### IN THE COURT OF APP EALS OF TENNESS EE AT NAS HVILLE A SS IG N E D O N BR IE FS JU N E 24, 200 4 PA UL MOS S v. TEN NES SEE B OAR D O F P ROB ATION AN D P AR OLE

Direc t Appeal from the Chancer y Court for Davidson Cou nty No. 02-3154-I C laud ia Bon nym an, Chan cellor

No. M2003- 02125-COA-R 3-CV - F iled Novem ber 12, 2004

Th is a c tio n a

ri se s o ut o f A pp e llant’ s p aro le he ari ng pr oc e e din g s. Sub se qu e nt t o h is o ri g ina l pa ro le he ari ng , A pp e llant f

ile d a pet iti on fo r writ of c e rtior ari wi th the Da vid so n Coun ty Chanc e ry

Cou rt

. Upon Appellant’ s motion for summary judgme nt and Appellee ’s motion to dis miss, the trial court g rante d Appellee ’s motion to dis miss and denied Appellant’s motion for summary judgme nt. For thefo llo wi ng re a so ns , w e a ff irm.
Tenn. R. App . P . 3; Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Chancer y Court Affi rm ed
A L AN E. H I G H ERS , J ., delivere d the opi nion of the court, in which D AVI D R. F ARMER , J ., and H O LLY M. K I RBY , J ., joined. Paul C. Moss, J r., pro s e , Nashville, TN
Paul G . Su mme rs , A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l a ndRe po rt e r, Mic ha e l Mo or e , So lic ito r Gen eral , Pame la S. L orch, Senior Counsel, Na shville, TN, for Appe lleeT enn es s ee C our t of Ap peal s Rul e 10. M emo r andum O pi ni on. – ( b) T hi s Co ur t , wi t h t he concu r r enc e 1

o f al l judges pa rt i ci p at i ng i n t he case, m ay af f i rm, r everse or mo d i f

y t he act i o ns o f

t he t ri al co urt by m e m o ra nd um o p inio n w h e n a fo rm a l o p inio n w o u ld h a v e n o p re c e d e n tial v a lue . W h e n a c a se is d e c id e d b y m e m o ra n d u m o p inio n it shal l be de si gnat ed “ M E M O R A N D U M O P IN IO N , ” shal l no t be pub l i shed, and s hal l not b e ci t ed or rel i ed on f o r any r eas on i n a ny un r el at ed cas e.

M os s s u bmi t t ed t h r ee I n mat e I n for mat i on Requ es t s dat ed N ov embe r 1 a n d 30, 2000, a n d J an u ar y 29, 2 20 01 , one c l as s i f

i cat i on appeal ment i oni ng he was wai t i ng f or a wr i t t en f i nal deci s i on of

hi s par ol e h ear i ng dat ed D ecem b er 4, 2 0 0 0 , one l et t er t o W arde n Flora H o l l and d at ed January 4, 20 0 1 , and t hree l et t ers t o t he “ B o ard o f P ardo ns a n d P a ro le s” d a te d O c to b e r 2 9 , 2 0 0 1 , Ja n u a ry 1 4 a n d A u g u st 1 9 , 2 0 0 2

..

M o ss w a s d e n ie d p a ro le o n the b a sis tha t “[t]h e re le a se fro m c u sto d y a t t h is ti m e w o u ld D e p r e c ia te 3 t he s er i ous nes s of

t he cr i me of

wh i ch t he offender s t ands conv i ct ed or pr om ot e D i s r es pect of t he l aw. ” -2- M EM OR AN DU M OP IN ION 1
F acts and P roce dural Hi story Paul Moss (“Moss” or “ Appellant”) was c onvicted for the crime of sec ond deg ree murder, and in S eptember 2000, he became eligible for parole consideration. A hearing was he ld on October 11, 2000, at the Middle Tenne ssee Corr ectional Anne x in N ashville, Tenne ssee. At the hearing, the B oa rdof Pr ob a tio n a ndParo le (the “ B oa rd ” ) r e c omm end ed th at Mo ss s e rv e theba la nc e of his s e n t e n c e , d e n i e d M o s s p ar o l e , a n d d i d n o t i n f o r m M o s s o f a r e a s o n w h y h e w a s d e n i e d p ar o l e . In order to pr epar e for an administrative appea l, Moss made se vera l reque sts for the f inal decision of 2 the B oard in writing. After rec eiving no response from the B oard and no written dec ision ex plaining the rea sons for the de nial of par ole, Moss filed a petition f or writ of certiorari in the Davidson County Chance ry Court on October

