FILED

April 30, 1997

Cecil W. Crowson

Appellate Court Clerk

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

MIDDLE SECTION AT NASHVILLE

ALVIN SEAGROVES, )

)

Plaintiff/Appellant, )

)

) Davidson Chancery

VS. ) No. 94-787-III

)

) Appeal No.

TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF ) 01A01-9508-CH-00334

CORRECTION, et al., )

)

Defendants/Appellees. )

APPEAL FROM THE CHANCERY COURT FOR DAVIDSON COUNTY

AT NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE

THE HONORABLE ROBERT S. BRANDT, CHANCELLOR

For the Plaintiff/Appellant: For the Defendants/Appellees:

Alvin Seagroves, Pro Se Charles W. Burson

AttorneyGeneral andReporter

Patricia C. Kussmann

Nashville, Tennessee

AFFIRMED AND REMANDED

WILLIAM C. KOCH, JR., JUDGE
1By order of March 8, 1996, this court consolidated the appeal in Seagroves v. Tennessee

Dep’t of Correction, App. No. 01A01-9603-CH-00100 with the 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 consolidated appeal involves a prisoner’s dispute with the Department

of Correction concerning the calculation of his statutorily authorized sentence

credits.1 The prisoner, acting pro se, filed two petitions for declaratory judgment

in the Chancery Court for Davidson County in which he asserted that the

Department had not provided him with the proper credits. The trial court

dismissed the first petition on the grounds that the prisoner had not exhausted his

administrative remedies and dismissed the second petition on the ground that it

had become moot because the Department had awarded the prisoner his requested

credits. The prisoner asserts on this appeal that the Department incorrectly

calculated his prison sentence reduction credits. We have determined that the

calculation discrepancy does not presently present a justiciable issue because the

prisoner has not sought to resolve this dispute with the Department.

I.

In August 1971 Alvin Seagroves was sentenced to serve three to five years

in the state prison for receiving and concealing stolen property. He was paroled

in July 1973, and less than one week later he was involved in a deadly gun battle.

During the fray, Mr. Seagroves shot and killed three persons and seriously

wounded his former girlfriend. As a result, a Grundy County jury convicted him

of three counts of first degree murder and one count of assault with intent to

commit first degree murder and sentenced him to three life sentences and a six to

twenty-one year sentence, all to be served concurrently.2

 Mr. Seagroves is

presently housed at the Southeastern Tennessee State Regional Correctional

Facility at Pikeville.
-3-

In March 1994 Mr. Seagroves filed a petition in the Chancery Court for

Davidson County seeking declaratory judgment pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-

5-224 (1991). He claimed that the Department of Correction had declined to grant

him prisoner sentence reduction credits pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 41-21-236

(1990) and requested a judicial declaration that he was entitled to these credits

beginning on March 1, 1986. On February 24, 1995, the trial court dismissed Mr.

Seagroves’ petition on the ground that he had not first requested a declaratory

order from the Department pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-5-223 (1991). Mr.

Seagroves filed a timely notice of appeal from the order dismissing his petition.

While his first appeal was pending, Mr. Seagroves filed a second petition

in the Chancery Court for Davidson County on May 15, 1995, seeking the same

relief. On this occasion, he produced evidence that he had unsuccessfully

presented his claim to the Department in 1994. The Department moved to dismiss

Mr. Seagroves’ second petition on the ground that it had granted him the sentence

credits he requested and supported its motion with an affidavit stating that Mr.

Seagroves had received 300 days under the prisoner performance sentence credit

laws and 1,756 days under the prisoner sentence reduction credit law. Mr.

Seagroves responded to the Department’s motion by insisting that he was entitled

to 1,792 days of prisoner sentence reduction credit rather than the 1,756 days

granted by the Department. On September 7, 1995, the trial court dismissed Mr.

Seagroves’ petition on the ground that he had “already been given the relief

requested.” The trial court did not address the 36-day discrepancy between the

Department’s and Mr. Seagroves’ calculations. 

II.

The doctrine of separation of powers counsels that the courts should defer

to demonstrated administrative expertise and should also decline to perform the

duties that administrative agencies should perform. Accordingly, Tenn. Code

Ann. § 4-5-224(b) conditions the right to seek a declaratory judgment concerning

the application of a statute, rule, or agency order on first seeking a declaratory

order from the appropriate agency. This requirement provides an administrative
-4-

agency with an opportunity to resolve the issue, and if the issue is not resolved,

provides a factual record upon which the courts may act. 

The initial dispute between Mr. Seagroves and the Department involved his

right to claim sentence credits for a portion of his sentence. Mr. Seagroves

properly sought judicial relief after the Department refused to provide him with

any credits; however, the complexion of the dispute changed after Mr. Seagroves

first requested judicial relief. After the Department decided to grant him sentence

credits, the dispute was no longer whether Mr. Seagroves was entitled to sentence

credits but rather whether the Department’s calculation was correct. As far as this

record shows, Mr. Seagroves has not yet taken up the latter issue with the

Department.

The present record does not permit either this court or the trial court to

resolve the 36-day dispute between Mr. Seagroves and the Department. Mr.

Seagroves asserts that he is entitled to 16 days per month credit for 112 months.

While Tenn. Code Ann. § 41-21-236(a)(2) provides that prisoners may earn from

one to sixteen days of sentence credits each month, Tenn. Code Ann. § 41-21-

236(a)(3) conditions these credits on good institutional behavior and satisfactory

program performance. 

The Department’s evidence does not reveal how it determined that Mr.

Seagroves should receive 1,756 days of prisoner sentence reduction credits rather

than the 1,792 days demanded by Mr. Seagroves. There are any number of

possible explanations for this discrepancy, including that the Department’s

calculation is incorrect or that Mr. Seagroves lost some credits for disciplinary or

other bona fide reasons. The courts should not be burdened with resolving this

sort of dispute until the parties have attempted to resolve it themselves.

Accordingly, the trial court properly dismissed Mr. Seagroves’ second petition for

a declaratory judgment.

III.
-5-

We affirm the dismissal of Mr. Seagroves’ first petition for declaratory

judgment as moot, and we affirm the dismissal of Mr. Seagroves’ second petition

for declaratory judgment because he never requested the Department to resolve the

current 36-day dispute concerning the calculation of his prisoner sentence

reduction credits. We also remand the case to the trial court for whatever further

proceedings may be required, and we tax the costs of this appeal 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