WPC \Ig om2P[J#laױ,FoSWc_?cnI/Q='3rZ + ٞR6@]:$ŪL>1_#iT_ ĕ3сڷ${p(>\/@g6N4Q4d/> pi~6AP@<*HbC2U( tۏ %,P}]]!v[jre8 /|=֩ceAWۮVZAAtZ{O.6O/*ܶ۵˱έ{a[M!(~6 x|LM3"RYXn-aC Adfv3n+<~NPSۗP ^ݚARl*0WG΀/aKp$LXKWh`]ᢾR]-{t_ `K0%'w7Q*/ %F w@L 0 U:h 4    0  0DU:HU:-ggggggggggggggggg Bwwwwwwwwwww D3 0D AO ZZ 0D  D/d BX 01D2U34E56e7D89Ӏ(`$TR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'T7GXXdXXd7  ,cAZ"Arial RegularuM%3|xB  XX  ST@R[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'T  `   1    Onthedateofthehearing,theappellanthadbeenreleasedfromtheworkhousefor334  daysand,apparently,hadsuccessfullycompletedhis307daysprobationonthosesentenceshehadbeenservingpriortohisescape.((3$ `!TR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'T7XXdd7    `   0  (#$  0  ,cAZ"Arial Regular  XXXX X X   Ad FILED XX   June29,1999CecilW.CrowsonAppellateCourtClerkdAM ,cAZ"Arial Regular XX  @T@R[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'T7XXdd7 @  `   1    Onthedateofthehearing,theappellanthadbeenreleasedfromtheworkhousefor334  daysand,apparently,hadsuccessfullycompletedhis307daysprobationonthosesentenceshehadbeenservingpriortohisescape. d'dxd(3$ !  -C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd `!TR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'T7XXdd7   9669  9r *<,(j 8` `@E ` 8ttxP  rߛ9@. . INTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @(ATNASHVILLE@&MAYSESSION,1999STATEOFTENNESSEE, h   ) | t  `     h   )  No.01C019807CC00285 h`  ` Appellee   h   ) TL   `     h   )  RUTHERFORDCOUNTY @8  vs. `     h   ) ,$   `     h   )  Hon.J.SteveDaniel,Judge   TERRYC.MEADORS, h   )    `     h   )  (S7entencing78tatusofConfinement8)    ` Appellant   h   )    FortheAppellant:   h     FortheAppellee: x  JimWiseman    h     PaulG.Summers  LD  SallySchneider    h     AttorneyGeneralandReporter 80 AttorneysforAppellant h  $ 131NorthChurchStreet h     MarvinE.Clements,Jr.    Murfreesboro,TN37130 h     AssistantAttorneyGeneral  (#    `     h     CriminalJusticeDivision `     h     425FifthAvenueNorth `     h     2dFloor,CordellHullBuilding `     h     Nashville,TN372430493 x   (#  !  `  `     h      `     h     WilliamC.Whitesell,Jr.  @$8   `     h     DistrictAttorneyGeneral `     h     3rdFloor,RutherfordCo.JudicialBldg. `     h     Murfreesboro,TN37130OPINIONFILED:򀀀 v+n$( AFFIRMED DavidG.Hayes  0). Judge  1*/ @+ OPINION    ` Theappellant,TerryC.Meadors,appealstheorderenteredbytheRutherfordCountyCircuitCourtreturninghimtoconfinementafterhisinadvertentreleasebytheSheriffsDepartment.WhileservingsentencesintheRutherfordCountyWorkhouse,theappellantescaped.Afterhisreturntoconfinement,hepledguiltytoescapeandreceivedan18monthsentenceasarangeIoffender.Thissentence,enteredDecember11,1996,wasorderedtobeservedconsecutivelytoapriorsentencetheappellantwasservingatthetimeofhisescape.OnJune23,1997,theappellantwasgrantedprobationforthosesentenceshewasservingpriortohisescape.NotwithstandingtheTDOCdetainerforescape,theappellant,onJune23,1997,wasinadvertentlyreleasedfromhisconfinementintheRutherfordCountyWorkhouse. `  ` Duringaroutinefilecheck,LindaBoyle,asupervisoratTDOC,discoveredthattheappellanthadneverservedhis18monthsentence.AhearingwasheldintheRutherfordCountyCircuitCourtonMay11,1998,todeterminewhethertheappellantshouldbereturnedtoconfinement.6666  #  1      ׀Attheconclusionofthehearing,the %" trialcourtheldthattheappellantsconsecutivesentenceforescapebegantorunonJune23,1997,whenhewaserroneouslyreleasedfromthecustodyoftheworkhouse.Assuch,thecourtconcludedthattheappellantsentire18monthsentenceremainedunserved.Indeed, [t]he18monthsentenceinthiscasewouldexpireonDecember23,1998.SeeStatev.Walker,905S.W.2d554,556(Tenn. .', 1995)( wherepersonsunderacriminalsentenceimmediatelypresentthemselvestotheappropriateauthorityforincarcerationandareturnedaway,thesentenceineachcasebeginstorunwhenthejudgmentofconvictionbecomesfinalorthedefendantisactuallyincarcerated,whicheverisearlier).Accordingly,thecourt 5.4 Їorderedtheappellanttobeginserviceofhis18monthsentenceforescapeandgavetheappellantuntilJune11,1998,toreporttotheworkhouse. ` Althoughtheappellantconcedesthathis18monthsentenceforescapebegantorunonJune23,1997,hecontendsthatreleasewasduetonofaultofhisown,and,therefore,heshouldbegivenjailcreditfortheapproximate10.5monthsheremainedatliberty.Relyinguponthedoctrineof creditfortimeatliberty,heassertsthatarangeIoffenderservingan18monthsentencewouldreceivemandatoryprobationaftercompletionof30percentservice,or5.4months.Accordingly,hearguesthatheisentitledtoimmediatereleaseonprobation.@* Analysis    ` Americancourtshavearticulatedthreeprincipaltheoriesunderwhichaninmatewhoiserroneouslyreleasedfromconfinementmaybeentitledtorelief.Twoofthesetheories,waiverofjurisdictionandestoppel,stemfromonesrighttodueprocess;thethirdtheory,thedoctrineof creditfortimeatliberty,wasjudiciallycreatedoutofconcernsforbasic fairness. ` Underthewaiverofjurisdictiontheory,thegovernmentwaivestherighttoreincarceratewhenitsactionsaresoaffirmativelyimproperorgrosslynegligentthatitwouldbeunequivocallyinconsistentwithfundamentalprinciplesoflibertyandjusticetorequirealegalsentencetobeservedinitsaftermath.SeeStatev. h0`). Chapman,977S.W.2d122,126(Tenn.Crim.App.1997),perm.toappealdenied, 42,+0 (Tenn.1998);Greenv.Christiansen,732F.2d1397,1399(9thCir.1984)(citation 4,2 omitted).Similarly,undertheestoppeltheory,thegovernmentisestoppedfromreincarceratinganinmatewhen:8 ` (1)thepartytobeestoppedmustknowthefacts;(2)hemustintendthathisconductshallbeacteduponormustactsothattheparty J:B39 assertingtheestoppelhasarighttobelieveitissointended;(3)thepartyassertingtheestoppelmustbeignorantofthefacts;and(4)thatpartymustrelyontheformersconducttohisinjury. ` !` ! Christiansen,732F.2dat1399(citationsomitted).Aninmatemustmeetallfour  ~ criteriatoinvoketheremedyofestoppel.Itisapparentfromareadingoftherecordbeforeusthatneitherthewaiverofjurisdictiontheory,whichispredicateduponprinciplesofgrossnegligence,northeestoppeltheory,whichrequiresaffirmativemisconduct,isapplicabletothiscase.See,e.g.,Chapman,977S.W.2dat126.    `  ` Althoughthedueprocessclaimsofwaiverofjurisdictionandestoppelareinherentinanyreviewofaprisonerwhoisdischargedorreleasedfromconfinementbymistake,theappellant,inthecasesubjudice,arguesforapplicationofthe  doctrineof creditattimeatliberty.SeeWalker,905S.W.2dat556.This  doctrine,baseduponnotionsoffairness,providesthat, aconvictedpersonisentitledtocreditagainsthissentencefortimewhenhewaserroneouslyatlibertyprovidedthereisashowingofsimpleormerenegligenceonbehalfofthegovernmentandprovidedthedelayinexecutionofsentencewasthroughnofaultofhisown,inotherwords,hissentencecontinuestorunwhileheisatliberty.See $! Chapman,977S.W.2dat125(quotingSeeUnitedStatesv.Martinez,837F.2d &z# 861,864(9thCir.1988);Walker,905S.W.2dat556(citingChristiansen,732F.2d N(F!% at1397;Smithv.Swope,91F.2d260(9thCir.1937)). *#'  ` Notwithstandingadoptionofthislegaldoctrinebyseveralofoursisterstatesandbythefederalcourts,thestateofTennesseehasrejectedapplicationofthisdoctrine.Chapman,977S.W.2dat127.InChapman,apanelofthiscourt J1B*/ determinedthatthisdoctrineisadeparturefromthecommonlawwhichprovidesthat aconvictedpersonerroneouslyatlibertymust,whentheerrorisdiscovered,servethefullsentenceimposed.Chapman,977S.W.2dat126.Accordingly,the 6/5 rationaleofStateex.rel.Johnstonv.McClellan,87Tenn.52,9S.W.233(1888), z8r17 remainsviable,thatis, [a]defendantisnotentitledtocreditforthetimeatliberty F:>39 becauseimprisonmentisconfinementinfact,notinlegalorotherfiction.Chapman,977S.W.2dat125(citingStateex.rel.Johnstonv.McClellan,87Tenn.  at55,9S.W.at234). Adefendantmustbeinprisonforthetermofthesentence,regardlessofanylapseoftimeoutofprison,Chapman,977S.W.2dat125(citing l d Martinez,837F.2dat864),becauseajudgmentofsentencecanonlybesatisfied 80 withatermofimprisonment.SeeCommonwealthv.Blair,699A.2d738,740   (Pa.Super.1997)(citationsomitted). ` DespitetheappellantsrelianceonjudicialprecedentfromsisterstatesandhisargumentaskingthiscourttodistinguishhiscasefromChapman,wefindno 4, reasontodepartfromthesoundlogicandreasoningappliedbythiscourtinrefusingtoadoptthelegaldoctrineof creditfortimeatliberty.ItservesneitherthepublicsinterestnortheirprotectiontopermitaninadvertenterroronbehalfoftheStatetocancelanypartofaprisonerspunishmentforthecrimesforwhichhewasjustlyconvictedandsentenced.Societyhasaninterestinknowingthatthosewhocommitcrimesareservingthepunishmenttowhichtheyhavebeensentencedregardlessofnegligenterrorattributedtothegovernment.Thefactremainsthattheappellanthasnotservedthetimehewasorderedtoserve. ` Assuchweconcludethat,althoughtheappellantsreleasewasthroughnofaultofhisown,thereleasewastheresultofsimplenegligenceoftheStateandtheappellantisnotentitled/.TO./0to01for1creditfortimespentatliberty.Thejudgmentofthetrialcourtorderingthattheappellantservehissentenceofconfinementisaffirmed.22 `     h   ____________________________________ `     h   DAVIDG.HAYES,Judge >:639 ЇCONCUR:-________________________________________-43jerr345JERRYL.SMITH,Judge________________________________________NORMAMCGEEOGLE,Judge5