  0      D WILLIAMB.CAIN,JUDGECONCUR:_____________________________________BENH.CANTRELL,PRES.JUDGE,M.S.______________________________________PATSTRICIAJ.CORTTRELL,JUDGE