WPC! 6qc̕+YP Y՛)㲯˥̕+(DTxBRe֠mc|z.D />2}p ǧOx/cD ڤVj{&8HB$lyH՟6dWW^Ű)"]aj9DܺGX=7 ߌ0n 12PTw5qfuxVS&l%}f2C}۶Vk_)Ce 0P{բ&M61 1;fVP)Js!rcER9ꑤ$C0a0P:4ZY$T]t $)FOCB7-{dTj}ѵH/Y,MP }XBl&:`6ciEH3ԿrR' &fkb*P&}aUb#\ %% UN+ 0y UN 1uO  z\  72g^ A 0DMWwN4 0 cE&( mb 0 B 0 D3 D- 0K"" ASm 0 0D* An \\ib01s01\clerk1nas,,,,0(9 Z6Times New Roman Regular(`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regular3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)  Rʏ$      3  y  _ ` Mosswasdeniedparoleonthebasisthat [_t]he_ԀreleasefromcustodyatthistimewouldDepreciate  theseriousnessofthecrimeofwhichtheoffenderstandsconvictedorpromoteDisrespectofthelaw. 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.wpti) ] Rʏ$      2  y  _ ` MosssubmittedthreeInmateInformationRequestsdatedNovember1and30,2000,andJanuary29,  2001,oneclassificationappealmentioninghewaswaitingforawrittenfinaldecisionofhisparolehearingdated t December4,2000,onelettertoWardenFloraHollanddatedJanuary4,2001,andthreeletterstothe BoardofPardons 8 andParolesdatedOctober29,2001,January14andAugust19,2002..l1 (#$  0  Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 50:i+00(;3$2#  0  .3  0    Rʏ$      4  y  _ ` WealsonotethatthisCourthasstatedthattheBoardsconduct maystillbescrutinizedunderaWrit  ofCertioraritodetermineifithassucceededitsjurisdiction,orhasactedillegally,fraudulentlyorarbitrarilyin t dischargingitsfunctions.Hortonv.ParoleEligibilityReviewBd.,No.M199902617_COA_ԄR3CV,2000WL 8 1559718,at*2n.3(Tenn.Ct.App.Oct.20,2000)(citingPowellv.ParoleEligibilityReviewBd.,879S.W.2d871 L (Tenn.Ct.App.1994)).  Rʏ$      1  y  _ ` TennesseeCourtofAppealsRule10.MemorandumOpinion.!(b)ThisCourt,withtheconcurrence  ofalljudgesparticipatinginthecase,mayaffirm,reverseormodifytheactionsofthetrialcourtbymemorandum t opinionwhenaformalopinionwouldhavenoprecedentialvalue.Whenacaseisdecidedbymemorandumopinionit 8 shallbedesignated MEMORANDUMOPINION,shallnotbepublished,andshallnotbecitedorreliedonforany L reasoninanyunrelatedcase.3|x  Rʏ$      5  y  _ ` Appellantattachedacopyofsuchwrittendispositiontoanaffidavitfiledwithhisamendedpetition.  U- -(|G2ʏ$ !.8Edd8         0  y d(|3$ !.8Edd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3$ !.8Edd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8Edd8     _  E8XXdd8  @ OEINTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @kk$ATNASHVILLE#EO #Ԉ &   ASSIGNEDONBRIEFSJUNE24,2004 L XXE #EXX#PAULMOSSv.TENNESSEEBOARDOFPROBATIONANDPAROLEXXE  J @@ DirectAppealfromtheChanceryCourtforDavidsonCounty  J @@No.023154IClaudia_Bonnyman_,Chancellor  6 @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.M200302125_COA_ԄR3CVFiledNovember12,_2004_   AV) ` dE<|` A }     XXXXThisactionarisesoutofAppellantsparolehearingproceedings.Subsequenttohisoriginalparole x  hearing,AppellantfiledapetitionforwritofcertiorariwiththeDavidsonCountyChanceryCourt. d UponAppellantsmotionforsummaryjudgmentandAppelleesmotiontodismiss,thetrialcourt P grantedAppelleesmotiontodismissanddeniedAppellantsmotionforsummaryjudgment.For < thefollowingreasons,weaffirm. (x #XXXX##EXX#XXE Tenn.R.App.P.3;AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheChanceryCourtAffirmed  <   #EX#XX.EAlanE._Highers_,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichDavidR.Farmer,J.,andHolly  M.Kirby,J.,joined.  