### IN THE COURT OF APP EALS OF TENNESS EE AT JAC KSON O ct obe r 22, 200 8 S es sio n SH EL BY C OU N TY S HE R IF F ’S D EP A R TM EN T v
. M A R K L OW E

Direc t Appeal from the Chancer y Court for Shelb y County No. CH-06-2217- 03 Kenny W. Armstr ong, Chan cellor

No. W2008-00433-C OA-R3-C V - Filed Dec ember 11, 2008

The Shelby

County Sheriff’ s D ep ar t m en t terminated the e mploy ment of De puty

Mark L owe f

or vio latio ns of

De pa rtme nt p oli c ie s w ithre sp e c t to pe rs on a l c on du c t, a dh e re nc e to l aw, tr uth fu lne ss, consortingwith persons of ba d or cr iminal reputation, and c ompliance with re g ulations rega rd i ng its code of e thics. The Civil S ervic e Mer it Boar d fo u n d Deputy L owe guilty

of the c harg es, but deter mined the puni shment was ex cessive and m odified i t to a three -month suspension without pay followed by

a one- y ear

probationar

y period. Upon review, t he chance ry court affirmed the decision of the Civil Service Mer it Boar d. The Sherif f’s De partment a

ppeals. We vac ate the or der of the chanc ery court for lack of jurisdiction and dismiss

. Te nn. R . A pp. P . 3 App e al a s o f R igh t; Judg me nt of th e Cha nc e r y C our t V ac at e d; and Dismissed

D AVI D R. F ARMER , J., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which A LA N E. H I G H ERS , P.J., W.S., and H OL LY M. K I RBY , J., joined.
Martin W. Zummac h, Assistant Shelby County Attorney, for the appe llant, Shelby Count y Sheriff’ s De pa rt me nt.
Thomas E. Ha nsom, Memphis, Tennessee for the A ppellee, Ma rk Lowe

. OP IN ION

Re sp on de nt/Ap pe lle e Mar k L ow e (M r. L ow e ) i s a de puty sh e ri ff wi th t he She lby County Sheriff’ s Depa

rtment (“the Depa

rtment”). On May

17, 2005, the FB I/DEA executed a fede ral sea

rch
war rant a nd conducte d a sea

rch of Mr. L owe’ s home i n co n j u n ct i o n with its i nvestig ation of an
or g anizatio n k

no wn as th e “Cha

rl e s Pr ic e Dr

ugOr g anizatio n, ” wh ic h s te mme d f ro m it s mu lti

jurisdictional investigation of the theft of narcotics a nd other e vidence from the Me mphis P olice Depa rtment proper

ty room. Pending an ong oing inve stigation for alleg ed assoc iation with Charles Price and suspected insurance fra ud, Mr. L owe wa s relieve d of duty with pay following the May

17
sear ch. Following its investigation of activities from 2002 to 2005, the Shelby County Sheriff’ s Offic e Burea

u of P rofe ssional Standards & I nteg rity (“the Bur eau” ) determined t hat M r. L owe wa sA l t h o u g h t h e ch an cery co u rt ’s da t e st am p i s n o t a p p aren t o n t h e co p y of t h e p et i t i o n i n cl u d ed i n t h e reco rd 1
tra n sm itt e d to th is C o u rt, N o v e m b e r 1 4 , 2 0 0 6 , i s th e d a te re c ited in th e D e p a rtm e n t’s b rie f a n d th e c o u rt’s d o c k e t re p o rt. -2- in v iol atio n o f D e pa

rtme nt p oli c ie s with re sp e c t to pe rs on a l c on du c t, a dh e re nc e to l aw, tr uth fu lne ss, consortingwith persons of ba d or cr iminal reputation, and c ompliance wi t h regulations reg arding its code of e thics. Followinga L oudermill hear ing in F ebrua ry 2006, in March 2006 the Depa rtment notified Mr. L owe that it had f

ound him guilty

of all cha rg es and that his employ

ment was ter

minated. Mr. L owe app e a le d to the She lby County Civ il Se rv ic e Me ri t B oa

rd (“ the B oa

rd ” ), wh ic h f

ound him g uil ty of the c ha rg e d p oli c y

vio latio ns fo llo wi nga

he ari ngon

Au g us t 8, 20 06 . D e sp ite its deter mination that

M r. L owe wa s g uilty

of the a sserted violations, the B oard r ever sed the ter mination of his e mploy

ment on the basis that it was excessive. In its written order of September 8, 2006, the Boa rd modified the punishment t o a three-month s uspension without pay , to be followed by a oney ear probationar

y period. In its Septembe r 11, 2006, letter to the Shelby County Sheriff, the B oard advised the D epar

tment that it had six ty

(60) day s within which to appea l the Boa rd’s de cision to the C i r c u i to r C h an c e r y C o urt o f S h e l b y C o un ty.
On Novembe r 14, 2006, the Department filed a petiti on for writ of cer tiorari in the Shelby County Chance ry

