WPC GL/a9c.bI#k=`@ bA?KCF2ؕG,gR"b`lnȍݡs` aTLByRh"KӚ J[Ըc] ??zeV[HcUj7FjTJO)쑊~P"&h_)y{z\7^ۡ^wϺ!s 5Gh0+[ SIW!tY,-iRwp\71@DU*3yU Tm}Ê${Y(Dۄ%I%|d>'_n?yCWΫ/5yUz.T[ܳ\a#ʉKjgc֓99JI^`j@D`E.5d~^~.F{8Q*£ UT~pǑ.5Rۺ7[ݸm۷5/>JHlWz$wad jr`# @U NK % 0(w@4  * D bL :T  0P0 @L om 9U:=============== AQw 0D 0D D/ BE Bb D3 0D A D?w BGHP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nLl(9 Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($ DDDeӀu[%tttttt3|xwaiver- - 0#O@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 . $/ $/ $/ 5/ 5/ L/ L/ L/h .P . . . . .` .k 8/ / / / / /( /( / / / / 0 0 50 50 `'/// / / / k/ J/t +/O /1 / . . / ,/ U/j u/j u/ 0 0 a0> 0 0 0 1 1z 1z 1z 1 0 0 50q h0` }0, 0 c0 F0 / / / / s/ c/ +/ +/ / / / / / ;/ O/< |/< |/ . .P m.P m.P m. .. W.{ . #/ U/// ""  XfOXXX/XXfO   Ad FILEDXfOX/  December16,1998CecilW.CrowsonAppellateCourtClerkdAh ,cAZ"Arial Regular!"T$&C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3$ !  ($$   1  ((' dxd dP Pd'''''dxd(3$ !  T^y  <<= 8C____3 TripledxdCTriple 1+| d d d !  IXX'XXX'TR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'T   fo r )<,(j 8` `@E` 8ttxP,  rDAVIDPALMER,   8   )    0      8   )6(XXXX6 Plaintiff/Appellant,  )  AppealNo.      )  01A019712CH00731 0 v.   ) @    )  DavidsonChancery  P t )>.*jxg` `@E[ ` 8ttxP  tߛTENNESSEEDEPARTMENT  )  No.972591I  ` OFCORRECTION,  )  p    ) Defendant/Appellee.  ) @     )#XfXIM# JXXf  COURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE   APPEALFROMTHECHANCERYCOURTFORDAVIDSONCOUNTYATNASHVILLE,TENNESSEETHEHONORABLEIRVINH.KILCREASE,JR.,CHANCELLOR9,XXX(XX9  #XfX J#IXXfDAVIDPALMER,ProSe `! #116977NECXPOB5000MountainCity,Tennessee37683JOHNKNOXWALKUPAttorneyGeneralandReporterMICHAELE.MOORESolicitorGeneralSOHNIAW.HONGAssistantAttorneyGeneralCivilRightsandClaimsDivisionSecondFloor,CordellHullBuilding425FifthAvenueNorthNashville,Tennessee37243 ATTORNEYSFORDEFENDANT/APPELLEE  AFFIRMEDANDREMANDED fo7fXXdXXd7    fo#O@Xd#     fo7fXXdXXd7      @  @ WILLIAMB.CAIN,JUDGE :063f  fo7fXXdXXd7    fo7f0XXdXXd7     #XfXI#;XXfOPINION    #XfX; #9,X4X,XXX9IXXf  Thisappealinvolvesastateprisoner'seffortstoobtainjudicialreview T ofadecisionoftheTennesseeDepartmentofCorrection.AftertheDepartmentdeniedtheprisonerthereliefthathesoughtinhisPetitionforDeclaratoryOrder,theprisonerfiledaprose"PetitionforJudicialReviewand/orPetitionforaDeclaratoryJudgmentand/orPetitionforCommonlawWritofCertiorari"intheChanceryCourtofDavidsonCounty.ThetrialcourtgrantedtheDepartment'smotiontodismisspursuanttoRule12.02(6)ofCivilProcedure.Weaffirmthedismissaloftheprisoner'spetitionbecauseitfailstostateaclaimuponwhichreliefcanbegranted.  I.  DavidPalmerisincarceratedintheNortheastCorrectionalCenterwherehewasorderedtoserveafortyyearsentencefortheoffenseofaggravatedrape,athree-yearsentencefortheoffenseofjoyriding,andaoneyearsentencefortheoffenseofpetitlarceny.Allthreeoffenseswerecommittedin1986andMr.PalmerbeganservinghistimefortheseoffensesonSeptember11,1986.InAugustof1997,Mr.PalmerbeganthisproceedingsbyfilingaPetitionforDeclaratoryOrderwiththeTennesseeDepartmentofCorrection.  