ÿWPC) ÉG.Dz‘ˆ+L•C ‰=‰gʹ=ÿr._¼“kBM,>t…¸ nô —û F©‰nnñ]¸ "þÌŽE5D[ÈÍùQ‚)ue‡ß˜vòfv¼÷MšðM±¤´YzŠ}~ïëïl&ê/ÄÇŒÌæÂbû¹ Õ×·yù Tþ˸·\ BQq¨øJÇ9H |ø ô+?—é°J÷htYNíSIØw”s+„c õí” ײ<”î”ï¦÷@›;ˆgt¥$xþá,èáË%ý"}(mâ陥]ÓÝzŒ;{¹ñ½tÆ“EõB>G®ªµ¦)2»áe Û‹¯þIÛärêbs”ËPØ/,)`—Ó ¥Ü‡7‰üݦ°Fºù<ü Þêé"¯T0P¤Mà Aû;À;@1N,T >‡ü8] Šòê‰VÒŒ6ÿ5ˆ¸‰…<¯yžˆi$;ö ”ep[Ú4ÑTžÇd ¼^KГQé¨õ;¿qô.EÞ:›úú` WÞnñ«Öìåx•ìõÐ-w!Qƒ¸y…jÆ1âkïõ‰Ái«fÞt°C,šÀ7¾Úb½)¢r"$Ì"Gèy,³:˜Žÿç-E‹ ™@boía>õ<¦4µb`b#Á\ % ^ # 0ˆ/ UN· w 4 z Ò— i x mz z Æ‘ ÆW Æ Æã 0D©NííUNïE=Õ?b 0ë$$$$ B 0¤, D5Ð D- 0K22 AS}ÆÐ 0¤– 0D: A«~˜HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 6ÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0»ov8-s (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regularš‚,-ingÜ2ª ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(ÈhH  Z‹6Times New Roman Regular ËÝ ƒR¡Ô$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôïò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔCourts€have€defined€what€is€meant€by€ð ðunsound€mindðð€by€stating:Ð ° ÐÌà8  àWhether€a€person€is€of€unsound€mind,€then€focuses€on€two€components.€€First,€is€the€person€allegedÐ 8ˆ Ðto€be€of€unsound€mind€incapable€of€attending€to€any€business?€€Second,€is€the€person€alleged€to€be€ofÐ üL Ðunsound€mind€incapable€of€taking€care€of€herself?€€ÐÀÐ Ð  ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÓ  ÓJacobsóó,€957€F.€Supp.€at€1010.Ô‡X XòôïÔÐ H ˜ ÐÓ8ÓÔ#†ôïòXX d#Ô - ù-(|G2¡Ô$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€@e»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôïò»»Ô d(|3 V$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€@e»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV)ÿÿ!dxdx)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3 V$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€@e»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€@e»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÔ€¼@e»»»ÔÑ8€ XXdì»»d8ÑÑ  Ñà@ü ü ìàÔ‡îI„@eÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@kk$ìàAT€NASHVILLEÔ#†¼@e»îîI„ #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  ÓAssigned€on€Briefs€February€22,€2002Ð üL ÐÔ‡X X»¼@eÔÌò òÔ#†¼@e»XX #ÔDEXTER€MCMILLAN€v.€TENNESSEE€BOARD€OFÐ úJ ÐPROBATION€AND€PAROLEÔ‡X X»¼@eÔó óÐ  ^ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òAppeal€from€the€Chancery€Court€for€Davidson€CountyÐ  ^ Ðà@@øøìàNo.€01„1260„I€€€€€€Ellen€Hobbs€Lyle,€ChancellorÐ ú J ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<½` AßÐ ¾  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€M2001„01843„Ô_ÔCOAÔ_Ô„R3„CV€„€Filed€September€24,€Ô_Ô2002Ô_ÔÐ ¹  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<` AßÐ ‘á  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓPetitioner€filed€a€petition€for€writ€of€certiorari€seeking€review€of€a€decision€of€the€Board€of€ProbationÐ ŒÜ Ðand€Parole€to€revoke€his€parole€nearly€three€years€after€the€decision€of€the€Board€was€rendered.€€HeÐ xÈ Ðalleged€that€he€suffered€from€a€disability€that€effectively€tolled€the€statute€of€limitations.€€The€BoardÐ d´ Ðfiled€a€motion€to€dismiss€and€the€trial€court€granted€the€motion€by€finding€that€the€petition€wasÐ P  Ðuntimely€and€failed€to€state€a€claim€for€which€relief€could€be€granted.€€Because€the€petitioner€failedÐ <Œ Ðto€allege€facts€sufficient€to€invoke€the€operation€of€the€tolling€statute,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€28„1„106,Ð (x Ðand€failed€to€state€a€claim€for€which€relief€can€be€granted,€we€affirm€the€trial€courtððs€decision.€€Ð d ÐÓàÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Chancery€CourtÐ ì< ÐAffirmed€and€Remandedó óÐ Ø( ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼@e»àX •#ÔÔ‡X X.