ÿWPC  ­0,¥ÿ-9ïs~A i±ºHn!e;axxIÝ–³=Ÿ«ÔGŸËt¥Õá4豩 ¼p”’…·»‘!ÒÕY ïÆj—Ä?¬J®þL¢E5÷§Kãðà…-5¡Ä‚çúªiä]ïHCŽ p¬k& ÆÞ‰ß§Âø¦§0l¾¹ %]‚¦QNœÓ„NÞ¼ÛÒ%ÎçÈ]‹Yê3TS•j³Õ}7yaÉ£3Uf@‹eÒdýo„1ÝTc"ã’Šê÷*™â¿†– hr¯ ÔØ¸Ý%ê혰ª÷ka®5B,¡²Ž2¢´§‰êvd”ØFKùÌG†2ÖGdÕ«f ›Øß)Ìð½Þ+Mü¢CED5H?hã³Ø<­’”… ÿ#E%;*ÅXS…äá€\%ƒÜ¬' çñÔ⪠QÛª÷÷×µ{I‘ï ÉLb*# LU:W %‘ 0(—¿w@Ä4U:'aU:fffffffffffffffffffff AQ Æñ 0D· 0Dû 0D? ? D/ƒ B² BÏ D3ì ˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhÎ, øð AZ‹"Arial RegularX($¡¡ ûÝ ƒ"¯"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€ X¿ýXXXÔÔ€ ñ X X¿ýÔÓ  Óò òÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€ X¿ýX ñ ÔÐ  ÐÌSeptember€24,€1998ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔdAhÔó ó TUUVWDXYDZ[E\Ó€fÖ…#%3|xh,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular ûÝ ƒ"¯"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€ X¿ýXXXÔÔ€ ñ X X¿ýÔÓ  Óò òÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€ X¿ýX ñ ÔÐ  ÐÌSeptember€23,€1998ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔdAhÔó ó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular!"#$&Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó(('÷ÿ dxd düÿP Pd'''''ÿÿdxdÝ ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÑܰÑÒ€°ÒÒ„°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ7€¿ýXXdædÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼–^¼XXÔÓ  Óñfññ\ñßr€ )<,(j 8` `€€@EôÝ` 8ttxP,Üð  rßñ\ññfññfññfñà@  êàò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÌñfñßt€ )>.*jxÜÿ¢` `€€@EÐ’` 8ttxPðð ¢ tßñfñà@¦¦(êàAT€NASHVILLEó óÔ€X¿ýX¼¼–^ԈРð ÐÌÌÌÌJIMMY€WAYNE€WILSON,à à àà 8 àà  à)Ð œ À Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)Ìà Ø àPlaintiff/Appellant,à à àà 8 àà  à)Ð h Œ Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)ÌJAMES€T.€FITE,€VIVIEN€TROY€COOK,à  à)Ð 4X  ÐDEWEY€SCOTT€FRAZIER,€JERRY€L.à  à)Ð >  ÐCHILTON,€PAUL€CARRIER,€ET€AL.,à  à)Ð $  Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)Ìà Ø àPlaintiffs,à ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)à è àAppeal€No.Ð Ìð  Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)à è à01„A„01„9706„CV„00266Ð ²Ö  ÐVS.à Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)Ð ˜¼ Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)à è àDavidson€ChanceryÐ ~¢ ÐSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,€GOVERNORà  à)à è àNo.€93C„91Ð dˆ ÐNED€RAY€McWHERTER,€PAROLEà  à)Ð Jn ÐELIGIBILITY€REVIEW€BOARD€&à 8 àà  à)Ð 0T ÐMEMBERS,€JIM€THRASHER,€à 8 àà  à)Ð : ÐJOHN€S.€WILDER,€JIMMY€NAIFEH,à  à)à è àÐ ü  ÐAND€CHARLES€BURSON,€ET€AL.,à  à)Ð â Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)Ìà Ø àDefendants/Appellees.à 8 àà  à)Ð ®Ò ÐÌÌà@;; êàÔ‡¼–^¼XX¿ýÔòòò òOñXñPINIONñXññYñRñYññ[ññZñ\ñZñDERñ[ñ€ON€PETITION€TO€REHEARó óóóÔ#†X¿ýX¼¼–^ #ԈР`„ ÐÌÌÓÓà Ø àà 0 àJimmy€Wayne€Wilson€has€filed€a€pro€se€request€for€a€rehearing,€claimingÏthat€this€courtððs€opinion€of€January€16,€1998€is€in€conflict€with€well„establishedÏprinciples€of€law.€€While€Rule€39€of€the€Rules€of€Appellate€Procedure€provides€that€anÏappeals€court€may€grant€a€rehearing€in€situations€where€ð ðthe€courtððs€opinion€is€inÏconflict€with€a€statute,€prior€decision,€or€other€principle€of€law,ðð€Mr.