22, 2002, seeking del i v ery of a c opy of the B oard’ s written dec ision and “re lief in the form of r evisiting the pa role boa rd within 60 day s o f [ the chancery court’s] decision.” Subsequently , in April 2003, a copy of the B oard’ s writ t en d ec i sion denying Moss pa role wa s 3 de liv e re d to Mo ss, a ndtheI ns tituti on a l Pa ro le Of fi c e r i nf orme d M os s h e ha d f

orty -f iveday s to fi le a n a d mi n is tr a ti v e ap p e a l c o n te s ti n g th e B o ar d ’ s d e c is io n . H o w e v e r , r a th e r th a n s e e k in g an administrative appe al, Moss amende d his petition for a writ of certiorari on April 29, 2003, seeking a new parole hearing. On t he same day , Moss filed a motion for summ ary judgme nt, also seeking a new parole hearing and the rec usal of the Boa rd members f

rom that hea

ring . On May

15, 2003, the B oard f

iled a motion to dism iss Moss’ petition ar gu i n g t h at Moss was not entitled to any due proce ss rig hts and Moss had not exhausted his remedy of an a dminist rative a

ppeal.
OnMay 30 , 2 00 3, thetria l c ou rt

e nte re d a n o rd e r g ranti ng the B oa rd ’s mot ionto d ism iss , noting that prisoners do not have a constit utionally protec ted l iberty interest in par ole and that no due proce ss rights attach. The trial court also determined that the motion to dismiss should be g rante d on the basis that Moss did not ex haust h i s ad m i n i s t rative r emedies by seeking an administrative app e a l. F ina lly , the t

ri a l c ou rt no te d th a t Mo ss f

a ile d to fi le a

re sp on se to the B oa

rd ’s mot ionto dis mis s, g ivi ng thec ou rt

fu rthe r j us tif

ic a tio n f or g ranti ng theB oa

rd ’s mot ion . Mos s’ res pons e to-3-

theB oa rd ’s mot ionto d ism iss wa s r e c e ive d o n Jun e 2, 20 03 , b ut w a s d e liv e re d to p ri so n o ff ic ia ls fo r m a ili ng on May 27 , 20 03

. Th ou g h the tria l c ou rt re c og nize d th a t g ranti ng themot ionto d ism iss was no longe r proper on the basis that Moss did not f ile a response , it stil l gra n t ed t h e B o ard’ s motion on the basis that no due process rights attach to parole he aring s and Moss had failed to seek an administrative a

ppeal. Subseque ntly , Moss filed an appe al with this Court and presents the following issues, as we pe rce ive them, for our revie w: 1. Whether the trial c ourt err ed whe n it gr anted the B oard’ s motion t o dis m i s s o n the b as i s t h atM o s s h ad n o d u e p ro ce s s ri gh t s i n h i s p ar o l e h ea ri n g; 2. Whether the trial c ourt err ed whe n it gr anted the B oard’ s mot i o n t o dismiss on the basis that Moss did not file an administrative appe al; and 3. Whether the trial c ourt g ave Moss a “full and f

air he aring .”
For the following rea sons, we af firm the dec ision of the trial court and rema nd this action for an administrative appe al bef ore the Boa

rd. Stand ard of Review
A m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s f

i l e d p u r s u a n t t o T e n n . R

. C i v . P

. 1 2

. 0 2 ( 6 ) “ a d m i t s t h e tr uth of a ll rele vant and mate rial ave rments containe d in the complaint, b u t as s erts that such facts do not constitute a cause of a ction.” Stein v. Dav idson Hotel Co. , 945 S.W .2d 714, 716 (Tenn. 1997)