¼@eÔPatricia€J.€Cottrell,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòBen€H.€Cantrell,€P.J.,€M.S.,óóÐ ° Ðand€òòWilliam€C.€Koch,€Jr.,€J.óó,€joined.Ð œì ÐÌDexter€L.€McMillan,€Clifton,€Tennessee,€Pro€Se.Ð t Ä ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter;€Michael€E.€Moore,€Solicitor€General;€StephanieÐ L"œ! ÐR.€Reevers,€Associate€Deputy€Attorney€General,€for€the€appellee,€Tennessee€Board€of€Probation€andÐ 8#ˆ" ÐParole.Ð $$t# ÐÓëÓÌò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼@e»XX  #ÔÔ‡X X»¼@eÔÐ ü%L!% ÐÌòòóóÓ  ÓÔ#†¼@e»XX † #ÔÔ€X X»¼@eÔà  àThis€appeal€was€brought€by€Dexter€McMillan,€an€inmate€in€the€custody€of€the€DepartmentÐ Ô'$#' Ðof€Correction,€from€the€trial€courtððs€dismissal€of€his€petition€for€writ€of€certiorari€seeking€judicialÐ À($( Ðreview€of€the€proceedings€of€the€Board€of€Probation€and€Parole€revoking€his€parole.€€Mr.€McMillan€Ð ¬)ü$) Ðwas€paroled€on€June€3,€1997.€€Three€days€later,€he€was€served€with€a€parole€violation€warrant€forÐ ˜*è%* Ðviolating€two€conditions€of€his€parole:€(1)€failure€to€obtain€permission€from€his€parole€officer€beforeÐ „+Ô&+ Ðchanging€his€residence€or€employment;€and€(2)€failure€to€carry€out€lawful€instructions.€€A€preliminaryÐ p,À', Ðhearing€was€held€on€the€revocation€warrant,€where€a€letter€was€submitted€from€the€residentialÐ \-¬(-ý Ðprogram€or€halfway€house€to€which€Mr.€McMillan€had€been€released€stating€he€had€left€the€programÐ ° Ðafter€a€short€time€and€had€not€spent€the€night€there.€€A€final€revocation€hearing€was€held€NovemberÐ œì Ð10,€1997;€Mr.€McMillanððs€parole€was€revoked;€and€his€next€parole€consideration€was€set€for€MayÐ ˆØ Ð1998.€€Although€Mr.€McMillanððs€petition€for€writ€of€certiorari€was€not€filed€until€April€of€2001,€itÐ tÄ Ðseeks€review€of€the€Boardððs€revocation€decision€made€November€18,€1997.Ð `° ÐÌà  àThe€trial€court€dismissed€the€petition€because:€(1)€it€was€not€filed€within€the€jurisdictionalÐ 8 ˆ Ðsixty€(60)€day€limit€established€in€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€27„9„102;€and€(2)€it€failed€to€state€a€claim€uponÐ $ t Ðwhich€relief€could€be€granted.Ð  ` ÐÌà@Ý Ý ìàI.€€Tolling€of€the€Statute€of€LimitationsˆÐ è 8  ÐÌà  àOn€appeal,€Mr.€McMillan€asserts€the€sixty€(60)€day€statute€of€limitations€should€be€tolledÐ À  Ðbecause€he€was€placed€in€the€psychiatric€unit€at€the€Departmentððs€Special€Needs€Facility€on€JanuaryÐ ¬ü  Ð2,€1998,€and€was€given€strong€tranquilizers€and€other€medication€for€depression.Ð ˜è  ÐÌà  àTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€27„9„102€provides€that€a€petition€for€writ€of€certiorari€must€be€filed€withinÐ pÀ Ðsixty€(60)€days€of€the€order€or€decision€complained€of.€€The€sixty€(60)€day€time€limit€is€jurisdictional.€Ð \¬ ÐòòÔ_ÔThandiweÔ_Ô€v.€Traughberóó,€909€S.W.2d€802,€804€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1994).Ð H˜ ÐÌà  àMr.€McMillan€argues€that€the€statute€should€be€tolled€because€of€his€mental€condition€andÐ  p Ðits€treatment.€€The€trial€court€found€that€Mr.€McMillan€had€failed€to€allege€sufficient€facts€to€supportÐ  \ Ða€conclusion€that€the€statute€should€be€tolled€because€he€had€failed€to€allege€how€long€his€disabilityÐ øH Ðlasted€or€why€three€years€elapsed€between€the€revocation€of€his€parole€and€the€filing€of€his€petition.Ð ä4 ÐÌà  àStatutes€of€limitation€exist€in€order€to€ð ðensure€fairness€to€the€defendant€by€preventing€undueÐ ¼  Ðdelay€in€bringing€suits€on€claims€and€by€preserving€evidence€so€that€facts€are€not€obscured€by€theÐ ¨ø Ðlapse€of€time€or€the€defective€memory€or€death€of€a€witness.ðð€€òòJacobs€v.€Baylor€Sch.óó,€957€F.€Supp.Ð ”ä Ð1002,€1008€(E.D.