€Wilson€has€notÏstated€any€principle€of€law€nor€cited€any€statute€that€would€require€us€to€find€that€heÏis€entitled€to€the€relief€he€seeks.ÌÌà Ø àà 0 àMr.€Wilson€does€cite€a€recent€case€of€the€United€States€Supreme€CourtÏthat€was€not€mentioned€in€his€brief,€òòLynce€v.€Mathisóó,€__€U.S.€__,€117€S.Ct€891,€__Ð l2,1 ÐL.Ed.__€(1997),€which€he€claims€supports€his€argument€that€the€legislature€and€theÏParole€Eligibility€Review€Board€violated€the€constitutional€prohibition€against€ex€postÏfacto€laws€when€they€refused€to€extend€to€him€the€accelerated€release€benefits€flowingÏfrom€the€1989€Criminal€Reform€Sentencing€Act,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„601€et€seq.ÌÐ l;5;Š Ðà Ø àà 0 àThe€òòLynceóó€case,€like€the€earlier€case€of€òòWeaver€v.€Grahamóó,€450€U.S.€24,Ð Ü Ð101€S.Ct.€960,€67€L.Ed€17€(1981),€dealt€with€Florida€statutes€that€reduced€the€rate€atÏwhich€state€inmates€could€accumulate€good€and€honor€time.ÌÌà Ø àà 0 àMr.€Weaver€had€been€convicted€of€second„degree€murder€in€1976.€€InÏ1978,€the€Florida€legislature€reduced€the€maximum€number€of€sentence€credits€thatÏprisoners€could€earn€each€month.€€The€Court€found€the€statute€in€question€violated€theÏex€post€facto€prohibition€as€to€Mr.€Weaver,€because€in€changing€the€formula€forÏsentence€reduction€credits€to€his€detriment,€the€statute€made€the€punishment€for€hisÏcrime€more€onerous€than€did€the€statute€that€was€in€effect€at€the€time€he€wasÏsentenced.ÌÌà Ø àà 0 àMr.€Lynce€was€convicted€of€attempted€murder€in€1986€on€a€plea€of€noloÏcontendere.€€In€1987€the€Florida€legislature€attempted€to€address€the€prisonÏovercrowding€problem€by€creating€a€new€form€of€overcrowding€credit,€known€asÏadministrative€gain„time.€€Mr.€Lynce€earned€enough€sentence€reduction€credits,Ïincluding€administrative€gain„time,€to€be€released€in€1992.€€That€same€year,€theÏlegislature€enacted€a€statute€preventing€those€convicted€of€murder€or€attemptedÏmurder€from€earning€any€administrative€gain„time.€€After€Mr.€Lynce€was€released,€theÏFlorida€attorney„general€issued€an€opinion€that€the€legislature€intended€the€statute€toÏapply€retroactively.€€Mr.€Lynce€was€re„arrested,€his€administrative€gain„time€was€takenÏaway€from€him,€and€he€filed€a€petition€for€habeas€corpus.ÌÌà Ø àà 0 àAfter€the€lower€federal€courts€rejected€Mr.€Lynceððs€petition,€the€SupremeÏCourt€took€certiorari.€€In€its€opinion,€the€Court€extended€its€interpretation€of€the€ex€postÏfacto€prohibition€beyond€its€holding€in€òòWeaver,óó€by€rejecting€the€Stateððs€argument€thatÐ Ì2ð,2 Ðthe€ex€post€facto€clause€did€not€apply€to€Mr.€Lynce€because€administrative€gain„timeÏwas€not€a€part€of€the€law€at€the€time€that€he€was€convicted.€€It€appears€to€us€that€theÏdecisive€factor€for€the€Court€was€that€Mr.€Lynce€had€been€actually€awarded€1,860Ïdays€of€gain„time€credits€before€they€were€retroactively€cancelled.€€The€CourtððsÐ :$4: Ðdecision€did€not€affect€the€application€of€the€statute€to€prevent€certain€classes€ofÏinmates€from€receiving€administrative€gain„time€in€future.