WPC paxf#5PoH]`4 ˒Y.V(@2c^||c$F*$Qr3* .\J=NdCij]Rf˟z} V@ {QRX4y8O qލf.DMa Z]ӱ5:˞Yǟ`~aS}zshWnr JUHE)(Q0Ͻ.E{eaF-3 _[=%]Yˌ)^n$h{@gw3kg RJ9FZ1%>iL'5}(\EKPdY"VfLps32!.r&sUDjR/c].mkM} DR K oG.Yl5\0bQ;2tV6sS\+!1s7|!r)kߕb|5Pb#\ % UN# 0q UN 1G ] z+  1uw 72 0Df 0c,N^ wE4 mb 0 B 0 D5 D- 0K AS@ 0Y 0D AAHP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 5e,,,,0(9 Z6Times New Roman Regular(`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regular(5hCEKQW]cioAutoList1I.I.I.I.I.I.I.I. S R $      2    _ԀWhereatrialjudgehasreachedthecorrectresult,itwillnotbereversedbecausehemayhavepredicatedit  onanerroneousreason.Pearsonv.GarrettFinancialServices,Inc.,849S.W.2d776,780(Tenn.Ct.App.1992).The t judgmentmaysimplybeaffirmedontheproperbasis.SeeAllen_v._ԀNationalBankofNewport,839S.W.2d763,765 8 (Tenn.Ct.App.1992). 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)  R $      1    _ XXӀ DismissalofclaimGroundsFactorsfordeterminationPovertyhearings (a)Acourtmaydismiss  aclaimfiledbyaninmate,eitherbeforeorafterserviceofprocessonthedefendant,ifthecourtfindsthat:(1)The v allegationofpovertyintheinmatesaffidavitisfalse;or(2)Theclaimisfrivolousormalicious.(_b_)Indetermining : whetheraclaimisfrivolousormaliciousundersubsection(a),thecourtmayconsiderwhetherornot:(1)Theclaimhas N achanceofsuccess;(2)Theclaimhasabasisinlawandinfact;_and(_3)Theclaimissubstantiallysimilartoaprevious  claimfiledbytheinmateinthatthepresentclaimarisesfromthesameoperativefacts.(_c_)Thecourtmayholdahearing  todeterminewhethertheallegationofpovertyfiledwiththeclaimisfalseorwhethertheclaimisfrivolousormalicious. J  Thishearingmaybeheldbeforeorafterserviceofprocessonthedefendant,andmaybeheldonmotionofthecourt,  ^ apartytotheclaim,orbyanyofficerofthecourt.(d)Onthefilingofamotiondescribedundersubsection(c),thecourt  " shallsuspendalldiscoveryrelatingtotheclaimpendingtheoutcomeofthehearing.Tenn._Code_ԀAnn.4121804    (1999). i)(#$  0  Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(;3$2#  0  .3  0  L) ;)ѡl3|xU- -(|G2 $ !.8Sdd8         0   d(|3$ !.8Sdd8     VVVV)!dxdx)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3$ !.8Sdd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8Sdd8     _  S8XXdd8  @ DSINTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @kk$ATNASHVILLE#SD #Ԉ &   ASSIGNEDONBRIEFSJUNE7,2000 L XXS #SXX#ANTONIOL._SWEATT_v.TENNESSEEBOARDOFPAROLES,etal.XXS  J @@ DirectAppealfromtheChanceryCourtforDavidsonCounty  J @@No.99590III;TheHonorableEllen_Hobbs_ԀLyle,Chancellor  6 @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.M199902265_COA_ԄR3CVFiledOctober12,_2000_   AV) ` dE<|` A }     XXXXAppellantAntonioL._Sweatt_ԀbringsthisPetitionforaCommonLawWritofCertiorariregarding x  theTennesseeBoardofParolesdecisiontodenyhimparolebasedontheseriousnessoftheoffense d thathecommitted.AppellantaversthattheBoardofParolesactedillegallyorarbitrarilyindenying P hisparolebecauseappellantassertsthathisguiltypleaagreementincludedtheagreementthathe < wouldonlyservethirtypercentofhistwentyfiveyearsentenceandthenhewouldbereleasedon (x parole.#XXXX1##SXX#XXS d % Tenn.R.App.P.3;AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheChanceryCourtAffirmed  <   #SX#XX.SAlanE.Highers,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichDavidR.Farmer,J.,andHolly  KirbyLillard,J.,joined.  AntonioL._Sweatt_,prose  PaulG.Summers,AttorneyGeneralandReporter,MichaelMoore,SolicitorGeneral,PamelaS. ` _Lorch_,AssistantAttorneyGeneral,fortheAppellee L   OPINION #SXX#XXS $"t! #SXX7 #XXS  XXXX@FactsandProceduralHistory  #L#   OnDecember13,1990,theappellant,AntonioL._Sweatt_,pledguiltytotwocountsof %$!