# F I L E D O c t ober30, 1998 C eci l W . C r o w son A ppel l a t e C our t C l e r k 

### I N TH E CO U RT O F APPEALS O F TENN ESSEE

AT NAS HVI L L E

THOM AS CAL V I N M ANEY, ) ) Pet i t i oner /

A ppel l ant , )

) A ppeal N o . ) 01-A -01- 9710-C V -00562 VS. ) ) D avi dson Chancer y ) N o . 96C - 3572 TEN N ESSEE BO A R D O F PARO LES, ) ) R espondent/

A ppel l ee. ) A P P E A L E D F ROM THE CHA NCE R Y COUR T OF DA V I D S ON COUNT Y AT N ASH V I L L E , TEN N ESSEE T H E HONORA B L E T HOM A S W . BR O T H E R S , J UDGE

T H O M A S C . M A N E Y , #216056 Sout heaste r n Tennesse e St a t e R egi onal C o r r ect i onal Faci l i t y R out e 4, B ox 600 P i kevi l l e , Tennessee 37367 P r o Se/ Pet i t i oner /

A ppel l ant J OHN KNOX WAL KUP A t t o r ney Gener a l & R epor t e r J O H N R. M I L E S C ounsel f

o rt he St a t e C o r del l H u l l B u i l d i ng, Second Fl oor 425 5t h A venue Nor t h N ashv i l l e , Tennessee 37243-0488 A t t o r ney f

o rR espondent/

A ppel l e e

A F F I R M ED AND RE M ANDED- 2 - BEN H. CANTRE L L , P R E S I D I NG J UDGE , M . S . CONCU R : KOCH, J . C A I N , J . 

## O P I N I O N

A pr i soner

att he Lake Count y R egi onal C o r r ect i onal Faci l i t y fi l ed a Pet i t i on f o rW r i t of

C e r t i o r a r i i n t he C i r cui t C our t of D avi dson C ount y , cl a i m i ng t hatt he B o a r d of Par o l es had acte d ille g a lly i n r evoki ng hi s p a r o l e , and i n r e fusi ng t o r econsi dert h e r evocat i on. The ci r cui t cour t g r ant ed sum m a r y j udgm entt o t h e B oar d of

Par o l es. W e af

fi r m . I . Par o l e R evocat i on Pr oceedi ngs

Thom a s C a l v i n M aney was conv i c t ed of cocai n e p o ssessi o n on F ebr uar y 13, 1993, and r ecei ved an ei ghtyear sentence. H e w as re l eased on paro l e on A ugust 30, 1995. A t th e t i m e of hi s re l e a se, he si gned a Cer t i fi cat e of Par o l e , w h i ch set

out t e n gener a l r u l es or condi t i ons of

par o l e and t h r e e speci a l condi t i ons t hathe w as obl i gat ed t o com p l y w i t h .- 3 - O n M a r ch 6, 1996, D onna M apl es, M r . M a n e y ’ s liv e -in g i r l fr i end, sw o r e outa cr i m i nal w a r r antagai nst hi m , al l egi ng t hathe had ass aul t ed heron Febr uar y 13, Febr uar y 22, and Febr uar y 29, and t hatshe had to go t o t he em e r gency room f o rt r eat m entf

o l l o w i ng t h e ass aul tof

Febr uar y 13. M s . M apl es al so m o ved out of M r . M aney’ s hom e on M a r ch 6, and m oved i n w i t h an aunt . U pon l ear n i ng of t h e w a r r ant , M r . M aney’ s par o l e of fi cer , M s . J. G a l e R eed, cont act ed M r . M aney and t o l d hi m t o have no fu r t hercont actw i t h M s . M apl es or her f a m i l y , ei t herdi r ect l y or i ndi r ect l y .

The par o l e of

fi ceral so te l ephoned M s . M apl es, and t o l d hert o docum entany att e m p t s byM r . M aney to cont acther . The next day, M s . M apl es to l d M s . R eed t h a ta f e m a l e fr i end of

her s had t e l ephoned, and t o l d hert hat M r . M aney was v e r y s o r r y f o rw hathe had done, t hathe w oul d pay her hospi t a l bi l l s , t hathe w ant ed t o get back t oget herw i t h her , and t hathe w ant ed hert o dr o p t he char ges. M s . M apl e s s a i d t hatshe coul d hearM r . M aney’ s v o i ce i n t h e back g r o u nd, t e l l i ng t he fr i end w hatt o say . M s . R eed w as abl e t o confi r m t h i s account by m aki ng a cal l t o t he fr i end.

