Case ID: sw2d_944/html/0394-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "TODD, Presiding Judge, Middle Section.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Thomas TARPLEY, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. Charles TRAUGHBER, Chairman Tennessee Board of Paroles, Defendant/Appellee.
    Court of Appeals of Tennessee, Middle Section, at Nashville.
    Nov. 8, 1996.
    Permission to Appeal Denied by Supreme Court April 7,1997.
    Teresa Thomas, Counsel for the State, Nashville, for Defendant/Appellee.
    Thomas Tarpley, Clifton, pro se.
   OPINION

TODD, Presiding Judge, Middle Section.

The captioned plaintiff, an inmate of the Department of Corrections, filed this suit for certiorari from an adverse decision of the Board of Paroles. The Trial Court dismissed the suit for failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted.

Plaintiffs two issues complain of the dismissal of his suit and the failure of the Trial Court to find the action of the Parole Board illegal and arbitrary.

According to the complaint, on January 23, 1990, plaintiff was convicted of rape, aggravated kidnaping, and larceny and sentenced to 20 years confinement which began on February 24,1989; on December 7,1993, he met with a hearing officer who recommended that plaintiff not be paroled; the Board accepted the recommendation and scheduled further hearing on December 4, 1995, as a result of which hearing a hearing officer recommended that parole be refused because of “Confidential Information” and “Seriousness of Offense”, the Board modified the recommendation by changing the grounds of refusal to read, “Confidential Information, Seriousness of Offense, complete sex offender program, participate in education program and complete vocational program” and set the next hearing for December, 1997; and the Board failed to provide plaintiff with a written statement of the reasons for its decision.

The complaint charged denial of due process, arbitrary and insufficient grounds and conditions, and denial of right to a meaningful hearing.

A prisoner has no constitutional or inherent right to release prior to the expiration of a valid sentence. Greenholtz v. Inmates of the Nebraska Penal and Correctional Complex, 442 U.S. 1, 7, 99 S.Ct. 2100, 2104, 60 L.Ed.2d 668 (1979).

Release on parole is a privilege and not a right, T.CA. § 40-35-503(b).

Parole of Tennessee prisoners lies solely within the discretion of state officials. Wright v. Trammell, 810 F.2d 589 (6th Cir. 1987).

An administration agency decision is arbitrary or capricious only when it lacks any rational basis. MobileComm of Tennessee v. Tennessee Public Service Commission, Tenn. App.1993, 876 S.W.2d 101.

The scope of review of decisions of the Parole Board by certiorari does not include the correctness of the decision of the Board. Powell v. Parole Eligibility Review Board, Tenn.App.1994, 879 S.W.2d 871.

The complaint fails to state a claim for which relief can be granted. The judgment of the Trial Court is affirmed. Costs of this appeal are assessed against the plaintiff. The cause is remanded to the Trial Court for necessary further proceedings.

AFFIRMED AND REMANDED.

LEWIS and CANTRELL, JJ., concur.