W a sh in g to n v . S ta te , N o . 02 C 0 1

- 9 5 0 7

- C R

- 0 0 1 8 1 , 19 9 7 W L 4 0 9 4 8 0 , at * 1 (T enn. C ri m . A p p . Jul y 23 , 19 9 7 ), 1 per m . app. de ni ed (T enn. M ar. 9, 19 9 8 ).

St at e v. Was hi ngt on , 65 8 S.W

. 2 d 14 4 , 14 5

- 4 6 (T enn. C ri m . A p p . 19 8 3 ). 2 

### IN THE COURT OF APP EALS OF TENNESS EE

AT NAS HVILLE A ssi gne d on Brie fs N ove m be r 7, 200 3 CLA REN CE WAS HINGT ON v. TE NN ESSE E D EP AR TME NT OF

CORRECTI ON ET AL 

### . Appeal f romthe Chancer y Court for Davidson Cou nty No. 01-2512-II Car ol L. McCoy, Chancellor
No. M2002- 02651-COA-R 3-CV - F iled Fe bruary 8, 2005 This appea l involves a dispute betwee n a pri s o n er and the TennesseeDepa rtment of Corre ction reg arding the ca lculation of his rele ase e ligibility date. Theprisoner f

iled a petition for a de clar atory judgme nt in the Chancery Court for Da vidson Countyassertin g t h at t h e De partment ha d not “ade quately ” proc essed and calc ulated his sentenc es. B oth the prisoner an d the Depa rtment filed motions for summary

judgme nt. The trial court gr anted the Depa rtment’s motion, and the prisoner app e a le d. We aff

irm th e tria l c ou rt
. Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Chancer y Court Affi rm ed W I L L I AM C. K O CH , J R ., P.J ., M.S., delivered the opinion of the court, in which W I L L I AM B. C A IN and P ATR I C I A J. C O T T RE LL , J J ., joined. Clarenc e Washing ton, Henning , Tenne ssee, Pro Se. Paul G . Su mme rs , A tto rn e y Ge ne ral a ndRe po rt e r, a nd S tep han ie R. Re e ve rs , A sso c iate De pu ty Attorney Gene ral, for

the appe llee, Te nnessee Depa rtment of Corre ction. OP IN ION I. Clarenc e Washing ton is a car eer criminal. He enter ed seve n g uilty pleas to di ffe rent c riminal a c ts b e tw e e n 1 97 1 and19 77
. I n N ov e mbe r 1 98 2, he wa s c on vic te d o f a ssa ult wi th i nte nt t o c omm it 1 robbery in the Criminal Court for Shelby County and on Dec ember 3, 1982, he wa s sentence d to five to ten y ear s in the state penitentiary . L ater , in Febr uary 1983, he w as convicted in the Criminal 2 Court for S helby County of t wo counts of armed robbery and sentenced to two concur rent ten- y earW as hi ngt on v . H ar r i s on , N o. 02C01- 9703- CC

- 00097, 1998 W L 32680, at * 1 ( T en n . Cr i m. App. J an . 30, 3 1 9 9 8 ), per m . app. de ni ed (T e n n . O c t. 1 2 , 1 9 9 8 ); W a sh in g to n v . S ta te , 1997 W L 409480, a t * 1.

W it h r e g a r d to th e r e c o m p u te d s e n te n c e , t h e D e p a r tm e n t i n fo r m e d M r . W a s h in g to n th a t h is p ro b a tio n a ry p a ro le 4 d at e was June 7 , 19 8 5 ; hi s regul ar paro l e d at e was D ecem b er 7, 1 9 8 5 ; hi s R E D da t e was January 13 , 19 8 6 ; and t he ex pi r at i on of

t h e s en t en ce w as N ov embe r 9, 1990. In 1 9 9 3 , M r. W a sh ing to n a n d two o the r p riso n e rs se rv ing li fe se n te n c e s a s h a b itua l cr im ina ls un su c c e ssfu lly 5
c h a llen g e d the P a ro le E ligib ili ty R e v ie w B o a rd ’s d e n ia l o f t h e ir re q u e st fo r a n a m e n d e d p a ro le e ligib ili ty d a te
. Jef f r i es v . S ta te , N o . 0 1 A 0 1 -9 4 0 6 -C H -0 0 2 8 1 , 1 9 9 5 W L 1 6 8 9 a t *1 ( T e n n . C t. A p p . Ja n . 4 , 1 9 9 5 ), per m . app . deni ed ( T enn . M ay 8 , 1 9 9 5 ).