% aggravatedrapeofanelevenyearoldchildandreceivedatwentyfiveyearsentenceonthefirst &"& countandafifteenyearsentenceonthesecondcount.Thesentencesweretobeserved '"' concurrently.Mr._Sweatt_ԀwassentencedasaRangeOneoffenderatthirtypercent. (#(   Mr._Sweatt_ԀfiledaPetitionforaCommonLawWritofCertiorarionFebruary26,1999, p*%* regardingtheTennesseeBoardofParolesdecisiononOctober12,1998,todenyhimparolebased \+&+ ontheseriousnessoftheoffensehecommitted.Mr._Sweatt_ԀnamedtheBoardofParolesaswellas H,', individualBoardmembersasrespondents.Mr._Sweatt_ԀfiledaMotiontoProceedinforma_pauperis_ 4-(- aswellasanInmateAffidavitpursuanttosection4121801oftheTennesseeCode,whereinhe  listedsomeofhispriorlawsuitfilings,includingfourfederalsuitsthatweredismissedasfrivolous.  OnMay12,1999,thelowercourtdismissedthesuitwithoutprejudicepursuanttosection4121812  oftheTennesseeCodebecauseitfoundthatMr._Sweatt_ԀhadoutstandingcostsintwootherDavidson t CountyChanceryCourtcases.OnMay21,1999,theappellantfiledaMotiontoReconsiderOrder ` ofDismissal.OnJune24,1999,Mr._Sweatt_ԀfiledaMotionforRelieffromOrderofdenialofhis L  motiontoproceedinforma_pauperis_.Additionally,onJune24,1999,thelowercourtenteredan 8  OrdervacatingitsMay12,1999,orderofdismissal. $ t   OnJuly9,1999,Mr._Sweatt_ԀfiledaMotionforLeavefromtheCourttoFileanAmended  L  ComplainttoaddanothermemberoftheBoardofParolesasarespondent.OnJuly14,1999,the  8  appellee,theTennesseeBoardofParoles,filedaMotiontoDismissforlackofsubjectmatter $  jurisdictionandforfailuretostateaclaimforwhichreliefmaybegranted.OnSeptember15,1999,   thelowercourtentereditsMemorandumandOrderdenyingMr._Sweatt_smotiontoamendhis   complaintandgrantingtheBoardofParolesmotiontodismiss.Moreover,thelowercourtordered   thematterdismissedasfrivolouspursuanttosection4121804oftheTennesseeCode.On   September24,1999,Mr._Sweatt_ԀfiledaNoticeofAppeal. p   LawandAnalysis  4     Theappellantlistsfourissuesforourreview,andwewillconsidereachinturn.  \    I. 4      First,theappellantassertsthatthelowercourterredindismissinghiscomplaintbecause   hehad outstandingcourtcostsfrompriorsuits.Section4121812oftheTennesseeCodestates:       0   x x  Filingofsubsequentlawsuitsnotpermitteduntilexpensespaid   (a)Exceptasprovidedbysubsection(b),onnoticeofassessmentof  anyfees,taxes,costs,andexpenses underthispart,aclerkofacourt p maynotacceptforfilinganotherclaimbythesameinmateuntilsuch `  priorfees,taxes,costs,andotherexpensesarepaidinfull. L! (b)Acourtmayallowaninmatewhohasnotpaidanycostsor $#t! expensesassessedagainsttheinmatetofileaclaimforinjunctive $`" reliefseekingtoenjoinanactorfailuretoactthatcreatesa $L # substantialthreatofirreparableinjury orseriousphysicalharmtothe %8!$ inmate. &("%    Tenn.CodeAnn.4121812(1999). ($'  *%)     Thecourtbelowinitiallydismissedthismatterpursuanttotheabovecitedsection.It  specificallyfoundthatMr._Sweatt_Ԁhadoutstandingcostsof$52.50inCauseNo.961100IIIof  DavidsonCountyChanceryCourtand$48.50inCauseNo.963661IofDavidsonCountyChancery  Court.Thecourtlatervacateditsdecision,however,andstatedthatsection4121812ofthe t TennesseeCodeauthorizeddismissalofalawsuitonlyiftheunpaidcostspertaintoapriordismissal ` foroneofthegroundsstatedinsection4121804oftheTennesseeCode.   #  1      ׀Wefailtoseethe L  connectionbetweensections4121812and4121804thatthetrialcourtfound.Wefindthatacase 8  maybedismissedsolelybaseduponsection4121812oftheTennesseeCode,withoutresorttothe $ t additionalfactorsinsection4121804.Asaresult,thelowercourtsinitialdismissalofthecase  ` basedonsection4121812wascorrectandshouldhavebarredthiscasefromproceedingbelow.   #  2        L    II.  $      Second,theappellantclaimsthatthelowercourterredwhenitdidnotallowhimtoamend   hiscomplainttoaddRick_OBryan_Ԁindividually,ahearingofficerontheBoardofParoles.The   proceduralframeworkforreviewunderthewritofcertiorariappearsinsections27910lthrough   279114oftheTennesseeCode.See_Fairhaven_ԀCorp.v.TennesseeHealthFacilities_Commn_,566 p S.W.2d885,886(Tenn.Ct.App.1976).Section279104oftheTennesseeCodeprovides, [_t]he_ \ petitionshallbeaddressedtothepresidingchancellorand shallnameasdefendantstheparticular H boardorcommission andsuchotherpartiesofrecord,ifsuch,aswereinvolvedinthehearingbefore 4 theboardorcommission,andwhodonotjoinaspetitioners.Tenn.CodeAnn.,279104(1998) $t (emphasisadded). `   Itisclearfromtheabovesectionthatwritsofcertiorarichallengingdecisionsbythe 8 TennesseeBoardofParolesshouldnameonlytheBoardasarespondent.Accordingly,itwasnot $ errorforthelowercourttodenyMr._Sweatt_ԀtheopportunitytoamendhiscomplainttoaddRick  _OBryan_,anindividualmemberoftheTennesseeBoardofParoles,asarespondent.      III.       Third,theappellantaversthatthetrialcourterredwhenitdismissedhisclaimbecause  appellantclaimsthathehadabindingpleaagreementwiththeStatethatmandatedhisreleaseupon t servingthirtypercentofhissentence.TheTennesseeSupremeCourthasheldthatonceplea ` agreementsareapprovedbythetrialcourt,theybecomebindingandenforceablecontracts.SeeState L  v._Howington_,907S.W.2d403,407(Tenn.1995).Asaresult,wehavedecidedthatprisonerswho 8  enterintoandabidebythetermsofapleaagreementshouldbeabletoseekjudicialredressifthe $ t Statebreachesthecontract.See_Totty_Ԁv.Tennessee_Dept_ԀofCorrection,App.No.01A019504CV  ` 00139,1995WL700205,at*2(Tenn.Ct.App.Nov.29,1995)(NoTenn.R.App.P.11application  L  filed).Thus,withproperproof,aprisonermaybeentitledtospecificenforcementofhisplea  8  agreement.Prisonerswhoassertthattheyagreedtopleadguiltyinreturnforagreementsthatthey $  wouldbeparoledafterservingaspecificportionoftheirsentencesmustcomeforwardwithsome   competentevidenceoftheseagreements.Thisevidenceisreadilyavailableeitherintheformofa   writtenpleabargainagreementorintheformofaverbatimrecordofthepleabargainproceeding   requiredtobekeptpursuanttoRule11(g)oftheTennesseeRulesofCriminalProcedure.Without   thisevidence,aprisonerhasfailedtostateaclaimuponwhichreliefcanbegranted.See_Ringling_ p v.TennesseeBoardofParoles,1997WL718419(Tenn.Ct.App.)(permissiontoappealdeniedMay \ 26,1998). `  H     Intheinstantcase,whenthecriminalcourtjudgesentencedMr._Sweatt_Ԁatthe standard30%  p Range1,thatmeantthatMr._Sweatt_Ԁwouldbecome eligible forparoleafterservingthirtypercent  \ ofhissentence.Section4035501(k)oftheTennesseeCodestatesinpertinentpartthat,[_t]he_ H releaseeligibilitydateprovidedforinthissectionisthe earliestdate aninmateconvictedofafelony 4 iseligibleforparole....Tenn.CodeAnn.4035501(k)(1999)(emphasisadded).     AsMr._Sweatt_Ԁadmittedinhispleadings,hedidreceiveparoleconsiderationafterserving  thirtypercentofhissentence.ThedecisiontoreleaseMr._Sweatt_Ԁonparolerestsexclusivelywithin  thediscretionoftheParoleBoard.SeeDoylev.Hampton,340S.W.2d891,893(1960).  