WPC1 M[c$ٓ ?x 5E9Jn,]Z_J8UV |>qAKQ@5* +Cd;M IU' Nx9gB.(hefn;t|L՗.{qÒ2(xCWT9S :0O:Ћ+W}+}Y"ahp Åwl@l.cGNa(,OZ3DT1 [$td7YfعF ?/mFJ)|<PTl$$DVM8칈뇡/C!~V ֽhhAx>J3+[QCYs-WNِ{ZBo`~B-ʒш} %\x6L [hg܌w̧ yb#\ % 0c# 0 U!N UN\ UN z r 1uD 72 1 r z @^ N 0DwE4  mb&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& 0.... B 06 D3 D-  0K:: AS 0 0DB AHP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 5e,,,,0(;3$2#  0  .3  0  (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regular(9 Z6Times New Roman Regular(hH  Z 6Times New Roman Regular C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a) i)(5hCEKQW]cioAutoList11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1. Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5vy<) (#$  0   ;) 13|xU- -(|G2]$ !.8CUdd8         0  XX d(|3{$ !.8CUdd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3{$ !.8CUdd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8CUdd8     _CU8XXdd8@ INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @$ATNASHVILLE  XXCU #CUXXb#  BRIANK.MOSS,vs.TENNESSEEBOARDOFPAROLESXXCU   @3 3  AppealfromtheChanceryCourtforDavidsonCounty,PartIII   @9 9 No.991484III,Hon.Ellen_Hobbs_ԀLyle,Chancellor   @*AV) ` dE<o ` A߈ p   @. . No.M200000128_COA_ԄR3CVFiledSeptember28,_2000_Ԉ k  AV) ` dE<B` A C   Atthehearingwhereappellantsparolewasrevoked,theHearingOfficeradmittedswornstatements *z  ofallegedvictims.TheTrialCourtupheldtherevocation.Weaffirm. f    ` Tenn.R.App.P.3,AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheChanceryCourtaffirmed.  * #CUX#XX.CUHerschelPickensFranks,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichWilliamB.Cain,J.,  andPatriciaJ.Cottrell,J.,joined.  BrianK.Moss,_Henning_,Tennessee,prose. v PaulG.Summers,AttorneyGeneralandReporter,MichaelE.Moore,SolicitorGeneral,and N StephanieR._Reevers_,SeniorCounsel,Nashville,Tennessee,forRespondentAppellee,Tennessee : BoardofParoles. &v #CUXX#XXCU@66' OPINION   :  XXXX   ` #CUXX~#XXCUBrianMossappealsfromtherevocationofhisparole,whichoncertioraritotheTrial ## Courtwasaffirmed.#CUXX6 #XXCU $$    ` Mosswasservingatermof21yearsinprison,andhadbeengrantedparoletwice, r&!& hadviolatedthoseparolesandwasagainparoledonNovember2,1998.Aparoleviolationwarrant ^'"' wasissuedonNovember18,1998followingtheissuanceofarrestwarrantsforAutomobileTheft J(#( andTheftofPersonalProperty(a10mmhandgunandnecklace). 6)$)    ` AtahearingonFebruary25,1999;adetectiveandMosssparoleofficeranda +^&+ supervisingofficertestifiedinperson.Thevictims,theowneroftheautomobileandherson,the +J', ownerofthehandgun,madeswornstatementsviaaverifiedvideotape.TheHearingOfficerfound ,6(- thattherewasgoodcauseforallowingthevideotapeinsteadofpersonalappearancebecausethe -"). _victimshouseandcarhadburnedandtheywerewithouttransportation.TheHearingOfficer  recommendedMosssparoleberevoked,andthatrecommendationwasadoptedbytheBoardand  enteredonMarch8,1999.       ` Subsequently,onpetitionforwritsofcertioraritotheTrialCourt,theTrialCourt ` grantedtheBoardsummaryjudgmentanddismissedMossspetition.Inthisregard,theTrialCourt L  heldthatMosshadfailedtodemonstratethattheBoardhadactedillegally,arbitrarilyorfraudulently 8  inrevokingparolesinceconvictionofacriminaloffenseisnotaprerequisiteforrevocation.The $ t Courtfurtherfoundthatthehearingofficerhadmadespecificfindingsthatgoodcauseexistedfor  ` thevictimsabsenceatthehearingandthatthevideostatementswerereliableandofthetypethat  L  wouldbecommonlyreliedupon.Therefore,theCourtheldthattheuseofvideotapedevidencedid  8  notviolateMosssrighttodueprocess. $       ` Prisonersdonothavearighttobereleasedfromconfinementpriortotheexpiration   oftheirsentence.SeeTenn.CodeAnn.40-28-117(a)(1997);Grahamv.State,304S.W.2d622,   623-24(Tenn.1957).Adecisiontograntparoleisdiscretionary,andinthesoleprerogativeofthe   TennesseeBoardofParoles.SeeTenn.CodeAnn.40-28-116(a)(1)(Supp.1999);Stateexrel. p Iveyv.Meadows,393S.W.2d744,747(Tenn.1965).Suchdecisionsarereviewedbyacommon-law \ writofcertiorari.SeeTenn.CodeAnn.40-28-115(c)(Supp.1999);Flowersv.Traughber,910 H S.W.2d468,470(Tenn.Crim.App.1995).Inordertoobtainreliefviathewrit,thepetitionermust 4 establishthattheBoardexceededitsjurisdictionoractedillegally,fraudulently,orarbitrarily.See  p Arnoldv.TennesseeBd.ofParoles,956S.W.2d478,480(Tenn.1997).Whiletheconstitutional  \ righttoconfrontandcrossexamineadversewitnessesastotheessentialelementsofacrimeina H criminalproceedingisabsolute,#XXXX#XXXXԀStatev.Wade,863#XXXX#XXXXS.W.2d#XXXX1#XXXXԀ406,407#XXXXy#XXXX(Tenn.#XXXX#XXXXԀ1993);Pointerv.Texas, 4 380U.S.400,403,85S.Ct.1065,1068(1965),theissueinaprobationrevocationproceedingisnot   theguiltorinnocenceofthedefendant,andtherighttoconfrontandcrossexamineadverse   witnessesisnotabsoluteandmayberelaxedundersomecircumstances.BoththeTennessee  SupremeCourtandtheUnitedStatesSupremeCourthaverecognizedthat thefullpanoplyofrights  dueadefendantincriminalprosecutionsdonotapplytoparolerevocations.Bledsoev.State,387  #XXXX #XXXXS.W.2d#XXXX#XXXXԀ811,814#XXXX!#XXXX(Tenn.#XXXXm#XXXXԀ1965);Blackv.Romano,471U.S.606,613,105S.Ct.2254,2258(1985). l      ` Nevertheless,becauseaprobationersconditionalfreedomfromincarcerationisat D! risk,shemustbeaffordeddueprocessintherevocationproceeding.TheUnitedStatesSupreme 0"  CourtsetforththeminimumrequirementsofdueprocessinprobationhearingsinMorrisseyv. #l! Brewer,408U.S.471,92S.Ct.2593(1972).Thoseinclude: $X" 8      0  0` (#(#(a)writtennoticeoftheclaimedviolationsofparole;(b)disclosuretotheparoleeof %0!$ evidenceagainsthim;(c)opportunitytobeheardinpersonandtopresentwitnesses &"% anddocumentaryevidence;(d)therighttoconfrontandcrossexamineadverse '#& witnesses(unlessthehearingofficerspecificallyfindsgoodcausefornotallowing (#' confrontation);(e)aneutralanddetachedhearingbodysuchasatraditionalparole )$( board,membersofwhichneednotbejudicialofficersorlawyers;and(f)awritten |*%) statementbythefactfindersastotheevidencereliedonandreasonsforrevoking h+&* parole.` (#` (# -408U.S.at489,92S.Ct.2604.  