# FILED
Ap ril 30, 1997 Cecil W. Crowson Ap pellate Cou rt Clerk 

## IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE MIDDLE SECTION AT NASHVILLE

ALVIN SEA GROVES, ) ) Plaintiff /Appella nt, )

) ) Davidson Chancery VS. ) No. 94-787-III ) ) Appeal N o. TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF ) 01A01-9508- CH-00334 CORRECTION, et al., ) ) Defenda nts/Appell ees. )

APPEAL FROM THE CHANCERY COURT FOR DAVIDSON COUNTY

AT NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE THE HONORABLE ROBERT S. BRANDT, CHANCELLOR

For the Plaint iff/Appellant : For the Defenda nts /Appellees : Alvin Seagroves, Pro Se Charles W . Burson Attorn ey Gene

ral and Reporte

r Patrici a C. Ku ssmann Nashville, Tennessee



## AFFIRMED AND REMANDED

WILLIAM C. KOCH, JR., JUDGE1 By order of March 8, 1996, this court consolidated the appeal in Seagroves v. Tennessee Dep’t of Correction , App. No. 01A01-9603-CH-001 00 with th e appeal in Seagroves v. Tennessee Dep’t of Correction , App. No. 01A01-9508-CH-00334.

2 Seagroves v. State, Grundy Co. Nos. 730, 731, 732, 733, slip op. at 1 (Tenn. Crim. App. Sept. 15, 1976, certiorari denied (Tenn. Dec. 6, 1976).

-2- 

## O P I N I O N

This cons olid ated a ppeal invo lves a pris oner’s disputewith the D epartm ent of Correct ion concer

ning the ca

lculation of

his statutor

ily aut h orized s entence credits. 1 The prisoner, acting pro se, filed two petitions for declaratory judgm ent in th e C hancery

Court for

Davidson C ounty in which he a sserted th at the Departm ent had not provided him with the proper credits. The trial court dismissedthe first

petition on t

he grounds that the pr

isoner had not exhauste d his administrative

rem edies and di smisse d the second petition on t

he ground tha

t it had bec ome moot be cause the Department had awar

ded the prisoner his requested credits. The prisoner

asserts on this appea

l that the D epartm

ent incorr

ectly calculated his prison sentence reduction credits. We have determ ined that th e calculat ion discrepa

ncy doe s not

presently present a justic iable issue

because t he prisoner ha s not sought to r esolve this dispute wi th the Dep artm ent.

I.

In August 1971 Alvin S eagroves was sentenced to ser ve three to five years in the state pri son for re ceiving and concealing stolen property. He was paroled in July 197 3, and

less than one week later he was involvedin a deadly gun battle. During th e fra y, Mr . Seagr oves shot and

killed thre e persons a

nd seriously wounded his former girlfriend. A s a result, a Grundy County juryconvicted him of three cou nts of fir st deg ree m urder and one count of

assault w ith intent to
comm itfirst degr

ee m urder and sentence d him tothree lif e sentenc es and a six

to t wenty -one year s ent enc e, al l to be s erv ed c onc urre ntl y. 2 Mr. Se agroves is pres ently housed at the Southeastern Tennessee State Regional Correctional Facility at Pikeville.-3- In March 1994 Mr. Sea

groves fil ed a petiti on in the Cha ncery Court for Davidson County seeking dec laratory

judgm ent pursuan

tto Tenn. C ode Ann. § 4- 5-224 (1991). He claimed that the D epartment of Correction had declined t

o grant him prisoner s entence r

eduction cr

edits pursua

nt to Tenn. Code Ann. § 41-21-236 (1990) and reque sted a ju dicial dec laration t hat he wa s entitled t

o th ese cre dits beginning on March 1 , 1986. O n Februar y 24, 1 995, the trial court dismissed Mr. Se agroves’ petition on the ground that he had not first requested a d eclarator y order from the Depa rtment pursuant t

o Tenn. C ode Ann. § 4-5-223 (1991). Mr. Seagrove s filed a t

imely notice of a

ppeal fro m the order dism issing his pet

ition.