. “When re viewing a dis missal of a complaint under Rule 12.02( 6), this Court musttake the f actua l a lle g a tio ns c on ta ine d inthec omp la int a s true a ndre vie w the tria l c ou rt ’s le g a l c on c lus ion s de novo without g iving any presumption of cor rec tness to those conclusions.” W ill is v . Te nn . D e

p’ t of Cor r. , 1 1 3 S

. W

. 3 d 7 0 6 , 7 1 0 (T en n . 2 0 0 3 ) ( ci t i n g Do e v . S un dq uis t , 2 S.W .3d 919, 922 (Tenn. 1999) ). “B eca use a moti on to dismi ss a complaint under Rule 12.02(6) c halleng es only the leg al suffic iency of the c omplaint, courts shoul d g rant a motion to dismiss only when it appe ars that the plaintiff can prove no se t of fac ts in support of the claim that wo u l d en t i t l e t h e plaintiff to re lief.” Id . (citing Trau-Med of Am., I

nc. v. A llstat e Ins. Co. , 71 S.W .3d 691, 696 (Tenn. 2002) ).

DueP r oc e ss Ap pe llant be g ins by arg uin g that re qu ir e me nts of du e pr oc e ss a ndthec ir c ums ta nc e s o f this case make the g rant of Appellee ’s motion to dismiss improper. We be g in by noting that prisoners do not hold an absolute rig ht of release from confinement prior to the ex piration of their se ntence

. Davis v. M

aples , No. M2002-02564-COA- R3-CV, 2003 Tenn. App. L EXI S 592, at *13-14 (Te nn. C t

. Ap p . Au g. 2 5 , 2 0 0 3 ) ( ci t i n g Gr ah am v . S tate , 3 04 S.W. 2d 62 2, 62 3- 24 (T e nn . 1 95 7) ; Robinson v. Traughber , 13 S.W.3 d 361 , 364 (T e nn . Ct . A pp . 1 99 9) ; Tarpley v. Traughber , 944 S.W .2d 394, 395 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1996)). Par ole is a privileg e and not a rig ht. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40- 28-117(a ) (2 00 3) ; Te nn . Co de An n. § 4 0- 35 -5 03 (b ) ( 20 03 ); se e als o D av is , 2003 Tenn. App. LEXI S 592, at * 1 4 (c i t i n g Arnold v

. Tenn. Bd

. o f P a roles , 956 S.W .2d 478, 482 (Tenn. 1997) ). The de cision of whether to gr ant a prisoner par ole is entrusted to the B oard and not the courts. Da v is , 2003 Tenn.W e a lso no te tha t th is C o u rt h a s sta te d th a t th e B o a rd ’s c o n d u c t “m a y stil l b e sc ru tiniz e d un d e r a W rit 4

o f C e r tio ra ri to d e te rm ine if it ha s su c c e e d e d it s ju risd ic tio n , o r h a s a c te d il le g a lly, fra u d u le n tly o r a rb itra rily in di s cha r gi ng i t s f

un ct i ons . ” H o rt o n v . Par ol e El i gi bi l i t y Rev i ew Bd. , N o. M 1999- 02617- CO A- R3- CV , 2000 W L 1559718, at * 2 n . 3 ( T en n . Ct

. App. O ct

. 20, 2000) (ci t i ng P o w el l v . Par ol e El i gi bi l i t y Rev i ew Bd. , 879 S. W

. 2d 871 (T enn. C t

. A p p . 19 9 4 ))

. -4- Ap p . LE XIS 5 9 2 , at* 1 4 (c i t i n g Sta te ex re l. Iv ey v . M e ad ows , 393 S.W .2d 744, 747 (Tenn. 1965) ; Ru c k e r v . S tate , 556 S.W .2d 774, 776 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1977) ).
Be cause a prisoner

does not have a constit utional or i nhere nt rig ht to conditional relea se prior to the expiration of a valid sentenc e, a prisoner has no c onstitut ionally protec ted interest in par ole. Id