€Tenn.€1996)€(citing€òòQuality€Auto€Parts€Co.,€Inc.€v.€Bluff€City€Buick€Co.,€Inc.óó,€876Ð €Ð ÐS.W.2d€818,€820€(Tenn.€1994)).€€In€order€to€ð ðtake€into€account€the€possible€harshness€of€aÐ l¼ Ðperfunctory€application€of€a€statute€of€limitations,ðð€the€General€Assembly€has€enacted€what€areÐ X ¨ Ðreferred€to€as€tolling€statutes.€€òòJacobsóó,€957€F.€Supp.€at€1008.€€Ð D!” ÐÌà  àTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€28„1„106€is€one€such€tolling€statute€that€allows€for€a€statute€of€limitationsÐ #l! Ðto€be€tolled€as€a€result€of€minority€or€a€disability.€€In€its€entirety,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€28„1„106Ð $X" Ðprovides:Ð ô$D # ÐÌà8  àIf€the€person€entitled€to€commence€an€action,€is€at€the€time€the€cause€of€actionÐ Ì&"% Ðaccrued,€either€under€the€age€of€eighteen€(18)€years,€or€of€unsound€mind,€such€person,Ð ¸'#& Ðor€such€personððs€representative€and€privies,€as€the€case€may€be,€may€commence€theÐ ¤(ô#' Ðaction,€after€the€removal€of€such€disability,€within€the€time€of€limitation€for€theÐ )à$( Ðparticular€cause€of€action,€unless€it€exceeds€three€(3)€years,€and€in€that€case€withinÐ |*Ì%) Ðthree€(3)€years€from€the€removal€of€such€disability.€Ðh+¸&*Ð Ð  Їà  àThus,€the€language€of€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€28„1„106€requires€that€a€plaintiffððs€disability€existÐ ° Ðat€the€time€the€cause€of€action€accrued€for€the€tolling€provision€to€apply.€€The€courts€have€interpretedÐ œì Ðthe€statute€accordingly.€Ð ˆØ ÐÌà8  àThe€general€rule,€which€is€subject€to€some€exceptions,€is€that€when€a€right€of€actionÐ `° Ðhas€accrued,€and€there€are€parties€competent€to€sue€and€be€sued,€limitations€begin€toÐ L œ Ðrun€and€will€continue€to€do€so€notwithstanding€any€subsequent€disability;€theÐ 8 ˆ Ðprovisions€suspending€the€operation€of€limitations,€or€extending€the€period,€in€favorÐ $ t Ðof€persons€under€disability€are€confined€to€disabilities€existing€at€the€time€the€causeÐ  ` Ðof€action€accrues€to€such€person.€€Ðü L Ð Ð  ÐÌòòJacobsóó,€957€F.€Supp.€at€1009€(citing€òòFoster€v.€Albrightóó,€631€S.W.2d€147,€150€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.Ð Ô$  Ð1982)).€€òòSee€alsoóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€28„1„108€(stating€that€in€order€to€claim€use€of€a€disability,€itÐ À  Ðmust€exist€at€the€time€the€cause€of€action€accrued);òò€Watkins€v.€Stateóó,€903€S.W.2d€302,€304„05€(Tenn.Ð ¬ü  Ð1995)€(holding€that€the€savings€provisions€of€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€28„1„106€tolled€the€statute€ofÐ ˜è  Ðlimitations€when€the€petitioner€filing€for€post„conviction€relief€was€of€unsound€mind€at€the€time€theÐ „Ô  Ðcause€of€action€accrued);€òòFoster€v.€Ô_ÔAllbrightÔ_Ôóó,€631€S.W.2d€147,€150€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1982)€(holdingÐ pÀ Ðthat€the€general€rule€is€that€the€tolling€statute€only€applies€if€the€disability€existed€at€the€time€theÐ \¬ Ðcause€of€action€accrued);€òòOwen€v.€Summersóó,€No.€W2001„00727„COA„R3„CV,€2001€Tenn.€App.Ð H˜ ÐLEXIS€953,€at€*22„*23€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€Dec.€28,€2001)€(no€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€11€application€filed)Ð 4„ Ð(stating€that€in€order€to€toll€the€statute€of€limitations€on€a€real€property€action€brought€pursuant€toÐ  p ÐTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€28„2„102,€the€plaintiff€must€be€of€unsound€mind€at€the€time€the€right€of€actionÐ  \ Ðaccrued);€òòNix€v.€Stateóó,€No.€03C01„9901„CR„00044,€2000€Tenn.€Crim.€App.€LEXIS€227,€at€*5€(Tenn.Ð øH ÐCrim.€App.€Mar.