PaulC.Moss,Jr.,prose,Nashville,TN  PaulG.Summers,AttorneyGeneralandReporter,MichaelMoore,SolicitorGeneral,PamelaS. ` _Lorch_,SeniorCounsel,Nashville,TN,forAppellee L    #EXXO#XXE#EXX #XXE  XXXX  )$)v _@!MEMORANDUMOPINION   #  1      ׈   @FactsandProceduralHistory     PaulMoss( Mossor Appellant)wasconvictedforthecrimeofseconddegreemurder, ` andinSeptember2000,hebecameeligibleforparoleconsideration.AhearingwasheldonOctober L  11,2000,attheMiddleTennesseeCorrectionalAnnexinNashville,Tennessee.Atthehearing,the 8  BoardofProbationandParole(the Board)recommendedthatMossservethebalanceofhis $ t sentence,deniedMossparole,anddidnotinformMossofareasonwhyhewasdeniedparole.In  ` ordertoprepareforanadministrativeappeal,Mossmadeseveralrequests d  #  2      ׀forthefinaldecisionof  L  theBoardinwriting.  8  Ѐ $    AfterreceivingnoresponsefromtheBoardandnowrittendecisionexplainingthereasons   forthedenialofparole,MossfiledapetitionforwritofcertiorariintheDavidsonCountyChancery   CourtonOctober22,2002,seekingdeliveryofacopyoftheBoardswrittendecisionand relief   intheformofrevisitingtheparoleboardwithin60daysof[thechancerycourts]decision.   Subsequently,inApril2003,acopyoftheBoardswrittendecision<   #  3      ׀denyingMossparolewas p deliveredtoMoss,andtheInstitutionalParoleOfficerinformedMosshehadfortyfivedaystofile \ anadministrativeappealcontestingtheBoardsdecision.However,ratherthanseekingan H administrativeappeal,MossamendedhispetitionforawritofcertiorarionApril29,2003,seeking 4 anewparolehearing.Onthesameday,Mossfiledamotionforsummaryjudgment,alsoseeking  p anewparolehearingandtherecusaloftheBoardmembersfromthathearing.OnMay15,2003,  \ theBoardfiledamotiontodismissMosspetitionarguingthatMosswasnotentitledtoanydue H processrightsandMosshadnotexhaustedhisremedyofanadministrativeappeal. 4 Ѐ  OnMay30,2003,thetrialcourtenteredanordergrantingtheBoardsmotiontodismiss,   notingthatprisonersdonothaveaconstitutionallyprotectedlibertyinterestinparoleandthatnodue  processrightsattach.Thetrialcourtalsodeterminedthatthemotiontodismissshouldbegranted  onthebasisthatMossdidnotexhausthisadministrativeremediesbyseekinganadministrative  appeal.Finally,thetrialcourtnotedthatMossfailedtofilearesponsetotheBoardsmotionto l dismiss,givingthecourtfurtherjustificationforgrantingtheBoardsmotion.Mossresponseto X  theBoardsmotiontodismisswasreceivedonJune2,2003,butwasdeliveredtoprisonofficials  formailingonMay27,2003.Thoughthetrialcourtrecognizedthatgrantingthemotiontodismiss  wasnolongerproperonthebasisthatMossdidnotfilearesponse,itstillgrantedtheBoards  motiononthebasisthatnodueprocessrightsattachtoparolehearingsandMosshadfailedtoseek t anadministrativeappeal.Subsequently,MossfiledanappealwiththisCourtandpresentsthe ` followingissues,asweperceivethem,forourreview: L  "3"    32#  1  .3  0 `   WhetherthetrialcourterredwhenitgrantedtheBoardsmotiontodismissonthe $ t basisthatMosshadnodueprocessrightsinhisparolehearing;3H݌ `` (#` (# Ќ  "3"    32#  2  .3  0 `   WhetherthetrialcourterredwhenitgrantedtheBoardsmotiontodismissonthe  L  basisthatMossdidnotfileanadministrativeappeal;and3݌ 8 ` (#` (# Ќ  "3"    32#  3  .3  0 `   WhetherthetrialcourtgaveMossa fullandfairhearing.3@݌$ ` (#` (# Ќ  Forthefollowingreasons,weaffirmthedecisionofthetrialcourtandremandthisactionforan   administrativeappealbeforetheBoard.     StandardofReview  p     AmotiontodismissfiledpursuanttoTenn.R.Civ.P.12.02(6) admitsthetruthofall H relevantandmaterialavermentscontainedinthecomplaint,butassertsthatsuchfactsdonot 4 constituteacauseofaction.Steinv.DavidsonHotelCo.,945S.W.2d714,716(Tenn.1997).  p  WhenreviewingadismissalofacomplaintunderRule12.02(6),thisCourtmusttakethefactual  \ allegationscontainedinthecomplaintastrueandreviewthetrialcourtslegalconclusionsdenovo H withoutgivinganypresumptionofcorrectnesstothoseconclusions.Willisv.Tenn.DeptofCorr., 4 113S.W.3d706,710(Tenn.2003)(citingDoev.Sundquist,2S.W.3d919,922(Tenn.1999)).    