T his req ue st fo r a d ec l ara t o ry ord er is no t i nc l ud ed i n the re co rd b ut i s referred t o i n o t he r d o cu m en t s. 6 -2- terms of imprisonment. He w as also adjudg ed a ha bitual criminal based on his se ven g uiltypleas be tw een 19 71 a nd

19 77 , andhere c e ive d tw o c on c ur re nt l if e se nte nc e s to be se rv e d c on c ur re ntl y with the two ten-y ear

arme d robbery

sentences
. He was order ed to servethese four sentenc es 3 consec utive to the five-to- ten-y ear sentenc e he r ece ived in November 1982. On J anuary 25, 1984, Mr. Washington esc aped f rom the L ake County

Reg ional Correc tional Fa cility . He wa s capture d the same day and re turn ed t o the fa cility on J anuary

26, 1984. On November

26, 1984, he wa s convicted of esca pe in t he Criminal Court for L ake County and re ceive d a two-y ear

sentenc e that was order ed to run consecutive to the five-to-ten-y ear sentenc e he r ece ived in Dece mber 1982. The judgme nt did not spe cify whether Mr. Washington would serve his esca pe se nte nc e c on c ur

re ntl y wi th h is t wo lif

e se nte nc e s o r c on se c uti ve to h is p ri or se nte nc e s. Th e De pa rtme nt n oti fi e d M r. Was hin g tononMay 30 , 1 98 5 t hat it had “ re c omp ute d” his se nte nc e by

a dd in g h is tw o- y e ar e sc ape se nte nc e to h is f ive -t o- te n- y e ar s e nte nc e fo r a ssa ult wi th intent to commit robbery . Following this action, at least in th e ey es o f t h e Depa rtment, Mr. Washington wa s serving a five-t o -t welve-y ear sentenc e conse cutive to his sentence s for a rmed ro bb e ry . T he De pa

rtme nt a lso inf

orme d Mr
. Was hin g ton that his lif e se nte nc e s wo uldbe “ he ld i n abey ance ” and w ould be “c ertified to the B oard of Paroles for custodial paroleconsideration” when he bec ame e ligible. 4 On J uly 23, 1985, a hea

ring panel of

the B oard of Paroles r ecommende d Mr. Washington for custodial paro l e to his curr ent life sente nces. H oweve r, on F ebrua ry 12, 1986, the full Boa

rd resc inded the pane l’s rec o m m en d at i o n b ec au s e M r. W as h i n gt o n h ad “a n u n p ro ce s s ed s en t en ce . ” Mr. Was hin g tonre qu e ste d a de no vo re vie w of the F e br ua ry 12 , 1 98 6 d e c isi on . T he B oa rdinf orme d h im on Marc h 26, 1986 that his request ha d been de nied. Mo rethan a

de c a de pa sse d b e fo reMr . Wash ing tona g a in c ha lle ng e d th e c omp utatio n o f h is se nte nc e s. I n July 19 97 , he reque ste d th e De pa rtme nt t o is su e a

de c laratory

or de r r e g ard ing his 5 sentenc es and pa

role e ligibility

dates. The De partment de nied this request on Aug ust 5, 1997 on

6 the g round th at i t wa s “inappropriate,” pointing out that the Boa rd of Par oles was an autonomous a g e nc y . T he De pa

rtme nt also inf

orme d Mr
. Was hin g ton that hi s r e le a se e lig ibi lity date wa s A ug us t 23 , 2 01 1 u nle ss the B oa

rd of Paro le s “ ind ic a te s dif fe re ntl y .” Mr
. Was hin g ton fi le d a se c on d r e qu e stW ashi ng t on v. Tr au gh ber , N o . 98

- 4 2 3

- II (D avi d son C o unt y C h. C t
. A ug. 19 , 19 9 8 (orde r) ). 7
T he st at ut o ry pro vi si o ns fo r r el i evi ng pri son o vercrowd i ng p erm i t t he go vernor t o d ef i ne t he t y p es of

pri soners 8 who m ay b e co nsi d ered fo r earl y rel ease. G o vernor M cW hert er’ s D ecem b er 19 , 19 9 8 dir ect i ve st at ed t hat pri soners who had been conv i ct ed of

es cape we r e n ot el i gi bl e t o be cons i dere d for e ar l y r el eas e. Se nt ences fo r es cap e co nvi ct i o ns m ust be s erved co nsecut i ve t o al l o t her sent ences previ o usl y i m p o sed. T enn. 9 C o d e A nn. § 3 7