. at* 1 4 (c i t i n g Gree nh o l t z v. In ma t es of

the Neb. Penal and Corr. Complex , 442 U.S. 1, 7-8 (1 97 9) ; W rig ht v. Tra mm e ll , 8 10 F .2 d 5 89 , 5 91 (6 th C ir . 1 98 7) ; Kaylor v. Bradley , 912 S.W .2d 728, 733 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1995); Te nn. Code Ann. § 40-35-503( b) (2003) ). Ther efor e, “[w]ithout such a n in te r e s t, d u e p r o c e s s d o e s n o t a tt a ch.” Id . at *1 5. F or the se re a so ns , th e tria l c ou rt pr op e rl y g rante d the Appellee ’s motion t o dismiss as it relate d to Appellant’s claim of a violation of due pr oc e ss rig hts

. Adm inis trative Appeal Next, Appellant arg ues that the trial court err ed when it dismissed his petition for a writ of c e rt i o r ar i b a s e d o n t h e f

a c t t h a t A p p e l l a n th a d n o tf i l e d a n a d m i n i s tr a t i v e ap p e a l

. S p e c i f i c a l l y, Ap pe llant c on tends di sm issa l w a s impr op e r b e c aus e he re c e ive d a writt e n f ina l di sp os iti on of

his parole hearing a fter hefiled his ori g inal petition for a writ of certiorari. We beg in by noting that Te nn . Co de An n. § 2 7- 8- 10 1 s tate s: Th e writ of cert io rari m a y be g rante d w he ne ve r a

uth orize d b y

la w, a nda lso in a ll case s wher e an inferior tribunal, board, or office r exercising judicial functio n s h as exceede d the jurisdiction c onfer red, or is a cting illega lly , when, in the judg ment of 4 the court, there is no other plain, speedy , or adequate reme dy . This section does not apply to actions g overne d by

the Tenne ssee Rules of A ppellate Proc edure

. Tenn. Code Ann. § 27-8-101 (2000). Additionally , the Rules of the Tenne ssee Boa rd of P arole s provides further guidanc e on this issue. Specifica lly , the R ules of the B oard e numerate the following pr oc e du re s: (3) F indings a nd Notice of Dec ision. (a) Although the Boa

rd, or de signated hea

ring panel ther eof, may

deli b er at e in t he inm a te ’s pr e se nc e , in div idu a l no te s o f the B oa rdor pa ne l me mbe rs sh a ll r e ma in c on fi de nti a l. (b) The Boa

rd shall inform the e ligible inmate of i t s decision and r easons f or the decision as soon a s it is m ade.A p p el l ant at t ached a co p y of such wri t t en d i spo si t i o n to an af f i d avi t f i l ed wi t h hi s am end ed pe t i t i o n. 5

-5- (c) An inmate whose parole has b ee n revoke d, resc inded or de nied may reque st an appellate revie w by

the B oard. Requests for an appellate revie w must be rec eived by the B oard w ithin twenty -one ( 21) day s from the date the fina l disposit ion is made a va ila bleto the inm a te . I f the re qu e st i s n ot r e c e ive d w ith in t we nty -o ne (2 1) day s, it w ill be de nie d. Th e re qu e st w ill be screened by a bo ardme mbe r o r d e sig ne e to decide if a re view will be conduc ted. Reviews will be c onducted f or the following re a so ns : 1. if there is significant new e v i d en ce that was not available at the t i m e o f t h e h ea ri n g. 2. i f t here are alleg ations of misconduct by the hea ring officia l that are substantiated by

the re cord.
3. if the rewe resig nif

ic a nt p ro c e du ra l e rr or s b y thehe ari ng of

fi c ia l.

.... (g ) The r easons why a particula r inmate is de nied re lease on parole shall be furnished in written form to such inmate.
Te nn . Co mp. R. & R egs. 11 00 -1 -1 -. 07 (3 ) ( 20 04 ). Th e de c isi on re nd e re d o n a pp e llate re vie w i s a final dec ision. Tenn. Comp. R. & Reg s. 1100-1-1-.07( 3)(e ) (2004) ; Ten n . C ode Ann. § 40- 28- 10 5( d) (1 1) (2 00 3) . A ft e r e xami nin g Ap pe llant’ s pe tit ion fo r a writ o f c e rt ior ari a s a me nd e d o n A pril 29, 2003, it a

