### IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on

Briefs J anuary

15, 2002 BUSTER CHANDLER, JR. v. DON SUNDQUIST, ET AL 

### . Appeal from the Circuit Court for Davidson County No. 00C-3458 Walter C. Kurtz, Judge

No. M2001-00274-COA-R3-CV - Filed August 20, 2002

A Kentuck

y pr isoner f iled suit in

a Tenne ssee cou

rt, claim ing that he was e ntitled to be pardone d so that he could stand trial for murd er in this state. The trial court dismissed his complaint for failure to state a claim for which re lief can be gra nted. We a

ffirm. Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Circuit Court

Affirmed and Remanded
B EN H. C ANT RELL , P.J., M.S., deliv ered the opinion of

the cour t, in which W IL LI AM C. K OCH , J R
. and W IL LI AM B. C AIN , JJ, joined. Buster Chandler, Eddy

ville, Kentucky, Pro Se.
Paul G. Summers, Attorne y Gener a l and Reporter; Michael E. Moore, Solicitor General; Dawn Jordan, Assistant Attorney Genera l, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.
OPINION
I.
The appellate brief of Bu ster Chandler, Jr. contains an extraordinary admission: that he murdered a woman in Knoxville, Tennessee, transported th e v ic ti m’ s b od y to Lex in gt on , K en tu ck y, and left it the

re. Afte r his face was shown on

America’s Most Wanted, he was arrested in Nashville, and extradite d to Kentuck y to stand trial for murder. His attorney advised him that he stood a better chance of avoidi ng the d eath pen alty

if he wastried in th at state. At trial, he apparently did not dispute the claim that his victim was mur

dered in Kentuck y. H e was fo und guilt

y a nd presumably received an appropriate sentenc e. Writing from a Kentucky prison, Mr. Cha ndler filed a compla int in the D avidson County Circuit Court for violation o f 42 U.S.C. 1983. He c laimed tha t he was e ntitled to stand trial in Knox County for the murder; that the only way this could be

accomplished would be if Kentucky Governor-2-

Paul Patton pardoned him; that he wrote to Tenne ssee Gov ernor D on Sundquis t asking him to request such a pardonfrom

the Kentucky Governor, and that he received no re sponse. He claimed that he also co ntacted the T ennessee Attorney General for assistance, and ag ain received no response.
The complaint named Don Sundquist, Ned Ray McWherter, Paul Patton, Paul Summers, and “all other John and Mary Doe s” as defendants, and asked for $50,000 in compensatory damages and $50,000 in punitive damages from each def endant, on the theory

that their failure to procure a pardon for him somehow amounted to a deprivation of his constitutional rights. Governor Sundquist and General S ummers moved the trial court to dismiss the claim for failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted. See Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(6). On January 17 , 2001, the court quite appropr iately granted the motion. The court noted that Tennessee has no jurisdict

ion in this matter, and found that the contention that it does is totally frivolous. This appea l followed.
II.
The basis of M

r. Chandl er’s c omplaint is the implic it argu ment that K

entucky did not poss ess jurisdiction to try

him for a murder allegedly

committed in the State of Tenness ee. The

proper t ime to a sse rt lack o f jurisdic tion, of c ourse, is during t rial, but M

r. Chandl er did not

raise tha t defens e because he thought it would be to his advantage not to. Even if proper jur isdiction over this case lay only in this state, however, the courts of T ennessee have no power to reverse the judgment of the Kentucky c ourt.
Mr. Chandler may be

correct in asserting that the Governor of Kentuck y ha s the powe r to pardon him , and that if Governor Patton exercised his pardon power, a subseque nt murder pros ecution in Knoxville would follow. We think it likely also that a pardon reques t from th e Governor of Tennessee would hav e more c hance o f succe ss than a p ardon request fr om a convicted murderer.
But there is no authority for

the proposition that Governor Sundq uist or an

y ot her publi c official is obli gated to m ake such a request, or that Mr. Chandler has a c onstitutional or statutory right to have them intervene on his behalf. The trial court was correc t in dismissing his complaint and in fin ding it f

rivolous. We find this appeal t o be friv olous as w ell.
III.
The order of the trial court is affirmed. Remand this cause to the Circuit Court of Davidson County for fur ther pro ceeding s consiste

nt with this opinion. T ax the cost s on appe al to the a ppellant , Buster Chandler.

_________________________________________ BEN H. CA

NTREL L, PRESI DIN G JUDGE, M. S.