€15,€2000)€(no€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€11€application€filed)€(holding€that€in€a€post„Ð ä4 Ðconviction€proceeding€a€petitioner€must€allege€facts€that€ð ðwarrant€a€legal€conclusion€that€theÐ Ð  Ðpetitioner€was€mentally€incompetent€.€.€.€at€all€times€material€to€the€statute€of€limitations€in€order€toÐ ¼  Ðtake€advantage€of€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€28„1„106òòóóðð).Ð ¨ø ÐÌà  àThe€trial€court€dismissed€the€petition€filed€by€Mr.€McMillan€as€untimely€because€he€failedÐ €Ð Ðto€allege€sufficient€facts€to€support€a€conclusion€that€the€statute€should€be€tolled€and€because€heÐ l¼ Ðfailed€to€allege€how€long€his€disability€lasted€or€why€three€years€elapsed€between€the€revocation€ofÐ X ¨ Ðhis€parole€and€the€filing€of€his€petition.€€Mr.€McMillan€bears€the€burden€of€proving€he€was€ofÐ D!” Ðunsound€mind€during€the€entire€time€necessary€to€toll€the€statute.€€òòParham€v.€Walkeróó,€568€S.W.2dÐ 0"€  Ð622,€624€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1978).€€In€other€words,€Mr.€McMillan€must€have€shown€that€his€disabilityÐ #l! Ðexisted€at€the€time€his€cause€of€action€arose€and€lasted€at€a€minimum,€until€sixty€(60)€days€prior€toÐ $X" Ðthe€date€on€which€he€filed€his€petition.€Ð ô$D # Ðâ âÐ à%0!$ Ðà  àTo€the€extent€Mr.€McMillanððs€petition€alleges€he€was€of€unsound€mind,׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€it€does€not€allegeÐ ° Ðâ âthat€he€suffered€from€this€disability€on€November€18,€1997.€€In€fact,€the€first€mention€of€the€disabilityÐ œì Ðin€the€technical€record€is€found€in€Mr.€McMillanððs€response€to€the€Departmentððs€motion€to€dismiss€Ð ˆØ Ðwherein€Mr.€McMillan€states€that€ð ðPetitioner€had€no€knowledge€to€file€[the]€petition,€as€petitionerÐ tÄ Ðhad€a€nervous€breakdown€in€December€of€1997,€and€was€sent€to€Special€Needs€Facilityðð€on€JanuaryÐ `° Ð2,€1998.€€In€the€instant€case,€Mr.€McMillanððs€petition€has€not€alleged€facts€sufficient€to€show€that€heÐ L œ Ðsuffered€from€an€unsound€mind€at€the€time€his€cause€of€action€to€file€a€petition€for€common€law€writÐ 8 ˆ Ðof€certiorari€accrued,€in€this€case€on€November€18,€1997,€when€the€Board€rendered€its€decision.€€ForÐ $ t Ðthat€reason,€he€is€not€able€to€take€advantage€of€the€tolling€provision€of€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€28„1„106Ð  ` Ðand,€therefore,€the€trial€court€was€correct€in€determining€that€his€petition,€filed€nearly€three€years€afterÐ ü L  Ðthe€cause€of€action€accrued,€was€untimely.Ð è 8  Ѐ€Ð Ô$  Ðà@®®ìàII.€€Failure€to€State€a€ClaimˆÐ À  ÐÌà  àEven€though€the€trial€court€dismissed€the€petition€on€jurisdictional€grounds,€it€also€dismissedÐ ˜è  Ðthe€petition€for€failure€to€state€a€claim€for€relief.Ð „Ô  ÐÌà  àA€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€12.02(6)€motion€to€dismiss€for€failure€to€state€a€claim€upon€which€reliefÐ \¬ Ðcan€be€granted€tests€only€the€legal€sufficiency€of€the€complaint,€not€the€strength€of€the€petitionerððsÐ H˜ Ðproof.€€òòCook€v.€Spinnakerððs€of€Rivergate,€Inc.óó,€878€S.W.2d€934,€938€(Tenn.€1994).€€The€basis€for€theÐ 4„ Ðmotion€is€that€the€allegations€contained€in€the€complaint,€considered€alone€and€taken€as€true,€areÐ  p Ðinsufficient€to€constitute€a€cause€of€action.€€òòIdóó.€€In€resolving€the€issues€in€this€appeal,€we€are€requiredÐ  \ Ðto€construe€the€complaint€liberally€in€the€plaintiffððs€favor€and€take€the€allegations€of€the€complaintÐ øH Ðas€true.€€òòBell€v.€Icard,€Merrill,€Cullins,€Timm,€Furen,€and€Ginsburg,€P.A.óó,€986€S.W.2d€550,€554Ð ä4 Ð(Tenn.€1999).€€Our€standard€of€review€on€appeal€from€a€trial€courtððs€ruling€on€a€motion€to€dismissÐ Ð  Ðis€òòde€novoóó,€with€no€presumption€of€correctness€as€to€the€trial€courtððs€legal€conclusions.