O n M a r ch 7, M r . M aney hi m sel f al l egedl y m ade t w o c a l l s t o M s . M apl es, and she hung up on hi m . O n t he m o r n i ng of M a r ch 11, M r . M aney cal l ed M s . M apl es and as ked hert o dr op t he char ges agai nst

h i m . O n M a r ch 18, M s . M apl es te l ephoned M s . R eed, and t o l d- 4 -

t h e par o l e of

fi cert hatshe want ed t o dr op t he char ges a gai nstM r . M aney. She t o l d M s . R eed t hatM r . M aney’ s f a m i l y had agreed t o hel p herw i t h herbi l l s , t hatshe woul d be abl e t o m ove back i n t o M r . M aney’ s hom e , and t hatM r . M aney had agr eed t o go t o counsel i ng f o r h i s probl e m s .

The par o l e of

fi c e rgener a t ed a par o l e vi o l a t i on r epor t on M a r c h 7, ci t i ng M r . M aney f o rt h r ee vi o l a t i ons of R u l e 2 ( “ I w i l l obey t h e la w ” ), o n e vi o l a t i on of R u l e 7 ( “ I w i l l abi de by al l speci a l condi t i ons of

par o l e and car r y o u tal l i nst r uct i ons of m y paro l e o f fi cer ” ) and one vi o l a t i on of R u l e 9 ( “ I w i l l pay al l appl i cabl e f ees, unl ess ot h e rw i s e e x e m p te d . ” ) Sh e al so contact ed M r . M aney, and i nst r uct e d hi m t o r epor t t o t h e B r adl ey Count y Jai l t he f o l l o w i ng day, t o have t he par o l e vi o l a t i on w a r r antser ved. H e f

a i l ed t o do so, and t h e par o l e of

fi ceradded anot hervi o l a t i on o f R u l e 7 as a pos s i b l e r eason f

o rpar o l e r evocat i on.

M r . M aney was gi ven a not i ce of t he char ges agai nst hi m and an expl anat i on of hi s r i ght s on Ma r ch 15. O n t hatdat e , he agr eed t o wa i v e a pr e l i m i nar y paro l e r evocat i on hear i ng, and r equested t hat t h e fi nal r evocat i o n hear i ng be hel d as soon asposs i b l e . The hear i n g t ook pl ace on A p r i l 11, 1996. A t t hatt i m e , ass aul t char ges w e r e st i l l pendi ng agai nst

hi m i n B r adl ey Count y .- 5 - A tt he hear i ng, t he hear i ng of fi cerexpl a i ned M r . M aney’ s r i ght s t o hi m , and he w as repr esented by an att o r ney, w ho w a s p e r m i tte d t o cr oss -exam i ne t he w i t ness es. A s a pre l i m i nar y m a tte r , t h e R u l e 9 vi o l a t i on w as di s m i ssed . A ft e rt h r ee and a hal f hour s of t est i m ony, i ncl udi ng t est i m ony by Ms . R eed, M s . M apl es, M r . M aney and M r . M aney’ s f

a t her , t he hear i ng of fi cersus t a i ned one countof th e R u l e 2 v i o l a t i on, and bot h count s of t he R u l e 7 vi o l a t i on, and r ecom m ended t o t he B oar d t hatM r . M aney’ s par o l e be r evoked. O n M a y 15, 1996, t h e B oar d v o t ed t o adoptt he hear i ng of fi cer ’ s r ecom m endat i on.

O n June 26, 1996, M r . M aney fi l ed an adm i n i s t r a t i v e appeal w i t h t he B oar d , aski n g f o ra new hear i ng on hi s paro l e r evocat i on, on t he basi s of w hathe cal l ed “ s i gni fi cantnew evi dence. ” The pur por t ed new evi dence w a s t hatM s . M apl es had r ecant ed her ear l i e rsta t e m ent s , and t he ass aul t char ges agai nst M r . M aney had been di s m i s s ed on June 7. The B oar d deni ed M r . M aney’ s adm i n i s t r a t i ve appeal .

M r . M aney t hen fi l ed a Pet i t i on f o rC o m m on Law W r i t of C e rti o r a r i i n t h e C i r cui t C our t of D avi dson C ount y . H e ar gued t hatt h e B oar d act ed i l l egal l y byr evoki ng hi s paro l e on t he basi s of a pendi n g c r i m i nal char ge, and t hathe w as cons t i t u t i onal l y ent i t l ed t o anot her r evocat i o n hear i ng upon t he di s m i s s a l of t hatchar ge. The t r i a l cour t- 6-

d i d notagr ee, and gr a n t ed su m m a r y j udgm entt o t he B oar d of Par o l es. Thi s appeal f o l l o w ed.