Court. Followinga hea ringon August 1, 2007, the chanc ellor det er m i ned that 1 the B oard’ s finding of

g uilt with respect to the cha rg e of a ssociating wi t h persons of c riminal reputation was not supported by substantial and mater ial evidenc e. The ch an ce l l o r upheld the Boa rd’s de cision that termination of Mr. L owe’ s employ ment was e x cessive.
The De partment filed a

timely notice of a

ppeal to this Court, and oral argument was he ard
on the matte r o n O c tober 22 , 20 08 . O n O c tob e r 3 0, 20 08 , th e De pa rtme nt w a s o rd e re d to
su pp le me nt t

he re c or d in

thi s c a us e wi th a c op y of the She lby

County Cha rt e r, a s ame nd e d, and

wi th supplemental authority

conce rningt h e Board’s standa rd of r eview of

the Depa rtment’s dec ision within fifteen ( 15) day s from the date of e ntry of the Or der. O n November 14, 2008, the Depa rtment comp li e d a s o r d e r e d , s u

p p le me n ti n g th e r e c o r d w it h th e Sh e lb y Co un ty Ch arte r , a s ame nded, and the Shelby

County Civil Service Merit Act of 1971, as ame nded.

Issue Presented
Th e De pa rtme nt’ s st ate me nt o f t

he iss ue s p re se nte d f

or re vie w i s:
Whe t h er t h e Chanc ery

Court erre d in failing to reve rse the de cision of the Shelby County Civil Service Merit Review B oard ( here inafter “B oar d ”) wh en the Boar d found Mr. L owe guilty

of all cha

rg es leve led ag ainst him, y et modified the Shelby County ’s Sheriff

’s Depa rtment dec ision to terminate Mr. L owe. The Boar d modified Mr . L ow e ’s te rm inatio n to a thre e -m on th s us pe ns ion . T he Cha nc e ry Court up he ld the B oard’ s decision eve n though there was not one scintilla of evide nce pr esente d-3-

by Mr. L owe that the disc ipline meted to Mr. L owe wa s i n an y way excessive or disparate

. Anal y sis The pivotal question pre sented in this appea l, a s we perc eive it, concer ns the application of the standar d of re view to be applied by the trial cour t in its revie w of the B oard’ s decision, and by the B oard in its revie w of the Depa rtment’s deter

mination, whe re the Boa

rd made no finding s of fa ct to support its deter

mination that the Department’s decision to terminate Mr . L owe wa s excessive. In its accompa

nying me morandum to its resp o n s e t o o u r orde r to supplement the re cord, the Depa rtment asser

ted that, pursuant to Te nnessee Code Annotated § 27-9-114( b)(1) (2000), judicial revie w of the de terminations of the Shelby County Civ i l Service Me rit Boa rd is g overne d by

the standard of

revie w set for

th in Tennessee Code Annotated § 4-5-322. The Depa rtment also asser

ted that, beca use the Civil Service Mer it Act authorizes the B oard to modify punishment but does not indicate the standard of

revie w to be exerc ised by the B oard, it wa s the Depa rtment’s conte ntion that Tenne ssee Code Annotated § 27-9- 114 should gove rn the B oard’ s review

. Un do ub te dly , s e c tio n 2 7- 9- 11 4( a )( 1) (S up p. 20 08 ) p ro vid e s that, in g e ne ra l, c on te ste d c a se he a ri n g s b y

c o un ty o r mun i c i p a l c i v i l s e r

v i c e b o ar d s a f

f e c t i n gth e e mp l o y

m e n ts t atu s o f

a c ivi l service employ ee must be c onducted in conf ormanc e with the proc edure s set forth in the Unifor m Administrative Procedur es Ac t (“the U APA”) a s co d i fied in title 4, chapte r 5, par t 3. Howeve r, se c tio n 27- 9- 11 4( a )( 2) sp e c if ic a lly e xemp ts c ivi l se rv ic e bo a rd s o f c ounti e s o rg anize d und e r a ho me rule c harte r for