BecauseamotiontodismissacomplaintunderRule12.02(6)challengesonlythelegalsufficiency   ofthecomplaint,courtsshouldgrantamotiontodismissonlywhenitappearsthattheplaintiffcan  provenosetoffactsinsupportoftheclaimthatwouldentitletheplaintifftorelief.Id.(citing  TrauMedofAm.,Inc.v.AllstateIns.Co.,71S.W.3d691,696(Tenn.2002)).    DueProcess  X      Appellantbeginsbyarguingthatrequirementsofdueprocessandthecircumstancesofthis 0"  casemakethegrantofAppelleesmotiontodismissimproper.Webeginbynotingthatprisoners #l! donotholdanabsoluterightofreleasefromconfinementpriortotheexpirationoftheirsentence. $X" Davisv.Maples,No.M200202564COAR3CV,2003Tenn.App.LEXIS592,at*1314(Tenn. $D # Ct.App.Aug.25,2003)(citingGrahamv.State,304S.W.2d622,62324(Tenn.1957);Robinson %0!$ v.Traughber,13S.W.3d361,364(Tenn.Ct.App.1999);Tarpleyv.Traughber,944S.W.2d394, &"% 395(Tenn.Ct.App.1996)).Paroleisaprivilegeandnotaright.Tenn.CodeAnn.4028117(a) '#& (2003);Tenn.CodeAnn.4035503(b)(2003);seealsoDavis,2003Tenn.App.LEXIS592,at (#' *14(citingArnoldv.Tenn.Bd.ofParoles,956S.W.2d478,482(Tenn.1997)).Thedecisionof )$(  whethertograntaprisonerparoleisentrustedtotheBoardandnotthecourts.Davis,2003Tenn. |*%) App.LEXIS592,at*14(citingStateexrel.Iveyv.Meadows,393S.W.2d744,747(Tenn.1965);  Ruckerv.State,556S.W.2d774,776(Tenn.Crim.App.1977)).     Becauseaprisonerdoesnothaveaconstitutionalorinherentrighttoconditionalreleaseprior t totheexpirationofavalidsentence,aprisonerhasnoconstitutionallyprotectedinterestinparole. ` Id.at*14(citingGreenholtzv.InmatesoftheNeb.PenalandCorr.Complex,442U.S.1,78 L  (1979);Wrightv.Trammell,810F.2d589,591(6thCir.1987);Kaylorv.Bradley,912S.W.2d728, 8  733(Tenn.Ct.App.1995);Tenn.CodeAnn.4035503(b)(2003)).Therefore, [w]ithoutsuch $ t aninterest,dueprocessdoesnotattach.Id.at*15.Forthesereasons,thetrialcourtproperly  ` grantedtheAppelleesmotiontodismissasitrelatedtoAppellantsclaimofaviolationofdue  L  processrights.  8    AdministrativeAppeal        Next,Appellantarguesthatthetrialcourterredwhenitdismissedhispetitionforawritof   certioraribasedonthefactthatAppellanthadnotfiledanadministrativeappeal.Specifically,   Appellantcontendsdismissalwasimproperbecausehereceivedawrittenfinaldispositionofhis p parolehearingafterhefiledhisoriginalpetitionforawritofcertiorari.Webeginbynotingthat \ Tenn.CodeAnn.278101states: H  X0  Thewritofcertiorarimaybegrantedwheneverauthorizedbylaw,andalsoinall  p caseswhereaninferiortribunal,board,orofficerexercisingjudicialfunctionshas  \ exceededthejurisdictionconferred,orisactingillegally,  #  4      ׀when,inthejudgmentof H thecourt,thereisnootherplain,speedy,oradequateremedy.Thissectiondoesnot 4 applytoactionsgovernedbytheTennesseeRulesofAppellateProcedure.     XQ1Tenn.CodeAnn.278101(2000).Additionally,theRulesoftheTennesseeBoardofParoles  providesfurtherguidanceonthisissue.Specifically,theRulesoftheBoardenumeratethefollowing  procedures:   X  (3)FindingsandNoticeofDecision. X  0  (a)AlthoughtheBoard,ordesignatedhearingpanelthereof,maydeliberateinthe 0"  inmatespresence,individualnotesoftheBoardorpanelmembersshallremain #l! confidential.$X"   0  (b)TheBoardshallinformtheeligibleinmateofitsdecisionandreasonsforthe %0!$ decisionassoonasitismade.&"%   Ї0  (c)Aninmatewhoseparolehasbeenrevoked,rescindedordeniedmayrequestan  appellatereviewbytheBoard.Requestsforanappellatereviewmustbereceivedby  theBoardwithintwentyone(21)daysfromthedatethefinaldispositionismade  availabletotheinmate.Iftherequestisnotreceivedwithintwentyone(21)days, t itwillbedenied.Therequestwillbescreenedbyaboardmemberordesigneeto ` decideifareviewwillbeconducted.Reviewswillbeconductedforthefollowing L  reasons:8     X4 0  0` xx1.ifthereissignificantnewevidencethatwasnotavailableatthe  ` timeofthehearing. L ` x` x 0  0` xx2.ifthereareallegationsofmisconductbythehearingofficialthat $  aresubstantiatedbytherecord. ` x` x    ` 3.ifthereweresignificantproceduralerrorsbythehearingofficial.    