IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT NASHVILLE

Assigned on Briefs June 5, 2013

CHRISTOPHER PIRTLE 

v. TURNEY CENTER DISCIPLINARY BOARD ET AL.

Appeal from the Chancery Court for Hickman County

No. 12CV4683 Timothy L. Easter, Judge

No. M2012-02057-COA-R3-CV - Filed June 11, 2013

Petitioner, an inmate of the Tennessee Department of Correction, was charged with the

prison disciplinary offense of Refusing a Drug Test because he failed to provide an adequate

amount of urine for testing. Following a disciplinary hearing he was found guilty of the

offense. He filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari, which was granted, and Respondents filed

a certified copy of the record of Petitioner’s disciplinary proceedings. The trial court found

the disciplinary board did not act in an illegal or arbitrary manner, and dismissed the case.

We affirm.

Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Chancery Court Affirmed

FRANK G. CLEMENT, JR., J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ANDY D. BENNETT

and RICHARD H. DINKINS, J.J., joined.

Christopher Lee Pirtle, Only, Tennessee, Pro Se.

Robert E. Cooper,Jr., Attorney General and Reporter, William Young, Solicitor General, and

James Lee Pope, Assistant Attorney General, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellee, Turney

Center Disciplinary Board.

OPINION

Christopher Lee Pirtle (“Petitioner”) was incarcerated at the Turney Center Industrial

Complex in Only, Tennessee. On November 20, 2011, Petitioner was charged with the prison

disciplinary offense of Refusing a Drug Test because he failed to provide an adequate

amount of urine for testing after repeated requests. On November 30, 2011, a disciplinary

hearing was held and evidence was presented at the hearing that consisted of a statement

from Correctional Officer Felts, who testified that Petitioner failed to provide an adequate
urine sample for testing. At the conclusion of the hearing, Petitioner was found guilty of the

offense of Refusing a Drug Test and received a sentence of ten days punitive segregation,

a $4.00 fine, six month visitation suspension, and nine month package restriction.

Petitioner then timely filed a Petition for Common Law Writ of Certiorari with the

Hickman County Chancery Court naming as respondents the Turney Center Disciplinary

Board, Derrick D. Schofield, TDOC Commissions, Jerry Lester, Warden, Jason Clendenion,

Disciplinary Board Chairman, and Christina M. Totty, Reporting Official (collectively

“Respondents”). In the petition, Petitioner alleged that Respondents acted arbitrarily and

illegally because: (1) the disciplinary report issued to Petitioner contained errors and failed

to adequately state an offense; and (2) there wasinsufficient evidence to find Petitioner guilty

of the offense. Respondents filed a Notice of No Opposition to Granting the Petition for Writ

of Certiorari and the trial court granted the petition for writ of certiorari and directed

Respondents to file a certified copy of the record of Petitioner’s disciplinary proceedings.

Respondents timely filed a certified copy of Petitioner’s disciplinary proceedings.

Respondents subsequently moved for judgment on the grounds that administrative

record contains sufficient evidence to sustain the conviction and that the disciplinary board

did not act illegally or arbitrarily. Petitioner filed a timely response to Respondents’ motion.

August 21, 2012, the trial court found the disciplinary board did not act in an illegal,

fraudulent, or arbitrary manner, and ordered the case dismissed.

Thereafter, Petitioner filed a Motion to Alter or Amend contending the August 21,

2012, order erroneously stated that Petitioner did not file a response to Respondents’ Motion

for Judgment. Respondents filed a response stating they did not oppose correcting the order

to state that Petitioner had filed a timely response. On September 18, 2012, the trial court

granted Petitioner’s motion, vacated its previous order to the extent it stated Petitioner failed

to file a response to Respondents’ Motion for Judgment on the Record, and entered a new

order finding that Respondents were entitled to judgment and the case was dismissed because

the disciplinary board did not act arbitrarily, illegally, or exceed its jurisdiction. This appeal

followed.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

The scope of review afforded by a common-law writ of certiorari is extremely limited

as this court explained in Leonard Plating Co. v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville and