II.P  InhisPetitionforDeclaratoryOrder,Mr.Palmerchallengedthesentencehenowservesontwogroundsonlyoneofwhichhehasraisedonappeal.TheissueonappealinvolvesthecriminalsavingsstatuteSection391105oftheTennesseeCodeandArticleXI,8oftheTennesseeConstitution.Ourstateconstitutionprovidesinpertinentpart:8  TheLegislatureshallhavenopowertosuspendanygenerallawforthebenefitofanyparticularindividual,nortopassanylawforthebenefitofindividualsinconsistentwiththegenerallawsoftheland;nortopassanylawgrantingtoanyindividualorindividuals,rights,privileges,immunities,orexemptionsotherthansuchasmaybe,bythesamelawextendedtoanymemberofthecommunity,whomaybeable 9 5> tobringhimselfwithintheprovisionsofsuchlaw.    ЀTenn.Const.art.XI,8.  ThecriminalsavingstatutewasrepealedinNovemberof1989andreenactedwithnearlyidenticallanguageasfollows:8  Wheneveranypenalstatuteorpenallegislativeactofthestateisrepealedoramendedbyasubsequentlegislativeact,anyoffense,asdefinedbythestatuteoractbeingrepealedoramended,committedwhilesuchstatuteoractwasinfullforceandeffectshallbeprosecutedundertheactorstatuteineffectatthetimeofthecommissionoftheoffense.Exceptasprovidedundertheprovisionsof40-35-117,intheeventthesubsequentactprovidesforalesserpenalty,anypunishmentimposedshallbeinaccordancewiththesubsequentact.    Tenn.CodeAnn.39-11-112(1997).  AtthetimeofMr.Palmer'soffense,aggravatedrapewasaClassXfelonypursuanttoTennesseeCodeAnnotatedsection391701(1982)(repealed).HoweverthelawwaschangedbytheCriminalSentencingReformActof1989suchthataggravatedrapeisnowaClassAfelony.Tenn.CodeAnn.39-13-502(1997).Mr.Palmerclaimsthatunderthe1989Act,themaximumsentencehecouldreceiveforaggravatedrapeistwentyyearsat45%. See Tenn.CodeAnn. "H" 4035112(1997),4035501(Supp.1998).Inhispetitionforadeclaratoryorder,itwasMr.Palmer'spositionthat,sincehehadalreadyservedelevenyearsandsincehehadsixandahalfyearsinsentencecredits,heisentitledtoimmediatereleaseifsentencedunderthe1989Act.  Mr.Palmermaintainsthatthecriminalsavingsstatutemandatesthisdownwardadjustmenttohissentencewhichentitleshimtoimmediaterelease.IndismissingMr.Palmer'saction,thetrialcourtheldthatthecriminalsavingsstatutedidnotapplytosentenceswhichwerealreadyreceivedwhenasubsequentactoramendmentprovidedforalesserpenalty.Weagree.AstheCourtofCriminalAppealshasstated,"Thecriminalsavingsstatutehasneverbeeninterpretedtoapplytoconvictionsandsentenceswhichwerealreadyreceivedwhenasubsequentactoramendmentprovidedforalesserpenalty.Bytheirterms,theformerandpresentsavingsstatutesrelatetoactiveprosecutions,notpastcasesfor K94> whichsentencesarebeingserved." Stateexrel.Stewartv.McWherter ,857  S.W.2d875,877(Tenn.Crim.App.1992),perm.toappealdenied,(Tenn.1993).  