€€òòStein€v.Ð ¼  ÐDavidson€Hotel€Co.óó,€945€S.W.2d€714,€716€(Tenn.€1997).€€Ð ¨ø ÐÌà  àÔ‡X XXX ÔNo€prisoner€has€a€right€to€be€released€on€parole€prior€to€the€expiration€of€his€or€her€sentence.€Ð €Ð ÐòòRobinson€v.€Traughberóó,€13€S.W.3d€361,€364€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1999).€€Parole€is€a€privilege,€and€theÐ l¼ Ðpower€to€decide€to€release€a€prisoner€on€parole€rests€with€the€Board€of€Probation€and€Parole,€not€theÐ X ¨ Ðcourts.€€òòHopkins€v.€Tenn.€Bd.€of€Paroles€&€Prob.óó,€60€S.W.3d€79,€82€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€2001).€Ð D!” ÐAccordingly,€because€parole€decisions€are€entirely€discretionary,€òòRichardson€v.€Tenn.€Depððt.€of€Corr.óó,Ð 0"€  Ð33€S.W.3d€818,€820€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€2000),€òòDaniels€v.€Traughberóó,€984€S.W.2d€802,€803€(Tenn.€Ct.Ð #l! ÐApp.€1998),€the€only€vehicle€for€obtaining€judicial€review€of€the€Boardððs€decisions€is€a€common€lawÐ $X" Ðwrit€of€certiorari.€€òòÔ_ÔThandiweÔ_Ôóó,€909€S.W.2d€at€803.€€Therefore,€Ô#†X XXX Û8#Ôthe€scope€of€our€review€is€defined€notÐ ° Ðonly€by€the€trial€courtððs€grant€of€the€motion€to€dismiss,€but€also€by€the€procedural€vehicle€Mr.Ð œì ÐMcMillan€correctly€utilized€to€assert€his€claim,€the€petition€for€common€law€writ€of€certiorari.€€òòóóUnderÐ ˆØ Ðsuch€a€petition,€a€courtððs€review€of€administrative€agency€decisions€is€very€limited.Ð tÄ ÐÌÔ‡X XXX Ôà  àA€petition€for€common€law€writ€of€certiorari€limits€the€scope€of€review€to€a€determinationÐ L œ Ðof€whether€the€Board€exceeded€its€jurisdiction€or€acted€illegally,€fraudulently,€or€arbitrarily.€€òòTurnerÐ 8 ˆ Ðv.€Tenn.€Bd.€of€Parolesóó,€993€S.W.2d€78,€80€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1999);€òòSouth€v.€Tenn.€Bd.€of€Parolesóó,Ð $ t Ð946€S.W.2d€310,€311€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1996);€òòPowell€v.€Parole€Eligibility€Review€Bdóó.,€879€S.W.2dÐ  ` Ð871,€873€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1994).€€òòÔ#†X XXX |>#ÔóóÔ‡X XXX ÔThe€petition€does€not€empower€the€courts€to€inquire€into€theÐ ü L  Ðintrinsic€correctness€of€the€Boardððs€decision.€€òòRobinsonóó,€13€S.W.3d€at€364;€òòTurneróó,€993€S.W.2d€atÐ è 8  Ð80.€€Thus,€the€courts€will€not€use€the€common„law€writ€to€grant€relief€when€the€Boardððs€decision€wasÐ Ô$  Ðarrived€at€in€a€constitutional€and€lawful€manner.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„28„115(c);€òòArnold€v.€Tenn.Ð À  ÐBd.€of€Parolesóó,€956€S.W.2d€478,€480€(Tenn.€1997);€òòPowellóó,€879€S.W.2d€at€873.Ô#†X XXX ×@#Ôà x àòòóóÐ ¬ü  ÐÌà  àMr.€McMillan€argues€there€were€two€deficiencies€in€the€parole€revocation€proceedings€andÐ „Ô  Ðdecision.€€First,€he€claims€that€his€right€to€due€process€was€violated€in€that:€(1)€he€was€not€providedÐ pÀ Ðcounsel€even€after€he€made€a€written€request€for€appointment€of€counsel;€and€(2)€although€heÐ \¬ Ðtestified€in€his€behalf€he€was€denied€the€opportunity€to€testify€ð ðfurther.ðð€€Second,€he€asserts€there€wasÐ H˜ Ðinsufficient€evidence€because€his€testimony€and€that€of€his€sister€rebutted€the€testimony€presentedÐ 4„ Ðin€support€of€parole€revocation.€€Ð  p ÐÌà  àAfter€Mr.€McMillan€was€served€with€a€parole€violation€warrant,€a€preliminary€hearing€wasÐ øH Ðheld€June€30,€1997.€€Prior€to€that€hearing,€while€he€was€incarcerated€on€the€warrant,€Mr.€McMillanÐ ä4 Ðcompleted€an€inmate€request€form€asking€for€appointment€of€counsel€for€that€hearing.€€The€formÐ Ð  Ðindicates€a€response€that€he€must€request€appointment€of€an€attorney€at€the€hearing€and€the€hearingÐ ¼  Ðofficer€would€decide€if€appointment€is€warranted.