- 5

- 7 0 2 (r ep eal ed 19 8 9 ); T enn. R
. C ri m . P
. 32 (c)( 3 )( B ). -3- for a decla ratory order in 1998 tha t mirrore d his 1997 request. On D ece mber 16, 1998, the Depa rtment notified him that it had denied his r equest and that his r elea se elig ibilit y date wa s now J anuary 23, 2011 beca

use of the sentenc e cre dits he had ea rned sincethe Depa

rtment’s Aug ust 1997 letter. Mr. Washington then f iled a pro sepet i t i o n for common-law writ of c ertiora ri in the Chanc e ry Cou rt fo r Da vid so n Coun ty se e kin g jud ic ia l re vie w of theB oa rdof Paro le s’ de c isi onto deny him a hearing to reinstate his early rele ase e ligibility date and an orde r g ranting him custodial parole to his concurr ent life sente nces. Thetrial court dismissed this action on Aug ust 19, 1998 after pointin g out that it was the Depa rtment’s, not the B oard’ s, responsibilityto determine w hen a prisoner be comes e ligible to be c onsidered f or par ole. 7 On Aug ust 9, 2001, Mr. Washington filed a pro se petition f or a decla ratory judgme nt in the Chance ry Court for Da vidson County . The pe tition, t houg h bare ly understanda

ble, containe d three claims. First, Mr. Washing ton asserte d that the Depa rtment’s failure to “a dequate ly ” proc ess and calc ulate his sentenc es had cause d him to be paroled to his concur rent life se ntence s in 1987 rather than in 1985. Second, he claimed that the Depa rtment had somehow illegally altere d the Novembe r 1984 judgme nt sentencing h im to two additional y ear s for e scape . Third, he a rg ued that the Depa rtment had failed to calculate hi s “ea rliest rele ase date” as require d by Tenn. Code Ann. § 40- 28-129 (2003) by

excluding him from conside ration for early rele ase based on G overnor Ned McWherter ’s 1988 direc tive under Te nn. Code Ann. § 41-1- 504 (2003). Both Mr. Washing ton and 8 the Depa rtment filed motions for summary judgme nt. The Depa rtment filed an aff

idavit pr epar ed by

its Manag er of

SentenceI nformation Servic es as part of its re sponse to Mr
. Washington’s petition f or dec laratory

judgme nt. This affidavit stated that Mr. Washington was serving his 1982 sentenc e consec utive to the four c oncurr ent sentenc es he rec eived in 1983 and that he was serving his 1984 esca pe sente nce c onsecutive to his 1982 and 1983 sentenc es as r equire d by

applicablestate law. The a ffidavit als o s t at ed t h at Mr. Washing ton’s 9 rele ase e ligibility

date, a s of September 2 8, 2001, was Aug ust 18, 2009. On October 8, 2002, the trial court e ntere d an orde r g ranting the Depa rtment’s summar

y judg ment motion and dismi ssing Mr. Washington’s pe tition. M r. Washington ha s appealed. II. M r . W a s h i n g t o n ’ s ap p e l l a t e b r i e f i s a s o b tu s e a s t h e p ap e r s h e f i l e di n t h e tr i a l c o u rt
. It appea rs t hat he has abandoned two of thethree claims he a sserted in the tria l court and that he is nowT enn. C o d e A nn. § 4

- 6

- 1 4 0 (19 9 8 ); T enn. C o d e A nn. §§ 41

- 2 1

- 1 0 4 , - 1 0 5 , - 1 0 7 (a)( 3 ) ( 2 0 0 3 ). 10 -4- fo c us ing his e ne rg ie s on h is c la im that th e De pa rtme nt f a ile d “ to a de qu a te ly

c a lc ulate ” a ll o f h is concur rent sente nces and to notify the B oard that he has re ache d parole elig ibilit y on his origina l five-to- ten-y ear

sentenc e for

assault with intent to commit robbery . We have d et er m i n ed that the Depa rtment corr ectly

calc ulated Mr. Washing ton’s rele ase e ligibility date and, based o n that c a lc ulatio n, theDe pa

rtme nt i s n ot y e t r e qu ir e d to no tif y theB oa rdthat Mr
. Was hin g tonis e lig ibl e to be consider ed for

