F IL ED

O c t ober 30, 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 heast e 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 r t 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 r R 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 at t he Lake Count y R egi onal C o r r ect i onal

Faci l i t y f i l ed a Pet i t i on f o r W 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 hat t he B o a r d of Par o l es had act e d

ille g a lly i n r evoki ng hi s p a r o l e , and i n r e f usi ng t o r econsi der t h e

r evocat i on. The ci r cui t cour t g r ant ed sum m a r y j udgm ent t o t h e

B oar d of Par o l es. W e af f i 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 w as 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 ght year

sent ence. H e w as r e l eased on par o l e on A ugust 30, 1995. A t th e

t i m e of hi s r e l e a se, he si gned a Cer t i f i 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 hat he 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 f r i end, sw o r e out a cr i m i nal w a r r ant agai nst hi m , al l egi ng t hat he

had ass aul t ed her on Febr uar y 13, Febr uar y 22, and Febr uar y 29, and

t hat she had t o go t o t he em e r gency r oom f o r t r eat m ent f o l l o w i ng t h e

ass aul t of 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 f i 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 f u r t her cont act w i t h M s . M apl es or her

f a m i l y , ei t her di r ect l y or i ndi r ect l y .

The par o l e of f i cer al so t e l ephoned M s . M apl es, and t o l d

her t o docum ent any at t e m p t s by M r . M aney t o cont act her . The next

day, M s . M apl es t o l d M s . R eed t h a t a f e m a l e f r i end of her s had

t e l ephoned, and t o l d her t hat M r . M aney w as v e r y s o r r y f o r w hat he

had done, t hat he w oul d pay her hospi t a l bi l l s , t hat he w ant ed t o get

back t oget her w i t h her , and t hat he w ant ed her t o dr o p t he char ges.

M s . M apl e s s a i d t hat she coul d hear M 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 f r i end w hat t o say . M s . R eed w as abl e t o

conf i r m t h i s account by m aki ng a cal l t o t he f r 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 her t o dr op t he char ges

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

t h e par o l e of f i cer t hat she w ant ed t o dr op t he char ges a gai nst M r .

M aney. She t o l d M s . R eed t hat M r . M aney’ s f a m i l y had agr eed t o hel p

her w i t h her bi l l s , t hat she w oul d be abl e t o m ove back i n t o M r .

M aney’ s hom e , and t hat M r . M aney had agr eed t o go t o counsel i ng f o r

h i s pr obl e m s .

The par o l e of f i c e r gener 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 r t 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 t al l i nst r uct i ons of m y par o l e

o f f i 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 r w i s e e x e m p t e d . ” ) Sh e al so cont act 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 ant ser ved. H e f a i l ed t o do so, and

t h e par o l e of f i cer added anot her vi 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 r par o l e r evocat i on.

M r . M aney w as 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 M a r ch 15. O n t hat dat e , he agr eed

t o wa i v e a pr e l i m i nar y par o l e r evocat i on hear i ng, and r equest ed t hat

t h e f i nal r evocat i o n hear i ng be hel d as soon as poss i b l e . The hear i n g

t ook pl ace on A p r i l 11, 1996. A t t hat t 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 t t he hear i ng, t he hear i ng of f i cer expl a i ned M r . M aney’ s

r i ght s t o hi m , and he w as r epr esent ed by an at t 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 pr e 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 f t e r t 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 M s . 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 f i cer sus t a i ned one count of 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 hat M 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 adopt t he hear i ng of f i cer ’ s

r ecom m endat i on. 