€€The€Preliminary€Hearing€Summary€indicates€thatÐ ¨ø Ðno€attorney€was€requested€at€the€hearing.€€In€his€petition€Mr.€McMillan€asserts€that€he€made€a€formalÐ ”ä Ðrequest€for€counsel€in€writing.€€We€note€that€request€was€made€to€his€jailers,€not€the€Board,€and€heÐ €Ð Ðwas€advised€he€was€required€to€request€counsel€from€the€hearing€officer.€€Mr.€McMillan€does€notÐ l¼ Ðallege€in€his€petition€that€he€made€such€a€request€at€the€hearing.€€He€does€allege€that€the€hearingÐ X ¨ Ðofficer€was€required€to€state€the€reason€for€denial€of€counsel.€€Obviously,€if€the€hearing€officer€wasÐ D!” Ðnot€asked€to€appoint€counsel,€she€was€not€required€to€state€a€reason€for€denying€a€request€that€wasÐ 0"€  Ðnot€made.Ð #l! ÐÌà  àThe€hearing€summary€of€the€final€revocation€hearing€indicates€that€Mr.€McMillanððs€attorney,Ð ô$D # ÐWilliam€Hatton,€was€present€at€the€hearing.€€A€close€reading€of€Mr.€McMillanððs€petition€indicatesÐ à%0!$ Ðhe€did€not€allege€he€was€denied€counsel€at€the€revocation€hearing.€€In€his€brief€he€alleges€he€wasÐ Ì&"% Ðdenied€competent€counsel.€€Mr.€McMillan€even€included€a€copy€of€a€letter€he€received€in€responseÐ ¸'#& Ðto€a€complaint€he€filed€against€Mr.€Hatton€with€the€Board€of€Professional€Responsibility.Ð ¤(ô#' ÐÌà  àMr.€McMillan€alleged€that€at€the€revocation€hearing€he€rebutted€the€testimony€of€his€paroleÐ |*Ì%) Ðofficer€ð ðwith€his€own€testimony€that€such€events€were€misconstrued€and€did€not€amount€to€aÐ h+¸&* Ðviolation€per€se.ðð€€He€alleged€that€he€testified€at€the€hearing€that€he€could€not€have€resided€at€theÐ ° Ðhalfway€house€because€it€was€overcrowded€and,€under€emergency€circumstances,€stayed€with€hisÐ œì Ðgirlfriend€and€that€he€had€permission€from€a€parole€supervisor€to€do€so.€€He€alleged€his€sister€testifiedÐ ˆØ Ðto€the€same€effect.€€He€also€alleged€that,€ð ðafter€submission€of€testimony,€the€Petitioner€desired€toÐ tÄ Ðspeak€further€on€his€own€behalf,€in€addition€to€the€testimony€already€offered,€but€was€nonethelessÐ `° Ðdenied€such€an€opportunity€by€the€Board.ðð€€Ð L œ ÐÌà@ii#ìàA.€€Due€ProcessˆÐ $ t ÐÌà  àA€claim€of€denial€of€due€process€must€be€analyzed€with€a€two„part€inquiry:€(1)€whether€theÐ ü L  Ðinterest€involved€can€be€defined€as€ð ðlibertyðð€or€ð ðpropertyðð€within€the€meaning€of€the€Due€ProcessÐ è 8  ÐClause;€and,€if€so€(2)€what€process€is€due€in€the€circumstances.€€òòBoard€of€Regents€v.€Rothóó,€408€U.S.Ð Ô$  Ð564,€571„73,€92€S.€Ct.€2701,€2706„07€(1972).€€Deprivation€of€an€interest€which€is€neither€ð ðlibertyððÐ À  Ðnor€ð ðpropertyðð€does€not€trigger€the€procedural€safeguards€of€the€Due€Process€Clause.€€Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà  àThe€United€States€Supreme€Court€and€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€have€recognized€thatÐ „Ô  Ðð ðthe€full€panoply€of€rights€due€a€defendantðð€in€criminal€prosecutions€do€not€apply€to€paroleÐ pÀ Ðrevocations.òò€€State€v.€Wadeóó,€863€S.W.2d€406,€407„08€(Tenn.€1993)€(citing€òòBlack€v.€Romanoóó,€471€U.S.Ð \¬ Ð606,€613,€105€S.€Ct.€2254,€2258€(1985)).€€A€parolee€facing€revocation€of€parole€is€entitled€to€certainÐ H˜ Ðminimal€due€process€rights,€including:€(a)€a€notice€of€the€claimed€violations;€(b)€the€€disclosure€ofÐ 4„ Ðevidence€against€him;€(c)€the€opportunity€to€be€heard€in€person€and€to€present€witnesses€andÐ  p Ðdocumentary€evidence;€(d)€the€right€to€confront€and€cross€examine€adverse€witnesses;€(e)€a€neutralÐ  \ Ðand€detached€hearing€body;€and€(f)€a€written€statement€by€the€fact€finders€as€to€the€evidence€reliedÐ øH Ðon€and€reasons€for€revoking€parole.€€òòGagnon€v.€Scarpellióó,€411€U.S.€778,€786,€93€S.€Ct.€1756,€1761„62Ð ä4 Ð(1973);òò€Morrissey€v.€Breweróó,€408€U.S.