9 XI/  .... p 0  (g)Thereasonswhyaparticularinmateisdeniedreleaseonparoleshallbefurnished H inwrittenformtosuchinmate.4    X;Tenn.Comp.R.&Regs.110011.07(3)(2004).Thedecisionrenderedonappellatereviewisa  \ finaldecision.Tenn.Comp.R.&Regs.110011.07(3)(e)(2004);Tenn.CodeAnn.4028 H 105(d)(11)(2003).AfterexaminingAppellantspetitionforawritofcertiorariasamendedonApril 4 29,2003,itappearsthatAppelleenotifiedAppellantofitsdecisionandprovidedAppellantwitha   writtencopyoftheBoardsdenialofparolewithreasonsforsuchdenial.  #  5      ׀Therefore,examination   ofthepetitionaloneleadsthisCourttoaffirmthetrialcourtsdismissalforfailuretostateaclaim.    However,inlightoftheBoardsdelayinprovidingAppellanthiswrittenfinaldisposition  andthereasonsforthedenialofparoleuntilafterAppellantfiledhisoriginalpetitionforawritof l certiorari,weaffirmthechancerycourtsdismissalofAppellantspetitionforawritofcertiorari X  withoutprejudicetohispursuitofanadministrativeremedy.SeeDavisv.Maples,2003Tenn.App. D! LEXIS592,at*18(Tenn.Ct.App.Aug.25,2003).TheRulesoftheTennesseeBoardofParoles 0"  setforthapolicythataninmatemustbeprovidedwithareasonforthedenialofparolebeforeheor #l! shemayappealtheBoardsdecision.Tenn.Comp.R.&Regs.110011.07(2004).Itrequiresthe $X" BoardtoprovideaninmatewithawrittendispositionoftheBoardsdecisionandtheBoardmust $D # informtheinmateofitsdecision,andreasonstherefor, assoonasitismade.Tenn.Comp.R.& %0!$ Regs.110011.07(3)(b)(2004).Thereasonforthispolicyisapparent:withoutknowledgeofwhy &"% aninmateisdeniedparole,aninmatecouldscarcelymountanappealandenumerateareasonfor '#& reversingtheBoardsdecision.Therefore,weaffirmthedismissalofAppellantspetitionforawrit (#' ofcertiorariwiththechancerycourt,butweholdthatsuchdismissaliswithoutprejudiceto  AppellantsrighttoappealtheBoardsdenialofparolepursuanttotheBoardsprocedures.See  Davis,2003Tenn.App.LEXIS592,at*1819.    FullandFairHearing  `     Finally,Appellantarguesthatthechancerycourtdidnotgivehispetitionforawritof 8  certiorari fairandadequateconsideration.ThetrialcourtfailedtoreceiveAppellantsresponse $ t toAppelleesmotiontodismissbeforethehearingonsuchmotion.Appellantfiledamotiontoset  ` asidethisdismissal.Inresponse,thetrialcourtissuedanorderwiththefollowingresponsewhich  L  Appellantcharacterizesas unenlightening: Uponreviewoftheentirerecordinthismatter,the  8  CourtfindsPetitionersmotionisnotwelltakenandaccordinglydenied.However,inanother $  orderaddressingAppellantsmotionforsummaryjudgment,thetrialcourtstatesthat,although   dismissalwasimproperonthebasisthatAppellantfailedtofilearesponse,dismissalisproperon   theothergroundsfordismissal,namelythefailureofAppellanttofileanadministrativeappealand   thelackofdueprocessrightsforaparolehearing.Becauseweaffirmthechancerycourtsdismissal   ofAppellantspetitiononthesetwoothergrounds,weseenoreasontoreversethechancerycourt p onthisbasis. \   Conclusion  4     Forthereasonsstatedabove,weaffirmthechancerycourtsdismissalofAppellantspetition  \ forwritofcertiorariwithoutprejudicetoAppellantsrighttoanadministrativeappealpursuantto H theAppelleesprocedures.CostsofthisappealaretaxedequallytoAppellant,PaulMoss,and 4 Appellee,theTennesseeBoardofProbationandParole,forwhichexecutionmayissueifnecessary.   #XXXX ##EXX #XXE   `     h     ___________________________________ l    `     h     ALANE.HIGHERS,JUDGE