# FILED June 18, 1997 Cecil W. Crowson Ap pellate Cou rt Clerk GEORGE RUFF, ) ) Davidson Chancery Plaintiff/Appellant, ) No. 96-1362-I ) VS. ) ) Appeal No. CHARLES TRAUGHBER, CHAIRMAN, ) 01-A-01-9702-CH-00074 TENNESSEE BOAR

D OF P AROLES, ) ET AL., ) ) Defendants

/Appellee s. )
IN THE COURT OF AP PEALS OF

TENNESSEE MIDDLE SECT ION AT NASHV ILLE APPEA LED FROM

THE CHANCER

Y COURT OF

DAVIDSON

COUNTY AT NASHVILL E, TENNESSEE HONORABLE IR

VIN H. KI

LCREASE, JR ., CHANCE LLOR John Knox Walkup Attorney Gene

ral and Reporter Teresa S. Thomas #12788 Counsel fo

r the State 404 James Robertson Parkway Nashville, TN 37243 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS/APPELL EES George Ruff, #203318 BMSP, P.O. Box 1000 Petros, TN 37845 PRO SE/PLAINTI

FF/APPELL

ANT AFFI RMED AND

REMANDED HENRY F. TODD PRESIDING

JUDGE, MIDDL

E SECTION
CONCUR: SAMUEL L . LEWIS, JUDGE BEN H. CANTRELL , JUDGE-2-

GEORGE RUFF, ) ) Davidson Chancery Plaintiff/Appellant, ) No. 96-1362-I ) VS. ) ) Appeal No. CHARLES TRAUGHBER, CHAIRMAN, ) 01-A-01-9702-CH-00074 TENNESSEE BOAR

D OF P AROLES, ) ET AL., ) ) Defendants

/Appellee s. )



### O P I N I O N The captioned plaintiff has appealed from the judgme nt of the Trial Court which dismissed plaintif

f ’s petition for certiorari. Plaintiff’s petition concerned the action of the defenda nts, members of the Board of Paroles, in deny ing petitioner’s application for parole from the custody of the De

partment of Correction. The only issue pre sented to

this Court b y the appell ant rea ds as follo ws: The Trial Court erred in overruling petitioner’s motion for enlargement of time for filing and the n dismissing the petition for the writ of certiorari for failure to timely file.
The petition for certiorari was filed with the Trial Court on May 1, 1996. It does not state the date of the order of the Parole Boa rd to be reviewed.
The Board filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the petition was not filed with the Trial Court within 60 days after the a ction to be reviewed as required by T.C.A. § 27-9-1 02. T he motion was suppo

rted by affida vit identif yin g a ce rtain record of the Parole Board e ntitled “Notice of Board Action Par

ole Relea se Hear

ing.” T he only intellig ible information appearing on said sheet is the identification of plaintiff, three words “Decline - Revie w” 135, S-0-01 Y-P.S., three in itials dated1-24-96, 1-26-96, and 2-5-96 a nd a sepa

rate init ial dated 2-5-96. Wh

ile the sheet just described may be more inf

ormative to one knowledgeable of its code, it is virtua

lly w orthless to the-3-

uninitiat ed. Presumably, it is intended as evidenc e that the action of the Board took place on Fe br ua ry 5 , 1 99 6. If s o, th e c om pl ai nt , f il ed on Ma y 1, 19 96 , w as un ti me ly. The petition admits that the Board’s decision was entered on F ebruary 5, 1996, butclaims that petit ioner did not receive notice of the decision “until Februa ry”. Howe

ver, there is no sworn evidence to support the latter claim. As above stated, plaintiff’s sole complaint on appeal is that the 60-day time limitation of § 27-9-102, was not extended. The exten sion was not requested until September 17, 1996, seven months after the date of the order to be reviewed, a nd five months after the expiration of the statutory time for filing petition for review.
Petitioner c laims that

his “jailhouse law ye

r” exclud ed week ends and non-business day s in computing t hat th e 60-day pe riod for filing petition for review extended to May 10, 1996. Unfortun ately

for plain tiff, the opinion of

the jailho use lawyer

was inco rrect. A much mor

e reliab le source of infor

mation on a

ppellate procedu re is Ten nessee R ules of Ap

pellate p rocedur e, which is doubtless available to plaintiff.
Plaintiff also cla ims that his petition was postmarked May 10, 1996, but this statement is not supported by evidenc e. Since the petiti on and moti on for enlargement admit facts showing that the petition was un ti me ly, a judgment of di smissal wa s in order. Thandiwe v. Traughber , Tenn. App. 1994, 909 S.W.2d 802, 803-804. The judgment of the Trial Court is affirmed. Costs of this appeal are taxed against the-4-

plaintiff. The cause is remanded to the Trial Court for nec essary f urther procedure.
AFFI RMED AND

REMANDED

___________________________________ HENRY F. TODD PRESIDING

JUDGE, MIDDL

E SECTION
CONCUR:

_____________________________ SAMUEL L . LEWIS, JUDGE

_____________________________ BEN H. CANTRELL , JUDGE