€471,€489,€92€S.€Ct.€2593,€2604€(1972);€òòWadeóó,€863€S.W.2dÐ Ð  Ðat€408.€€Ð ¼  ÐÌà  àMr.€Ô_ÔMcMillanÔ_Ô€was€paroled€on€June€3,€1997.€€Three€days€later,€he€was€served€with€a€paroleÐ ”ä Ðviolation€warrant€for€violating€two€conditions€of€his€parole;€number€(6)€and€number€(7)€on€the€paroleÐ €Ð Ðcertificate€issued€to€Mr.€McMillan€at€the€time€of€his€parole;€which€stated:€Ð l¼ ÐÌà8  à(6)€I€will€get€the€permission€of€my€parole€officer€before€changing€my€residence€orÐ D!” Ðemployment,€or€before€leaving€the€county€of€my€residence€or€the€state.Ð0"€ Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  à(7)€I€will€allow€my€parole€officer€to€visit€my€home,€employment€site,€or€elsewhere,Ð $X" Ðand€will€carry€out€all€lawful€instructions€he/she€gives€and€report€to€my€parole€officerÐ ô$D # Ðas€instructed,€and€will€carry€out€all€lawful€instructions€of€the€Administrative€CaseÐ à%0!$ ÐReview€Committee,€and€will€submit€to€electronic€monitoring€or€community€serviceÐ Ì&"% Ðif€required.и'#&Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àA€preliminary€hearing€was€held€on€the€revocation€warrant.€€The€hearing€summary€indicatesÐ )à$( Ðthat€Mr.€McMillan€pled€not€guilty€to€violations€of€rules€6€and€7€and€the€parole€officer€submitted€aÐ |*Ì%) Ðletter€from€the€residential€program€or€halfway€house€to€which€Mr.€McMillan€had€been€releasedÐ h+¸&* Ðstating€he€had€left€the€program€after€a€short€time€and€had€not€spent€the€night€there.€€The€summaryððsÐ ° Ðsection€entitled€ð ðsummary€of€evidence€and€testimony€in€behalf€of€paroleeðð€states:Ð œì ÐÌà8  àMr.€McMillan€testified€that€he€talked€to€his€parole€officer€the€28th€[of€June].€€SheÐ tÄ Ðtold€him€that€the€only€placement€that€could€be€approved€was€to€the€Steps€Program.€Ð `° ÐHe€left€the€prison€the€3rd€of€June€and€stayed€at€his€girlfriendððs€house€that€night.€€HeÐ L œ Ðcalled€Ms.€Stargel€[his€parole€officer]€after€arriving€at€the€halfway€house€and€she€toldÐ 8 ˆ Ðhim€she€could€meet€with€him€June€5€for€initial€intake€interview.€€He€said€he€wasÐ $ t Ðuncomfortable€with€the€program€and€felt€very€uneasy€riding€the€bus.€€He€talked€toÐ  ` ÐMs.€Stargelððs€supervisor€who€told€him€that€any€alternative€living€arrangement€wouldÐ ü L  Ðhave€to€be€checked€out.€€This€was€confirmed€by€his€sister€who€had€accompanied€himÐ è 8  Ðto€the€parole€office.€€ÐÔ$ Ð Ð  ÐÌThe€hearing€officer€that€presided€over€the€preliminary€hearing€found€probable€cause€for€a€finalÐ ¬ü  Ðrevocation€hearing€based€on€the€evidence€presented.€€The€form€also€indicates€that€Mr.€McMillan€didÐ ˜è  Ðnot€request€counsel.€€Ð „Ô  ÐÌà  àA€final€revocation€hearing€was€held€November€10,€1997,€wherein€the€Board€revoked€Mr.Ð \¬ ÐMcMillanððs€parole.€€The€ð ðnotice€of€board€action/time€setting/post€parole€rescission€hearingðð€formÐ H˜ Ðrevoking€Mr.€McMillanððs€parole€indicates€that€Mr.€McMillan€again€pled€not€guilty€to€violations€ofÐ 4„ Ðrules€6€and€7€and€that€his€attorney,€William€Hatton,€was€present€at€the€hearing.€€The€Board€revokedÐ  p ÐMr.€McMillanððs€parole€and€rescheduled€his€next€parole€hearing€date€for€May€of€1998.€€The€form,€inÐ  \ Ðthe€section€entitled€ð ðsummary€of€the€evidenceðð€states:€ð ðP.O.ððs€[parole€officerððs]€evidence€andÐ øH Ðtestimonyðð€and€indicates€the€reason€for€the€revocation€as€violations€of€rules€(6)€and€(7).€Ð ä4 ÐÌà  àIn€his€brief€on€appeal,€Mr.€McMillan€argues€that€he€was€denied€counsel€and€that€he€wasÐ ¼  Ðdenied€the€right€to€speak€on€his€behalf€in€violation€of€his€due€process€rights.€€As€set€out€above,€theÐ ¨ø Ðrecord€indicates€that€Mr.€McMillan€was€represented€by€counsel€at€the€revocation€hearing.€€HisÐ ”ä Ðpetition€does€not€claim€otherwise.