O n June 26, 1996, M r . M aney f i 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 r a new hear i ng on hi s par o l e

r evocat i on, on t he basi s of w hat he cal l ed “ s i gni f i cant new evi dence. ”

The pur por t ed new evi dence w a s t hat M s . M apl es had r ecant ed her

ear l i e r st a 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 f i l ed a Pet i t i on f o r C 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 hat t h e

B oar d act ed i l l egal l y by r evoki ng hi s par o l e on t he basi s of a pendi n g

c r i m i nal char ge, and t hat he 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 hat char ge. The t r i a l cour t
- 6 -

d i d not agr ee, and gr a n t ed su m m a r y j udgm ent t 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 ant cont ends t hat si m p l y bei ng a r r est ed 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 ( f i l ed K noxvi l l e , A p r i l 16,

1996) . We agr ee. B u t w e m ust al so poi n t out , how ever , t hat a

convi c t i o n f o r a 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 r t 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

secur e a convi c t i on, and t hat r equi r ed t o r evoke a par o l e .

W e m ust al so poi n t out t hat a Pet i t i on f o r a C o m m on Law

W r i t o f C e rti o r a r i af f o r ds t he pet i t i oner a ver y l i m i t ed scope of r evi e w .

T h e r evi e w i ng cour t does 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 r cour 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 der t he i n f e r i o r cour t t o send up t he 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 hat t h e i n f e r i o r cour t

exceeded it s ju r i s d i c t i o n or act ed i l l egal l y , f r 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 ext of 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 r Supr e m e C our t has s t a t ed t hat t he f u l l of panopl y

r i ght s due a cr i m i nal def e ndant w ho has not yet been convi c t ed of

any cr i m e do not appl 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 t a par o l ee i s ent i t l ed t o a

m easur e of due pr ocess , because t he 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 out t he m i n i m u m due pr ocess r equi r e m ent s f o r f i 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 osur e t o t h e

[ p r obat i oner or ] 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 t o

p r esent w i t ness es and docum ent a r y evi dence; ( d )

t he r i ght t o conf r ont and cr oss - exam i ne adver s e

w i t ness e s ( unl ess th e hear i ng of f i cer speci f i cal l y

f i nds good cause f o r not a llo w i n g conf r 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 not be j udi c i a l of f i cer s or l a w yer s ; and ( f ) a

w r i tte n st a t e m ent by t he f act f i nder s as t o t h e

evi dence r e l i ed on and r easons f o r r evoki n g

[ p r obat i on or ] par o l e . "

 

863 S. W . 2d at 408.
- 8 -

Exam i n i n g t he r ecor d of t h i s cas e , w e f i nd t hat t 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 t al l t he due pr ocess

r equi r e m ent s l i s t ed above. W e f u r t her f i nd t hat t he hea r i n g of f i cer

conduct e d t he hear i ng w i t h a scr upul ous r egar d f o r M 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 anner as i n f o r m a l as i s

consi s t ent w i t h due pr ocess , and t he t echni cal r u l es of evi dence

shal l not appl y t o such hear i ngs. ” I t i s i nst r uct i ve t o not e how t h e

hear i n g i n t he pr esent case pl ayed i t sel f out i 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 M s . R eed, w h o

t e s tifie d as t o bot h si des of her co n ver sat i ons w i t h M r . M aney, M s .

M apl e s and ot her s . She al so not ed M r . M aney’ s pr i o r hi s t o r y of

a s saul t i v e behavi o r . M r . M aney’ s at t 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 t even t he at t o r ney

a c know l e d ged t hat hear say i 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 hat t h e ef f ect of t h i s r e 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 r f o r t he St a t e t o pr esent i t s cas e ,

w a s bal anced by t he ef f ect of an o t her de v i a t i on f r o m nor m a l

cour t r oom pr ocedur e , w h i ch benef i t ed t he par o l ee.
- 9 -

M r . M aney’ s at t 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 ect quest 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 at a 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 ecant her ear l i e r s t o r y . M s .

M apl e s di d not cont r adi c t M s . R eed’ s t est i m ony as t o t he cont ent of

her conver sat i ons w i t h t he par o l e of f i c e and ot her s , but she s t a t e d

t hat she had m ade up t he st o r y of M r . M aney’ s as saul t s on her out of

anger at hi m , because he w ant ed t o end t hei r r e l a t i onshi p .