ppear s that Appellee notified Appellant of its de cision and provided Appe llant with a written copy of t he Board’ s denial of parole with rea sons for such denial. There fore , examination 5 of thepe tit iona lon e le a ds thi s Co urt to a ff irm the tria l c ou rt ’s dis mis sa l fo r f a ilu reto s tate a

c la im.
Howeve r, in light of the Boa rd’s delay in pr oviding Appellant his written fina l disposit ion and the rea sons f

or the denial of parole until af ter Appe llant filed his orig inal petition for a writ of certiorari, we aff

irm the cha ncery

court’s dismissal of Appe llant’s petition for a writ of ce rtiorari without prejudice to his pursuit of an administrative remedy

. See D avis v. Maple s , 2003 Tenn. App. LEXI S 592, at *18 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 25, 2003). The Rul es of the T ennesse e B oard of Paroles set forth a policy that an inmate must be provided with a rea son for the de nial of par ole bef ore he or she may appea l the Boa

rd’s decision. Tenn. Comp. R. & Reg s. 1100-1-1-.07 ( 2004). It require s the B oa rd to pr ov ide a n inmate wi th a w ri tte n d isp os iti on of theB oa rd ’s de c isi on a ndtheB oa rdmus t inform the inmate of

its decision, and re asons there for, “ as soon as it is made.” Te nn. Comp. R. & Reg s. 1100-1-1-.07( 3)(b) (2004). The rea son for this policy is a ppare nt: without knowledg e of w hy an inmate is denie d parole , an inmate c ould scarc ely mount an appea l and enumerat e a re as on for re ve rs ing the B oa

rd ’s de c isi on . Th e re fo re , w e a ff irm th e dis mis sa l of

Ap pe llant’ s p e tit ionfo r a writ-6-

of c e rt ior ari wi th the c ha nc e ry c ou rt , b ut w e ho ld that su c h d ism iss a l is wi tho ut p re jud ic e to Appellant’s right to appe al the B oard’ s denial of pa rol e pursuant to the Boa

rd’s proc edure s. See Da v is , 2003 Tenn. App. L EXI S 592, at *18-19.

F ull a nd F air

He ar ing Finally , Appellant ar g ues that the c hance ry court did not g ive his petition for a writ of c e rt ior ari “ fair a nd a de qu a te c on sid e ratio n. ” Th e tria l c ou rt faile d to re c e iveAp pe llant’ s r e sp on se to Appellee’ s motion to dismiss befor e the hearing on such m otion. Appellant filed a motion to s et aside this dismiss al. I n response , the trial court issued an order with the following response which Appellant cha

rac terizes as “unenlig htening ”: “Upon r eview of the entire rec ord in this matter, the Court finds Petiti oner’ s mot i o n i s not well-take n and ac cording ly denied.” Howeve r, in another o rd erad d re s s i n g Ap p el l an t ’s m o t i o n fo r s u m m ar y j u d g m e n t , t h e t ri al co u rts t at es t h at , al t h o u gh dismiss al was imprope r on the ba sis that Appellant failed to file a response , dismiss al is proper on the other g rounds for dismissal, namely the failure of Appellant to f ile an administrative appea l and the lack of

due proc ess rig hts f

or a par ole hea

ring . Be cause we a ffirm the c hance ry court’s dismissal of Appe llant’s petition on these two other g rounds, we se e no reason to reve rse the chanc ery court on thi s b a sis

. Conclusion
For the reasons stated above , we a ffirm the c hance ry court’s dismissal of Appe llant’s petition fo r w ri t of

c e rt ior ari wi tho ut p re

jud ic e to A pp e llant’ s rig ht to an a dmi nis tr a tiv e app e a l pu rs ua nt t o the Appellee ’s proced ures. Costs of this appea l are taxed equally to Appellant, Paul Moss, and A p p e l l e e , t h e T e n n e s s e e B o ar d o f P r o b a t i o n a n d P ar o l e , f

o r w h i c h e x e c u t i o n m a y i s s u e i f n e c e s s ar y.

___________________________________ ALAN E. HI GHERS, J UDGE