m of g overnme nt from the UAPA c ontested ca se proc edure s. Thus, the Civil S ervic e Me ri t B oa

rd of She lby County , whic h is a

ho me ru le jur isd ic tio n, is e xemp t f ro m th e c on te ste d c a se proce dures se t forth in the UAPA. Additionally , pursuant to sec tion 27-9-114( b)(1) and (2) , judicial revie w of the de cisions of civil service boards are gove rned by the j udicial review st andar ds set forth in the UAPA at Tennessee Cod e Anno tate d § 4- 5- 32 2, and pe tit ion s f

or re vie w mus t be fi le d in the c ha nc e ry c ourt of the c ounty in whic h th e board is loc ate d. Th e re fo re , ju dic ia l r e vie w o f t he re le va nt d e te rm inatio ns of

a c ivi l service board g overne d by section 29-9- 114(a) (1) c lear ly is gove rn ed b y

the UAPA. City of Me mp his v

. Civ il S

e rv . Co mm ’n of M

e mp his , 2 16 S.W. 3d

31 1, 31 6 ( Te nn . 2 00 7) ; Tidw ell v. City of Me mp his , 193 S.W .3d 555, 559-560 (Te nn. 2006). Whether section 4-5-322 gove rns judicial re view of civil servic e boar ds not gove rned by s ec t i o n 2 7-9-114( a)( 1), howe ver, is less cle ar. See, e .g., County of Shelby v. Tompk ins , 241 S.W. 3d 50 0 (T e nn . Ct. App . 2 00 7) ; Gle av es v . S he lby Cou nty , No . W2 00 7- 02 25 9- CO A- R3- CV , 20 08 WL 46 48 35 4 (T e nn

. Ct. Ap p. Oc t. 2 1, 20 08 ); King v. Shelby County Gov’t Civil Serv. M erit Bd. , N o. W20 06 -0 25 37 -C OA -R 3- CV , 2 00 7 WL 16 95 40 4 (T e nn . Ct

. App. J une 13, 2007) ; Sandifer v. Civil Serv. Me rit Bd. , N o

. W1 9 9 9

- 0 2 0 1 7

- CO A

- R3

- CV , 1 9 9 9 WL 1336055 (Tenn. Ct. App. De c. 15, 1999)(conductingjudicial revie w pursuant to sec tion 4-5-322). But see, e .g., Fox v . Miles , 164 S.W .3d 593 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004); Case v. Shelby County Civil Serv. Merit Bd. , 98 S.W. 3d

16 7 ( Te nn . Ct . App . 2 00 2) ; Gros s v . G illess , 26 S.W .3d 488 (Tenn. Ct. App. 19 99 ); Da v is v . Lu tre ll , No. W2007-01077-COA-R3-CV, 2007 WL4374028 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 17, 2007)(pe rm. app. g rante d May 5, 2008)(a

pplying sta

ndard of revie w applica

ble to writ s ofU n d e r th e S h e lb y C o u n ty C iv il S e rv ic e M e rit A c t, “ [t]h e B o a rd sh a ll, w ith in 3 0 d a y s fr o m th e filin g o f sa id 2

a p p e a l , c o mme n c e a h e a r i n g t h e r e o n , a n d s h a l l t h e r e u p o n f u l l y h e a r a n d d e t e r mi n e t h e ma t t e r a n d s h a l l e i t h e r a f fi r m, m o d i fy o r r ev o k e such ord er of dis ci p l i n e. ” Pri v at e A ct s, ch

. 11 0 , § 2 3 (19 7 1 ).
-4- cer tiorari as enunciated in W

atts v. Civil Serv. Bd. , 606 S.W .2d 274, 277 (Tenn. 1980)). Also unc lear is whether, if

section 27-9- 114(b) e x tends to judicial revie w of civil service boards not proc eeding under the contested c ase pr ocedur es of the UAPA, section 27-9- 114(b) mandates the application of section 4-5- 322 in its entirety , or only the standar d of re view enunc iated in subsection 322(h)

. See County of Shelby v. Tompk ins, 241 S.W .3d 500, 506, n.3 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007)(perm. a pp. denied Nov. 19, 2007)(stating that if te rmination of employ ment was not ma

ndated by county char ter, the

“ ana ly sis wo uld

the n sh if t to

. . . wh e the r the Me ri t B oa rd ’s mod if

ic atio n c omp or

te d w iththe UA PA pr ov isi on s. ” ); King v. Shelby County Gov ’t Civil Serv. Merit Bd. , No. W2006-01079-COA-R3-CV, 2006 WL2506718 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug . 31, 2006)(va catingthe orde r of the tr ial court a nd
rema nding f or fur ther proc eeding s under Te nnessee Code Annotated se ction 4-5-322)