parole

. A prisoner ’s re lease elig ibilit y date is the earliest date that a prisoner convicted of

a fe lony may be elig ible for pa

role. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35- 501(a) (1), ( k) (2003) . Whil e the B oard ha s the ultimate re s p o n s i b i l i t y fo r d et er m i n i n g wh et h era p ar t i cu l arp ri s o n ers h o u l db e r el ea s ed on parole, Tenn. Code Ann. § 40- 28-116(a )(1) (2003), the D epartment, as the custodian of the prisoner’s rec ords, has the statutory responsibilityfor c alculating eac h pri s o n er ’s re lease elig ibilit y date. 10 Te nn . Co de An n. § 4 0- 28 -1 29 ; J oh ns on v . Te nn . D e

p’ t of Cor r. , No. M2001-02424-COA- R3-CV, 2003 WL 22794498, at *3 (Te nn. Ct. App. No v . 25, 2003) (No T enn. R. App. P. 11 application fi le d) ; Garrett v. Tenn. Bd. of Paroles , No. M 2 0 0 0 -0 0 219-COA-R3-CV, 2002 WL 13044, at *3 (T e nn . Ct . A pp . Jan . 4 , 200 2) (No Te nn . R. Ap p. P. 1 1 a pp lic a tio n f

ile d) . Apriso ne r’ s r e le a se elig ibilit y date is base d on the portion of the se ntence the prisoner has served and thesentenc e cre dits, if any , the prisoner has ea rned. Te nn. Code Ann. § 40-28- 115 (2003); Te nn. Comp. R. & Reg s. 1100-1-1-.07( 1)(a ) (1999)

. Th e De pa rtme nt i s n ot r e qu ir e d to noti fy the B oa rd of a priso ne r’ s r e le a se e lig ibi lity date un til the prisoner

is within four months of being eligible to be re lease d. Tenn. Comp. R. & Reg s. 1100-1- 1-.07(1) (b). Ac cording ly , the sole issue in this case is whether the Department cor rec tly determined in 2001 that Mr. Washington’s releaseelig ibilit y date, at that time, was Aug ust 18, 2009. I f the Depa rtment’s calculations arecorr ect, it had no obligation to inform t he B oard that Mr. Washington was e ligible f

or par ole. Asce rtaining the basis f

o r M r . Wa s h in g to n ’ s d is a g re e me n t w it hth eD e p a

r tm e n t’ s calc ulations is difficult; howeve r, hi s paper s appea r t o contain two ar g uments. First, he makes re fer enceto Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-20- 110(b)( 1) (2003) , which re quires the De partment to notify the B oard w hen a prisoner be comes e ligible f or consideration for c ustodial parole. How ever , Tenn. Code Ann. § 40- 20-110(b) (1) a

pplies only

to prisoners who are serving two or m ore inde terminate se ntence s. Tenn. Cod e An n. § 4 0- 20 -1 10 (a ); Ho we ll v . S tate , 569 S.W .2d 428, 431 (Tenn. 1978) . There fore , it does not apply to Mr. Washington bec ause hehad only one indeterminate sentenc e. Second, Mr. Washing ton appea rs t o at t ac h g reat significance to the 1985 de cision of the Boa rd’s he aring panel r ecommending him f or custodial parole

. Howeve r, the B oard itself r escinde d thi s d e c isi ononF e br

ua ry 12 , 198 6. Mr . Wash ing ton do e s not ha ve so me so rt of c on tin uin g pr op e rty r i g h tt o p r o f

i tf r o m t h e m i s t ak e th e B o ar d ’ s h e ar i n g p a n e l ap p ar e n t l y m a d e t w e n t y

y e ar s a g o . In addition, he has articulated no f actua l or leg al basis to estop the De partment fr om corre cting the mistake and c alculating his sentencein acc ordanc e with state law

.-5- III . We affirm the dismiss al of the petition f or decla ratory judgme nt and remand the caseto the tr ial c ou rt fo r w hate ve r f

urther p ro c e e din g s may

be re qu ir e d. We t a x the c os ts o f this app e a l to Clarence W as h i n g ton for which e x ecution, if ne cessa ry , may issue. We also find that Mr. Washington’s pe tition for declar atory judgme nt and subsequent appeal a re frivolous in acc ordanc e with Tenn. Code Ann. § 41- 21-807(c ), -816( a)( 1) (2003)

.

______________________________ WILLIAM C. K OC H, JR., P. J., M. S.