I I . D ue Pr ocess

The appel l antcont ends t hatsi m p l y bei ng a r r ested and char ged w i t h an of f ense i s not

i spo f act o a vi o l a t i on of h i s p a r o l e . S t a t e v . C a rte r , N o . 03C 01- 9506-C R -00159 (fi l ed K noxvi l l e , A p r i l 16, 1996) . We agr ee. B u tw e m ust al so poi n tout , how ever, t hata convi c t i o n f

o ra cr i m i nal of

f ense i s not

necess a r i l y a pr e r equi s i t e f o r a par o l e r evocat i o n based upon f a i l u r e t o obey t he l a w . O ne r eason f o rt h i s i s t he di f

f e r ence bet w een t he s t andar d of pr oof r equi r ed t o secure a convi c t i on, and t hatr equi r ed t o r evoke a paro l e .

W e m ust

al so poi n toutt hata Pet i t i on f o ra C o m m on Law W r i to f C e rti o r a r i af f o r ds t he pet i t i onera ver y l i m i t ed scope of

r evi e w . T h e r evi e w i ng cour tdoes not exam i ne t he i n t r i nsi c cor r ect ness of t h e deci s i o n of

t he “ i n f

e r i o rcour t ” ( i n t h i s cas e t he B oar d of Par o l es) . It i s aut hor i z e d t o or dert he i n f e r i o rcour t t o send up the r ecor d f o r r evi e w onl y i f

t he r evi e w i n g cour t det e r m i nes t hatt h e i n f e r i o rcour t exceeded it s ju r i s d i c t i o n oract ed i l l egal l y , fr audul ent l y o r a r b i tra r i l y . Pow e l l v. Par o l e El i g i b i l i t y Revi e w B oar d , 879 S. W . 2d 871 (Tenn. A pp. 1994) ; Y okl ey v . St a t e , 632 S. W . 2d 123 (Tenn. A pp. 1981) .- 7 - Ille g a lit y i n t he cont extof a Pet i t i o n fo r W r i t o f C e rti o r a r i usual l y i nvol ves al l egat i ons of f a i l u r e t o conf

o r m t o t h e r equi r e m ent s o f due pr ocess . O u rSupr e m e C our t has s t a t ed t hatt he fu l l of panopl y r i ght s due a cr i m i nal def e ndantw ho has not yet been convi c t ed of any cr i m e do notappl y i n par o l e r evocat i on pr oceedi ngs. St a t e v . W ade , 86 3 S. W . 2 d 406 (Tenn. 1993) . B u ta par o l ee i s ent i t l ed t o a m easure of

due pr ocess , because the pr oceedi ngs put hi s condi t i onal l i b e rty a t ri s k .

R e l y i n g upon an opi n i on of t he U n i t e d St a t es Supr e m e C our t , G agnon v. Scar pel l i , 411 U. S . 778 ( 1973) , t he W ade C our t has set outt he m i n i m u m due pr ocess r equi r e m ent s f o rfi nal par o l e r evocat i on hear i ngs as f o l l o w s : "(a ) w r i tte n not i c e of t he cl a i m ed vi o l a t i ons of [ p r obat i o n or ] par o l e ; ( b ) di scl osure t o t h e [ p r obat i oneror ] par o l e e of evi dence agai nst

hi m ; ( c ) oppor t uni t y to b e hear d i n per son and to p r esent w i t ness es and docum ent a r y evi dence; ( d ) t he r i ghtt o confr ontand cr oss -exam i ne advers e w i t ness e s ( unl ess th e hear i ng of fi cerspeci fi cal l y fi nds good cause f

o rnota llo w i n g confr ont a t i on) ; ( e ) a ' neut r a l and det ached' hear i ng body s uch as a t r adi t i onal par o l e boar d , m e m ber s of w h i c h need notbe j udi c i a l of fi cer s or

l a w yers ; and (f

) a w r i tte n sta t e m entby t he f actfi nder s as t o t h e evi dence r e l i ed on and r easons f o rr evoki n g [ p r obat i on or ] par o l e . " 863 S. W . 2d at408.- 8- Exam i n i n g t he r ecor d of t h i s cas e , w e fi nd t hatt he par o l e r evocat i o n pr oceedi ngs agai nst C a l v i n M aney m e tal l t he due pr ocess r equi r e m ent s l i s ted above. W e fu r t herfi nd t hatt he hea r i n g of fi cer conduct e d t he hear i ng w i t h a scrupul ous r egar d f o rM r . M aney’ s due p r ocess r i ght s .