While his first a

ppeal wa s pending, Mr. Seagroves filed a second petition in the Chancery Court for Dav id so n Co un ty o n Ma y 15 , 19 95 , se eki ng th e sa me relief. On th is occasio n, he produ ced eviden ce that he had unsucce ssfully presented his claim

to the De partm ent in 1994. The Departm ent moved to dism iss Mr. Seagrove s’ seco nd petition on the ground t

hat it had granted him the sentence credits he r equ est ed a nd su pp ort ed i ts mo tion with an affidavit stating that Mr. Seagroves had received 300 days under the prisoner perform ance sent ence cre dit laws and 1,756 days under the prisoner sentence reduction credit law. Mr. Seagroves responded t

o the Depa

rtment’s m

otion by insisting that he was entitled to 1,792 days of prisoner sentence reduction cr edit rath er th an t he 1 ,75 6 da ys granted by the Departm

ent. On September

7, 1995, the trial court dismissed Mr. Seagrove s’ petition on the ground that he had “already been given the reli ef requested .” The trial court did not ad d ress the 36 -day d iscrepan cy bet

ween the Department’s and Mr. Se agroves’ calc ulation s.
II.

The doctrine of separation of powers counsels tha t the court s should

defer to demon s tr ated adm

inistrativ e experti se and should also decli ne to perf

orm t he duties that adm

inistrativ e agencie s should p e rform . Accordingly , Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-5-224(b) conditions th e right to seek a de clarator

y jud gment

concerni ng the applicati on o f a statute, rule, or agency order on first seeking a declaratory order from t he a ppr opr iat e ag enc y. This requirem ent provide s an adm

inistrativ e-4-

agency with an opp ortunity to resolve

the issu e, and if

the issue is not resolve d, provides a factual reco rd upon wh ich the cou rts may act.

The initial dispute between Mr. Seagroves and theDepartm ent involved

his right to claim sentence credits f or a po rtio n of his sentence. Mr. Seagroves properly sought judi cial rel ief afte r the De partm ent refus ed to pr ovide hi m wi th anycredits; however, the com plexion of

the dispute changed after Mr. Seagroves first requested judicial relief. After the Depa rtmentdecided to grant him sentence credits, the dispute

was no longer whether Mr. Seagroves was entitled to sentence credits but rather whether the Departm ent’s calculation was correct. As far as this record shows, Mr. Seagroves has n ot yet taken up th e latter issue with

the Departm ent.

The present r

ecord does not perm

it either this court or the tria

l court to resolve the 36-day dispute between Mr . S eagroves and the Department. Mr

. Seagrove s asserts t

hat he is en

titled to 16 d ays pe

r mont h credit for 112 m

onths. While Tenn. C ode Ann. § 41-21-236( a)(2) provides that prisoners mayearn fr om one to s ixt een day s of senten ce credi ts each m onth, Tenn. Code A

nn. § 41-21- 236(a)(3) conditions these credits on good institutional beh avior and satisfactory program performance.

The Departm

ent’s e vide nce do es not reveal how it determined that Mr. Seagroves should rec eive 1,756days of prisoner s entence r

eduction credits rather than th e 1, 79 2 d ays dema nded b y Mr. Seagrove s. Ther e are any num

ber of possibleexplana

tio ns fo r this disc repan cy, incl udin g tha t the D epart ment’s calculat ion is i nco rre ct o r th at M r. S eag rov es l os t so me credits for disciplinary or otherbona fide r

easons. T

he courts s hould not be bur dened wit h resolv ing thi s sortof dispute until the parties have attempted to res o lve it themselves. Acco rdi ngl y, the trial courtproperly dismis sed Mr. S eagroves’ second petition for a declaratory

judgm ent.

III.-5- We affirm the dismissal of Mr. S eagroves’ first petition for declaratory judgm ent as mo ot, and w e affir

m the dismis sal of

Mr. Se agroves’ second petition for dec lar ato ry ju dg ment bec aus e he nev er r equ est ed t he D epa rtme nt to resolv e the current 36-day dispute concerning the calculation of his prisoner sentence reduction credits. We al so remandthe case to the trial court for whatever further proceedin gs may be re quired, a nd we tax t

he costs of

this appea

l to Alvin Seagroves for which execution, if necessary, may issue.

_______________

__ ___________ WILLIAM C. KOCH, JR., JUDGE

CONCUR:

_________________

_______________ HENRY F. TODD, P.J., M.S.

_________________

_______________ SAMUEL L. LEWIS, JUDGE