€€His€claim€of€denial€of€counsel€relates€to€his€request€prior€to€theÐ €Ð Ðpreliminary€hearing.€€Again,€the€record€does€not€reflect€that€he€made€that€request€to€the€hearingÐ l¼ Ðofficer,€and€his€petition€does€not€dispute€that.€€He€has€failed€to€state€a€due€process€claim.Ð X ¨ ÐÌà  àIn€addition,€although€Mr.€McMillan€claims€he€was€not€allowed€to€speak€in€his€defense,€heÐ 0"€  Ðalso€admits€he€testified€at€both€hearings.€€His€complaint€is€that€he€wanted€another€opportunity€toÐ #l! Ðtestify€in€order€to€rebut€other€evidence.€€We€find€no€basis€for€a€claim€of€denial€of€due€process.Ð $X" ÐÌà  àThe€petition€and€accompanying€documents€submitted€by€Mr.€McMillan€indicate€that€he€wasÐ à%0!$ Ðnotified€of€and€aware€of€the€charges€against€him,€and€that€he€was€given€the€opportunity€to€testify€onÐ Ì&"% Ðhis€own€behalf€and€to€present€other€evidence€at€the€preliminary€revocation€hearing,€and€wasÐ ¸'#& Ðotherwise€provided€with€the€applicable€due€process€rights.€€Thus,€we€find€Mr.€McMillan€failed€toÐ ¤(ô#' Ðstate€a€claim€of€denial€of€due€process.€Ð )à$( ÐÌà@  ìàB.€€Correctness€of€DecisionˆÐ h+¸&* Їà  àMr.€McMillanððs€primary€complaint€is€with€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€supporting€theÐ ° Ðrevocation€decision.€€Although€evidence€was€presented€that€he€failed€to€comply€with€the€conditionsÐ œì Ðof€parole,€he€argues€that€his€testimony€and€that€of€his€sister€rebut€that€evidence.€€In€essence,€he€askedÐ ˆØ Ðthe€trial€court€and€asks€this€court€to€reweigh€the€evidence€and€reach€a€different€conclusion.€€ThisÐ tÄ Ðargument€is€an€attack€on€the€correctness€of€the€Boardððs€decision.€€Courts€cannot€review€theÐ `° Ðcorrectness€of€the€lower€tribunalððs€decision€in€a€common€law€writ€of€certiorari€proceeding.Ð L œ ÐÌà8  àIt€is€not€the€correctness€of€the€decision€that€is€subject€to€judicial€review€[under€aÐ $ t Ðcommon€law€writ€of€certiorari],€but€the€manner€in€which€the€decision€is€reached.€€IfÐ  ` Ðthe€agency€or€board€reached€its€decision€in€a€constitutional€or€lawful€manner,€then€theÐ ü L  Ðdecision€would€not€be€subject€to€judicial€review.€.€.€.€Ðè 8 Ð Ð  ÐÌòòPowellóó,€879€S.W.2d€at€873.€€òòÔ‡X XXX ÔSee€also€Ô#†X XXX 0r#ÔCooper€v.€Williamson€County€Bd.€of€Educ.óó,€746€S.W.2d€176,Ð À  Ð179€(Tenn.€1987)€(òòóóexplaining€that€ð ðthe€scope€of€review€under€the€common€law€writ€does€notÐ ¬ü  Ðordinarily€extend€to€a€redetermination€of€the€facts€found€by€the€administrative€bodyðð)Ô‡X XXX Ôòòóó.€€Accordingly,Ð ˜è  ÐMr.€McMillanððs€allegations€regarding€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€supporting€revocation€of€hisÐ „Ô  Ðparole€do€not€state€a€claim€for€relief.€€Ô#†X XXX œs#ÔÐ pÀ ÐÌà  àMr.€McMillan€has€alleged€no€facts€supporting€a€claim€that€the€board€exceeded€its€jurisdictionÐ H˜ Ðor€acted€illegally,€fraudulently,€or€arbitrarily.€€He€has€also€alleged€no€facts€warranting€a€review€of€theÐ 4„ Ðmanner€in€which€the€Board€reached€its€decision€to€revoke€his€parole.€€Consequently,€Mr.€McMillanÐ  p Ðhas€failed€to€state€a€claim€for€which€relief€can€be€granted€and,€therefore,€we€affirm€the€decision€ofÐ  \ Ðthe€trial€court€granting€the€motion€to€dismiss€filed€by€the€Board.€€Ð øH ÐÌÓ  ÓIII.€€ConclusionÐ Ð  ÐÌÓwÓà  àThe€decision€of€the€Chancery€Court€dismissing€the€petition€is€hereby€affirmed€and€the€causeÐ ¨ø Ðis€remanded€for€any€further€proceedings€which€may€be€necessary.€€The€costs€of€the€appeal€are€taxedÐ ”ä Ðto€the€appellant,€Dexter€McMillan,€for€which€execution€may€issue€if€necessary.€€Ð €Ð ÐÌÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à____________________________________Ð #l! Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àPATRICIA€J.€COTTRELL,€JUDGE