Davidson County, 213 S.W.3d 898, 903 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006). The reviewing court may not

inquire into the intrinsic correctness of the decision, reweigh the evidence, or substitute its

judgment for that of the board; however, the court may review the record to determine

whether the record contains “any material evidence to support the decision because a

-2-
decision without evidentiary support is an arbitrary one.” Id. at 903-04 (footnotes and

citations omitted). Material evidence is “relevant evidence that a reasonable person would

accept as adequate to support a rational conclusion.” Id. at 904. “The amount of material

evidence required to support a board’s or agency’s decision must exceed a scintilla of

evidence but may be less than a preponderance of the evidence.” Id.

ANALYSIS

Petitioner contends his conviction should be overturned because the charging

instrument, the disciplinary report, failed to adequately state the alleged offense, the

disciplinary report contains errors, and the evidence is insufficient to convict.

The disciplinary report issued to Petitioner stated as follows:

THE ATTEMPT WAS MADE TO DRUG TEST INMATE

PIRTLE #424969 FOR A RANDOM TEST. INMATE PIRTLE

WAS GIVEN AN 8 OUNCE CUP OF WATER AND 2

HOURS TO PROVIDE A URINE SAMPLE. INMATE

PIRTLE WAS UNABLE TO PROVIDE AN ACCURATE

AMOUNT OF URINE TO TEST. THEREFORE INMATE

PIRTLE IS CHARGED WITH REFUSING A DRUG TEST.

The offense of “Refusal of/or Attempt to Alter Test” is defined in Tennessee

Department of Correction Policy # 502.05(VI)(A)(61) as follows:

Refusal to provide an adequate breath or urine sample for a drug or alcohol

screen upon request, refusal to sign a chain of custody forms, or attempting to

change or modify documents, urine, or blood content for the purpose of

creating false negative test results.

Petitioner asserts the definition requires the disciplinary report to state he attempted

to change or modify a urine sample for purposes of providing a false negative. We disagree.

The definition states that an inmate commits the offense if he refuses to provide an adequate

urine sample. Accordingly, the disciplinary report adequately stated the offense of Refusal

of a Drug Test.

Petitioner also asserts that the disciplinary report contained an error because it stated

“inmate Pirtle was unable to provide an accurate amount of urine.” Petitioner insists that this

statement was erroneous because he provided three urine samples. The record, however,

shows that none of the samples provided by Petitioner were sufficient for testing.

-3-
The administrative record from the disciplinary hearing need not establish that the

disciplinary board’s decision to convict was correct beyond all doubt. See Superintendent,

Massachusetts Corr. Inst. v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 455, 105 S. Ct. 2768, 2774 (1985). The

administrative record need only contain some “material evidence” to support a conviction of

a disciplinary offense. Leonard Plating Co., 213 S.W.3d at 904 . Further, a board’s decision

that is based upon some material evidence is not arbitrary. Id.; Hoover Motor Exp. Co., Inc.

v. Railroad and Public Utilities Comm., 261 S.W.2d 233, 239 (Tenn. 1953).

Here, Petitioner’s conviction wassupported by Officer Felts’ testimony that Petitioner

failed to provide an adequate urine sample for a drug test. Material evidence is “relevant

evidence that a reasonable person would accept as adequate to support a rational conclusion.”

Id. Officer Felts’ testimony was directly relevant to the issue and it is the type of evidence

that a reasonable person would accept as adequate to support a rational conclusion, that

Petitioner refused to provide an adequate urine sample for a drug test. Therefore, there was

material evidence to convict Petitioner of the offense.

We, therefore, affirm the trial court in all respects.

IN CONCLUSION

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed and this matter is remanded with costs of

appeal assessed against the appellant, Christopher Lee Pirtle.

______________________________

FRANK G. CLEMENT, JR., JUDGE

-4-