Additionally,wehavecarefullyexaminedthepleabargainagreementandthetranscriptoftheguilty l pleaproceeding.Neitherdocumentsupportstheappellantspositionthattherewasanagreement X  betweenthecourt,thedistrictattorney,andMr._Sweatt_Ԁthathewouldbereleasedonparoleafter D! servingthirtypercentofhissentence.Duetothetotalabsenceintherecordofanyagreement 0"  betweenthecourtandMr._Sweatt_Ԁstatingthattheappellantwouldbereleasedafterservingthirty #l! percentofhissentence,weconcludethatthelowercourtproperlydismissedMr._Sweatt_spetition $X" forfailuretostateaclaim. $D #    `     (5h83 ! !"3"    3;25h  IV  .3  0 @   3;/<݌ '#& Ќ      Finally,theappellantclaimsthatthelowercourtabuseditsdiscretionindismissinghiscomplaint )$( becauseheclaimsthattheTennesseeBoardofParolesactedillegallyandarbitrarilyindenyinghis |*%) parole.Thescopeofreviewunderthecommonlawwritofcertiorariislimitedtothemethodused h+&* byaboardoragencyinreachingitsdecision.InPowellv.ParoleEligibilityReviewBoard,879  S.W.2d871(Tenn.Ct.App.1994),thecourtheldthatthedecisionsoftheParoleEligibilityReview  Boardwere_reviewable_,but,    [_t]he_Ԁscopeofreviewunderthecommonlawwrit,however,isvery ` narrow.ItcoversonlyaninquiryintowhethertheBoardhas L  exceededitsjurisdictionorisactingillegally,fraudulently,or 8  arbitrarily._Conclusory_Ԁtermssuchas arbitraryandcapriciouswill $ t notentitleapetitionertothewrit.Attheriskofoversimplification,  ` onemaysaythatitisnotthecorrectnessofthedecisionthatissubject  L  tojudicialreview,butthemannerinwhichthedecisionisreached.  8  Iftheagencyorboardhasreacheditsdecisioninaconstitutionalor $  lawfulmanner,thenthedecisionwouldnotbesubjecttojudicial   review....    ? ?Id.at873.       Intheinstantcase,theTennesseeBoardofParolesdeniedtheappellantparolepursuantto \ section4035503(b)(2)oftheTennesseeCode,becausetheBoardfoundthatthereleasefrom H custodyatthistimewoulddepreciatetheseriousnessofthecrimeofwhichtheoffenderstands 4 convictedorpromotedisrespectofthelaw.SeeTenn.CodeAnn.4035503(b)(2)(1999).In  p Arnoldv.TennesseeBoardofParoles,956S.W.2d478(Tenn.1997),theTennesseeSupremeCourt  \ heldthatitisproperfortheBoardofParolestoconsidertheseriousnessofaninmatesoffense H duringparoleconsideration: 4   Inourview,considerationoftheseriousnessoftheoffense,the   numberofvictims,andtherisktoreoffendisappropriatetothe  paroledecision.Considerationofthesefactorsdoesnotdemonstrate  thattheBoardactedillegally,fraudulently,arbitrarily,orinexcessof  itsjurisdiction.Moreover,considerationofsuchfactorsdoesnot l implicateanyconstitutionalrightunderthecircumstances. X    Id.at48283. ` TheUnitedStatesSupremeCourthasalsorecognizedthatparoledeterminationsmust 0"  includetheseriousnessoftheoffense.TheCourtstatedthat: #l!   thechoice[tograntordenyparole]involvesasynthesisofrecord $D # factsandpersonalobservationfilteredthroughtheexperienceofthe %0!$ _decisionmaker_Ԁandleadingtoapredictivejudgmentastowhatisbest &"% bothfortheindividualinmateandforthecommunity.Thislatter '#& conclusionrequirestheBoardtoassesswhether, inlightofthe (#' natureofthecrime ,theinmatesreleasewillminimizethegravityof )$( theoffense,weakenthedeterrentimpactonothers,andunderminethe |*%) respectfortheadministrationofjustice. h+&*   _Greenholtz_Ԁv.InmatesoftheNebraskaPenal&CorrectionalComplex,442U.S.1,8(1979)  (emphasisadded).Itisthusevidentthatconsiderationoftheseriousnessofaninmatesoffenseis t aproperdeterminationforaparoleboardtoconsiderwhenevaluatingoneforparole.Asaresult, ` weconcludethatthelowercourtwascorrectinfindingthattheseriousnessoftheoffenseisaproper L  reasontodenyparole. 8     Conclusion  L       Accordingly,fortheaforementionedreasons,weherebyaffirmthetrialcourt.Costson $  appealaretaxedtotheAppellant,Antonio_Sweatt_,forwhichexecutionmayissueifnecessary.     #XXXX ##SXX #XXS      `     h     ___________________________________ \    `     h     ALANE.HIGHERS,JUDGE