ANDREW J. BRADEN, III v. TENNESSEE BOARD OF PROBATION, ET AL. - Articles

All Content


Posted by: Tanja Trezise on Nov 5, 2014

Head Comment: With dissenting opinion.

Court: TN Court of Appeals

Attorneys 1:

Andrew J. Braden, III, Only, Tennessee, Pro Se.

Attorneys 2:

Robert E. Cooper, Jr., Attorney General and Reporter, Arthur Crownover, II, Senior Counsel, Civil Rights and Claims Division, Nashville, Tennessee, for appellees, Tennessee Board of Probation and Parole, Charles Traughber, and Amanda Fisher.

Judge(s): ARMSTRONG

This is a pro se appeal from a denial of parole. Inmate/Appellant avers several problems surrounding his parole hearing that he claims violate his due process and equal protection rights, and violate the ex post facto constitutional prohibition. Because a prisoner has no liberty interest in release on parole before the expiration of his sentence, due process protections do not attach to parole determinations. Because, at the time of Appellant’s crime and conviction, the law regarding parole gave total discretion to the Board and authorized denial if the Board found that parole would depreciate the seriousness of the crime committed, application of this ground for denial of parole does not violate ex post facto prohibitions. Because Appellant has failed to prove that race was an issue in the Board’s decision to deny him parole, no equal protection violation was shown. Consequently, we affirm the trial court’s dismissal of the petition upon grant of summary judgment. Affirmed and Remanded.