ÌÌà Ø àà 0 àIn€reaching€its€decision€the€Court€specifically€distinguished€the€òòLynceóóÐ <`  Ðcase€from€its€previous€decision€in€òòCalifornia€Department€of€Corrections€v.€Morales,óóÐ @  Ð514€U.S.€ñVñ499ñVññWñ__ñWñ,€115€S.€Ct.€1597,€131€L.Ed€2d€588€(1995).€€In€the€òòMoralesóó€case,€theÐ ü  ÐCourt€held€that€an€amendment€to€Californiaððs€parole€procedures€that€decreased€theÏfrequency€of€parole€hearings€for€certain€offenders€did€not€violate€the€ex„post€factoÏprohibition,€because€it€was€speculative€at€best€that€Mr.€Moralesðð€ultimate€date€ofÏrelease€would€be€affected€by€the€change€in€the€timing€of€the€parole€hearings.ÌÌà Ø àà 0 àWhile€the€situations€of€Mr.€Morales€and€Mr.€Wilson€are€not€the€same€(Mr.ÏMorales€is€a€notorious€multiple€murderer,€while€nobody€is€claiming€that€Mr.€Wilson€hasÏever€killed€anyone),€the€ex€post€facto€issue€argued€in€the€present€case€is€similar€toÏthat€in€the€òòMoralesóó€case,€and€not€nearly€as€close€to€that€in€the€òòLynceóó€case.Ð Ü#  ÐÌà Ø àà 0 àAs€we€stated€in€our€opinion€in€this€case,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€€40„35„601,Ïet€seq.€placed€the€decision€to€amend€or€not€to€amend€a€habitual€criminalððs€paroleÏeligibility€date€within€the€discretion€of€the€Parole€Eligibility€Review€Board.€€Thus,€Mr.ÏWilson€was€not€deprived€of€an€entitlement€to€release€when€the€statute€was€amendedÏto€exclude€from€its€provisions€those€whose€triggering€offense€was€an€offense€againstÏthe€person.€€Like€Mr.€Morales,€Mr.€Wilson€only€enjoyed€a€speculative€possibility€thatÏhe€would€have€been€released€earlier€if€not€for€the€change€in€the€law.ÌÌà Ø àà 0 àUnlike€both€Mr.€Morales€and€Mr.€Wilson,€Mr.€Lynce€had€earned€enoughÏsentence€reduction€credits€to€be€entitled€to€release€before€the€State€of€Florida€tookÐ |8 26 Ðaway€those€credits.€ñNñ€ñNñFar€from€enjoying€a€merely€speculative€possibility€of€release,€Mr.ÏLynce€had€actually€been€freed€upon€the€completion€of€his€sentence€when€he€was€re„¼arrested.€€ñOñ€ñOñIt€thus€appears€to€this€court€that€despite€the€òòLynceóó€case,€Mr.€Wilson€is€notÐ œ À Ðentitled€to€the€relief€he€seeks.€ÌÌñPñà Ø àñPñà 0 àThe€petition€is€denied.€ÌñSññRñ\ñRññSññUñÌñUññRñÌñRñÌñQñ€Ð  ü  ÐñQñÓÓà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à_________________________________Ìà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àHENRY€F.€TODD,€PRESIDING€JUDGEÌà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àMIDDLE€SECTIONÌÌÌÌÌà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à_________________________________Ìà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àBEN€H.€CANTRELL,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌÌà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à_________________________________Ìà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àWILLIAM€C.€KOCH,€JR.,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àñTñ_________________________________Ìà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àBEN€H.€CANTRELL,€JUDGEñTñ