R u l e 1100- 1 - 1 - . 13( 9 ) ( I ) of t he A d m i n i s t r a t i ve Rul es & R egul a t i ons of

t he St a t e of

Tennessee , pr ovi des t h a t “[ a ] l l par o l e r evocat i o n hear i ngs s hal l be conduct ed i n a m anneras i n f o r m a l as i s consi s tentw i t h due pr ocess , and t he t echni cal r u l es of evi dence shal l notappl y to such heari ngs. ” I t i s i nst r uct i ve to not e how t h e hear i n g i n t he pr esent case pl ayed i t sel f outi n l i g h t o f th i s i n f o r m a l i t y .

The chi e f

w i t ness agai nst

M r . M aney w as Ms . R eed, w h o t e s tifie d as to bot h si des of herco n versat i ons w i t h M r . M aney, M s . M apl e s and ot her s . She al so noted M r . M aney’ s pri o rhi s t o r y of a s saul t i v e behavi o r . M r . M aney’ s att o r ney obj ect ed t o m uch of t h i s t est i m ony on t he gr ound of h e a r say . B u teven t he at t o r ney a c know l e d ged t hathear sayi s not pr ohi b i t ed i n a par o l e r evocat i o n hear i ng. We not e t hatt h e ef f ectof t h i s re l axat i on i n t he nor m a l r u l e s o f pr ocedur e , w h i c h m ade i t easi e rf o rt he St a t e t o pr esent i t s cas e , w a s bal anced by the ef f ectof an o t herde v i a t i on fr o m nor m a l cour t r oom pr ocedur e , w h i ch benefi t ed t he par o l ee.- 9- M r . M aney’ s att o r ney wa s per m i t t ed t o l ead hi s ow n w i t ness e s on di r ectquest i oni ng, a pr ocedur e t hat w oul d hav e el i c i t e d s t r enuous obj ect i on i f at t e m p t ed ata f

o r m a l t r i a l . H i s chi e f w i t ness w a s M s . M apl es, w ho at t e m p t ed t o r ecanther ear l i e r s t o r y . M s . M apl e s di d notcont r adi c tM s . R eed’ s t est i m ony as t o t he cont entof herconversat i ons w i t h t he par o l e of fi c e and ot her s , butshe s t a t e d t hatshe had m ade up t he sto r y of M r . M aney’ s as saul t s on heroutof angerathi m , because he want ed t o end t hei rr e l a t i onshi p .

She expl a i ned heri n j u r i es as r esul t i ng fr o m an al t e r cat i o n w i t h anot herw o m a n atw o r k . She al so cl a i m e d t hatshe hersel f had i n i t i a t e d t he phone cal l s w i t h M r . M aney t hatshe repor t ed t o M s . R eed. M r . M aney’ s att o r ney w as ab l e t o l ead hert h r ough t h i s new ver s i o n of

events s t ep- by-

s t ep, r equi r i ng herass ental one t o establ i s h l a r ge por t i ons of

hert est i m ony.

The at t o r ney al so l ed M r . M aney to establ i sh t hat dur i n g t h e co u r se of

hi s paro l e , M r . M aney f a i t h fu l l y repor t ed t o hi s paro l e o f fi cer , w o r ked r egul a r l y a t h i s cons t r uct i on j ob, and w as i n t h e p r ocess of

pur chasi ng hi s ow n hom e . M r . M aney al so deni ed t hathe had ever

hi tori n j u r ed M s . M apl es.

W e not e t hatt he standar d of pr oof f o rvi o l a t i on of

par o l e i s t he pr eponder ance of t he evi dence, notgui l t beyond a r easonabl e- 10 - doubt . See A d m i n . R u l es & R egs 1100-1 - 1 - . 13( 9 ) (f ) . Thus t he hear i n g o f fi cerand t he B oar d w e r e ent i t l ed t o w e i gh t h e cont r adi c t o r y vers i ons of

t he t r u t h t hatw e r e pr esen t ed t o t h e m , and t o choose w h i c h t hey cons i der ed t he m ost bel i evabl e , w h i ch t hey di d . They w e r e notobl i gat e d t o gi ve M r . M aney t he benefi t of a pr esum p t i on of i nnocence.