She expl a i ned her i n j u r i es as r esul t i ng f r o m an al t e r cat i o n

w i t h anot her w o m a n at w o r k . She al so cl a i m e d t hat she her sel 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 hat she r epor t ed t o M s .

R eed. M r . M aney’ s at t o r ney w as ab l e t o l ead her t h r ough t h i s new

ver s i o n of event s s t ep- by- s t ep, r equi r i ng her ass ent al one t o est abl i s h

l a r ge por t i ons of her t est i m ony.

The at t o r ney al so l ed M r . M aney t o est abl i sh t hat dur i n g

t h e co u r se of hi s par o l e , M r . M aney f a i t h f u l l y r epor t ed t o hi s par o l e

o f f i 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 hat he

had ever hi t or i n j u r ed M s . M apl es. 

W e not e t hat t he st andar d of pr oof f o r vi o l a t i on of par o l e

i s t he pr eponder ance of t he evi dence, not gui 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 f i cer and 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

ver s i ons of t he t r u t h t hat w 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 not obl i gat e d t o gi ve M r . M aney t he benef i 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 ,

876 S. W . 2d 101, 104 ( Tenn. A pp. 1993) . W e shoul d not have t o sear c 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 der t o det e r m i n e

upon w hat basi s par o l e w as r evoked, f o r t 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 f i nder ’ s w r i t t en st a t e m ent . See s e c t i o n (f ) o f th e

excer p t f r o m S t a t e v. W ade quot ed above. 

I n t he pr esent case, i t m i ght have been s u f f i c i e n t fo r th e

f act f i nder t o sum m a r i z e t he evi dence upon w h i ch hi s f i ndi ngs w e r e

based, and t o st a t e t hat t 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 hat of M s . M apl es, i n or der t 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 r a 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 t t he hear i ng o f f i cer w ent beyond t hat , and st a t e d
- 11 -

h i s r easons f o r bel i evi n g M s . M apl es’ f i r s t account of t he or i g i n of her

i n j u r i es r a t her t han her l a t e r r 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 t ency bet w een her st a t e m ent s

t o t he par o l e of f i cer , and t hose s he m ade t o l a w enf o r cem ent and

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 st a 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 f i cer al so not ed t hat M r . M aney had adm i t t ed dur i ng t h e

hear i n g t hat he had gr abbed M s . M apl es’ shoul der s t o cal m her dow n ,

and t hat he adm i t t ed t o at l east i ndi r ect con t act w i t h M s . M apl e s

a fte r he w as w a r ned t o avoi d al l cont act w i t h her ( t hough he di d

s t a t e , as di d M s . M apl es, t hat she w as 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 f i 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 ar b 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 hat t her e w as a r a t i onal basi s f o r t h e

B oar d ’ s r e f usal t o convene anot her hear i ng af t e r t he ass aul t char ges

agai nst M r . M aney w e r e di s m i s s ed. C ont r a r y t o M r . M aney’ s

ass e r t i ons, t he B oar d ’ s r e f usal w as not pr ecl uded by “ s i gni f i cant new

evi dence. ” Ms . Ma p l e s m ade i t abundant l y cl ear at t he r evocat i o n

hear i n g t hat she di d not i 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 t ance, and consi der i ng t he hei ght ened
- 12 -

bur d e n of pr oof r equi r ed f o r a cr i m i nal convi c t i on, i t i s not at a l l

sur p 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 her st o r y m ay hav e sav ed M r . M aney f r o m

anot her convi c t i on and an addi t i onal j a i l t e r m , but i t w as not

suf f i c i ent t o pr event hi s par o l e f r 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 f i r m ed. R e m and t h i s

cause t o t he C i r cui t C our t of D avi dson Count y f o r fu rth e r pr oceedi ngs

consi s t ent w i t h t h i s opi n i on. Tax t he cost s 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