M"   ` OurSupremeCourthasdeterminedthathearsayevidenceisadmissibleataparole ` revocationhearing,thusdeprivingtheparoleeoftherighttocross-examination,whenminimum L  confrontationrequirementsofMorrisseyaremet.Statev.Wade,863S.W.2d406,409(Tenn.1993) 8  (quotingfavorablyWilsonv.State,521A.2d1257,1260-61(Md.Ct.App.1987)).Theseinclude $ t (1)aspecificfindingbythetrialcourtof goodcausethatwouldjustifythedenialofthe  ` defendant'srighttoconfrontandcross-examineanadversewitness;and(2)ashowingthatthe  L  informationcontainedinthereportisreliable.SeeId.at409.  8       ` Underthisstandard,thefactfinderfirstmustassesswhyconfrontationisnot   desirableorimpractical.SeeWade,863S.W.2dat409;Statev.Purkett,825#XXXX#XXXXS.W.2d#XXXX&#XXXXԀ851(Mo.   1992).Whereitwouldbedifficultorexpensivetoprocurelivewitnessesbecauseoflongdistances   involved,suchfactmilitatesinfavorofnotrequiringattendanceofthewitness.Gagnonv.Scarpelli,   411U.S.778,782n.5,93S.Ct.1756,1760n.5(1973)(outofstatewitnessnotrequiredtoattend p hearingwheretherewasappropriatesubstituteforlivetestimony). \    ` Thesecondfactorfordeterminationiswhetherthehearsayevidencesoughttobe 4 admittedbearssubstantialindiciaofreliability.Statev.Wade,863S.W.2d406,409(Tenn.1993).  p TheSupremeCourtinMorrisseyv.Brewer,emphasizedthat  \ 8      0  0` (#(#Thereisnothoughttoequatethissecond[final]stageofparolerevocationtoa 4 criminalprosecutioninanysense.Itisanarrowinquiry;theprocessshouldbe   flexibleenoughtoconsiderevidenceincludingletters,affidavits,andothermaterial   thatwouldnotbeadmissibleinanadversarycriminaltrial.` (#` (# 408U.S.471,489,92S.Ct.2593,2604(1972).LikewiseinGagnonv.Scarpelli,theCourt  explained: l 8      0  0` (#(#Whileinsomecasesthereissimplynoadequatealternativetolivetestimony,we D! emphasizethatwedidnotinMorrisseyintendtoprohibitusewhereappropriateof 0"  theconventionalsubstitutesforlivetestimony,includingaffidavits,depositions,and #l! documentaryevidence.$X"` (#` (# 411U.S.778,782n.5,93S.Ct.1756,1760n.5(1973). %0!$    ` Inthiscase,theHearingOfficermadeaspecificfindingofgoodcauseastowhythe '#& victimswerenotpresentandwhythevideotapedstatementswouldbeallowed,i.e.,thewitnesses (#' houseandcarhadrecentlybeenburnedinafire,leavingthemwithouttransportation.Thehearing )$( officeralsofoundthattherewassufficientindiciaofreliabilityinthevideotapedstatementssothat |*%) therequirementsofdueprocessweresatisfied.Thepoliceofficeratthehearingwasabletoverify h+&* theidentityofthewitnessesandauthenticatethevideotape.       ` Onappeal,ourreviewislimitedtowhetherthehearingofficeractedillegally,  fraudulently,orarbitrarily.Consideringthetotalityofthecircumstances,includingthereasonfor t thewitnessesabsence,thenatureoftheirtestimony,andthefactthatthearrestingofficerwas ` presentandtestifiedatthehearing,thereissufficientevidencetodemonstratethattheHearing L  Officerproperlyadmittedthestatements.Undertheauthorityofthecasesconsideredinthis 8  Opinion,wecannotconcludethattheHearingOfficeractedinanarbitrarymanner. $ t    ` WeaffirmthejudgmentoftheTrialCourtandremand,withthecostoftheappeal  L  assessedtotheappellant.  8    #XXXX.'#XXXX#CUXX #XXCU `  #XXXX5##CUXX5#XXCU   `     h     _________________________      `     h     HerschelPickensFranks,J.   #CUXXS6#XXCU