Thecourtin Stewart alsoaddressedtheequalprotectionchallengeof {  ArticleXI,8raisedbyMr.Palmerwhichisthathewasnottreatedequallytoidenticaloffendersinhisclasswhoweresentencedafterthe1989lawbecameeffective.The Stewart courtnotedthataprimarypurposeofthelegislaturein F  enactingthe1989SentencingActwastofightovercrowdingintheprisonsystembycreatingnewsentencingstandards.BylimitingtheActinapplicationtopersonsnotpreviouslysentenced,thelegislaturedeviseda"partialsolutiontoprisonovercrowdingwhileavoidingthereopeningofcasesinwhichpersonshadbeenvalidlysentencedpreviously." Id. at877.Thecourtconcludedthatthe1989 A ActsurvivedequalprotectionscrutinybecausethepurposesfordistinguishingbetweenprisonerssentencedundertheActandthosesentencedunderpriorlawsatisfyacompellingstateinterest:8  [T]hereisalegitimatestateinterestatstakeinnotallowingthereopeningofavirtualpandora'sboxofallcasesinvolvingsentencesimposedbeforeNovember1,1989,butwhicharepresentlybeingservedbyconfinement,parole,orprobation.    8  Societyhasastronginterestinpreservingthefinalityofcriminallitigationresultinginaconvictionandsentencewhichwerevalidatthetimeoftheirimposition.Thewholesaleunsettlingoffinaljudgmentsofconvictionandsentencewhichwouldoccurifthe1989ActwereapplicableaspetitionerclaimsisapricethelegislaturewasjustifiedinnotpayingwhenitprovidedthattheActwouldnotapplytopreviouslysentencedoffenders....Societyisnotrequiredtoundergosuchadisruptionofitscriminaljusticesystem.      Id. at877(quoting Stateexrel.Crumv.McWherter ,No.02C01-9108-CC- ,'- 00181,1992WL99029(Tenn.Crim.App.1992),perm.toappealdenied,(Tenn.1992)).  Mr.Palmerarguesthat Stewartv.McWherter contradictsTennessee's 2G.5 legislativehistorywithrespecttothe1989Act.For,hecontendsthatifaprimarypurposeofthe1989Actwastoaddressthepressingissuesofprisonovercrowding,thenthestateshouldnotopposethereductionofhissentencewhichwouldonlyeffectuatethispurpose.However,theintentofthelegislature Z94= iscertainlyachievedbyapplyingthestatutetoallsentencesimposedafterNovember1,1989.Theonlyquestioniswhetherornotitisconstitutionallypermissibletonotapplythe1989Acttopersonspreviouslysentenced.Asoutlinedabove, Stewartv.McWherter hasansweredthisquestion. x    ThetrialcourtgrantedtheDepartmentofCorrection'smotiontodismisspursuanttoRule12.02oftheTennesseeRulesofCivilProcedure.Arule12.02motionadmitsthetruthofallrelevantandmaterialavermentscontainedinacomplaint,butassertsthatsuchfactsdonotconstituteacauseofaction.Onceatrialcourt'sgrantofa12.02(6)motionhasbeenappealed,theappellatecourtmust"takeallallegationsoffactintheplaintiff'scomplaintastrue,andreviewthelowercourts'legalconclusionsdenovowithnopresumptionofcorrectness."  ; Steinv.DavidsonHotelCo. ,945S.W.2d714,716(Tenn.1997)(citingTenn.R. # App.P.13(d)and Owensv.TruckstopsofAmerica ,915S.W.2d420,424 n (Tenn.1996)).Inlightoftheclearholdingin Stewartv.McWherter ,Mr.Palmer's  Y petitionfailstostateacauseofaction.  ӀIII.?,  WeholdthatneitherthecriminalsavingsstatutenortheTennesseeConstitutionmandatethatthe1989SentencingActberetroactivelyappliedtoMr.Palmer's1986sentence.Wethereforeaffirmthetrialcourt'sdismissalofthiscase.ThecostsofthisappealshouldbetaxedtoMr.Palmer.    ________________________________    WILLIAMB.CAIN,JUDGECONCUR:______________________________________BENH.CANTRELL,PRES.JUDGE,M.S.______________________________________PATRICIAJ.COTTRELL,JUDGE