I I I . A R a t i onal B asi s

A s a gener a l pr oposi t i on, t h e deci s i on of an adm i n i s t r a t i v e boar d i s cons i der ed t o be ar b i t r a r y i f i t l a c k s a r a t i onal basi s . M obi l com m of

Tennessee v. Tennessee Publ i c Ser v i ce C o m m i s s i o n , 876S. W . 2d 101, 104 (Tenn. A pp. 1993) . W e shoul d nothave to searc h t h e r ecor d of

a par o l e r e v ocat i on pr oceedi ng i n or dert o det e r m i n e upon w hatbasi s paro l e w as revoked, f o rt h i s i n f

o r m a t i on shoul d be cont a i ned i n t he f

act fi nder ’ s w r i t t en sta t e m ent . See s e c t i o n (f ) o f th e excer p tfr o m S t a t e v. W ade quot ed above.

I n t he pr esent

case, i t m i ghthave been s u f f i c i e n t fo r th e f actfi ndert o sum m a r i z e t he evi dence upon w h i ch hi s fi ndi ngs w e r e based, and t o sta t e t hatt he t est i m ony of M s . R eed w as m o r e w o rth y o f bel i e f t han t hatof

M s . M apl es, i n or dert o pr ecl ude t he t r i a l cour t fro m gr ant i ng t he Pet i t i on f o ra W r i t of

C e r t i o r a r i on t he basi s of a r b i t r a r i ness . B u tt he hear i ng o f fi cerw entbeyond that , and sta t e d- 11 - h i s r easons f

o rbel i evi n g M s . M apl es’fi r s t accountof

t he or i g i n of

her i n j u r i es ra t hert han herl a t e rr ecant a t i on.

These i ncl uded M s . M apl es’econom i c dependence upon M r . M aney and hi s f a m i l y , t he con s i s tency betw een hersta t e m ent s t o t he par o l e of

fi cer , and t hose s he m ade t o l a w enf o r cem entand m edi cal per sonnel i n th e hospi t a l , and t he cl osenes s i n t i m e bet w een t hose sta t e m ent s and t he t i m e of t he i nci dent s i n quest i on. The hear i n g of

fi ceral so noted t hatM r . M aney had adm i t t ed dur i ng t h e hear i n g t hathe had gr abbed M s . M apl es’shoul der s to cal m herdow n , and t hathe adm i t t ed t o atl east i ndi r ectcon t act w i t h M s . M apl e s a fte rhe w as w a r ned t o avoi d al l cont actw i t h her( t hough he di d s t a t e , as di d M s . M apl es, t hatshe was t h e o ne w ho i n i t i a t ed t h e cont act ) . C onsi der i ng t he r easoni ng of th e hear i ng of

fi cer , w e cannot concl ude th a t th e in i t i a l deci s i on of t he B oar d w as arb i t r a r y or t hat i t l acked a r a t i onal basi s .

I t al so f

o l l o w s t hatt her e w as a ra t i onal basi s f o rt h e B oar d ’ s r e fusal t o convene anot herhear i ng aft e rt he ass aul t char ges agai nst

M r . M aney we r e di s m i s s ed. C ont r a r y to M r . M aney’ s ass e r t i ons, t he B oar d ’ s re fusal w as not pr ecl uded by “ s i gni fi cantnew evi dence. ” Ms . Ma p l e s m ade i t abundant l y cl earatt he r evocat i o n hear i n g t hatshe di d noti n t end t o pr ess char ges or t est i f y agai nst

M r . M aney. U nder t hat ci r cum s tance, and consi der i ng t he hei ght ened- 12 - bur d e n of

pr oof r equi r ed f

o ra cr i m i nal convi c t i on, i t i s not ata l l surp r i s i n g th a t th e B r adl ey Count y Cour t di s m i s s e d t he char ges. M s . M apl es’deci s i on t o change hersto r y m ay hav e sav ed M r . M aney f r o m anot herconvi c t i on and an addi t i onal j a i l t e r m , buti t w as not suf fi c i entt o pr event

hi s paro l e fr o m bei ng r evoked.

I V . The j udg m ent of

t he t r i a l cour t i s af fi r m ed. R e m and t h i s cause t o t he C i r cui tC our t of D avi dson Count y f

o rfu rth e rpr oceedi ngs consi s tentw i t h t h i s opi n i on. Tax t he costs on appeal t o t h e appel l ant .

______________________________________ BEN H. CA N T R E L L , P R E S I D I NG J U D G E , M . S . CONCU R :

_____________________________ W I L L I AM C. KOCH, J R . , J UDGE

_____________________________- 13 - W I L L I AM B. CA I N , J UDGE