. As this Court has noted, section 4-5-322( h) g ener ally codifies the sc ope o f review applied
un der th e c omm on

law wri t of

c e rt ior ari a s d e sc ri be d in W a t t s

. K n ox v i l l e U

t i l s

. B d

. v

. K n ox v ill e Civil Serv. Me rit Bd. , No. 03A01-9301- C H- 0 0 0 0 8 , 1993 WL229505, at *9 (Te nn. Ct. App. J une 28, 1993). However, as noted, we be lieve sec tion 27-6-114(b) is somewhat ambiguous w ith respec t to whether it applies t o civil service board procee dings not g overne d by the UAPA as ma

ndated by section 27-5- 114. In this c ase, in lig ht of the B oard’ s September letter to the Depa

rtment advising 2 the De pa rtme nt t hat it ha d sixty da

y s wi thi n wh ic h to a

pp e a l the B oa

rd ’s de c isi on , it

a pp e ars that th is ambig uity ext e n d s to w h e th e r th e p e r io d

f o r a p p e a l i s g o v e r

n e d b y s e c ti o n4

- 5

- 3 2 2 , th e ju d ic ia l
re vie w s ub se c tio n o f t

he UA PA; se c tio n 2 7- 9- 10 2, wh ic h pro vid e s for the fi lin gof re vie w und e r wri t o f c e rti o r ar i; o r s e c ti o n 2 4 o f th e p r iv ate a c t e s ta b li s h in g th e Ci v il Se r

v ic e M e r it A c t f

or Shelby County in 1971.

Tenne ssee Code Annotated § 4-5- 322(b)( 1)(A) provides that a pe tition for review“shall be filed with six ty

(60) da y s after the entry of the a g ency ’s final orde r there on.” Similarly , Tenne ssee Code Annotated §27- 9-102 provides that a petition for ce rtio rari seekingrevie w of a board or commission order or judgme nt sha ll be filed in the chanc ery court within six ty (60) da y s from the entry of the orde r or judg ment. Section 24 of the Shelby County Civil Service Merit Act, howe ver, pr ov ide s:
APPEALFROMD E CI SI ON OF BO ARD. Wit hin 30 day s following the publication of the de cision of the Boa rd, on any matter he ard by

it, either the involved e mploy ee or the a ppo i n t i n g authorit y

from whose order

the appe al was taken may appea l the d e c i s i o no f

th e B o ar d

t o th e C i r c u i tC o urto r

C h an c e r y C o urto f

th e C o un ty.
Private Ac ts, ch. 110, § 24 (1971).
The Ge nera l Assembly

has broa d, “a l m ost unlim ited” author ity to structure c ounty

and
mun ic ipa l g ov e rnme nt b y pr ivate le g isl atio n when th at le g isl atio n “ do e s n ot c on tr ave ne so meA lth o u g h w e n o te th a t a n u m b e r o f c a se s su g g e st th a t a p e tit io n fo r re v ie w m a y b e filed w ith in six ty d a y s in 3

ac cor danc e w i t h s ec t i on 27- 9- 102 w her e t he t r i al c our t ’ s j ur i s di ct i o n w as n o t a d dr es s ed, i t doe s not a ppea r t hat t he q u e stio n o f w h e th e r th e ti m e fo r a p p e a l is g o v e rn e d b y th e p riv a te a c t o r th e g e n e ra l sta tu te h a s b e e n a dju d ic a te d w ith
r es pect t o t he Shel by C ou nt y C i vi l S er vi ce M er i t A ct

. Furt her, t he copy o f t he Shel by Co un t y C i vi l Ser vi ce M er i t A ct p ro v id e d to th is C o u rt b y th e D e p a rtm e n t i n re sp o n se to o u r O rd e r o f O c to b e r 3 0 , 2 0 0 8 , i n d ic a te s n o a m e n d m e n t t o s ec t i on 24 of

t he A ct

. Thus , bar r i ng a dj udi ca t i on t o t he cont r ar y, i t a ppea r s a pe t i t i on f or r evi ew of t he det er m i nat i on o f t h e Sh el b y C o u n t y C i v i l Serv i ce M eri t B o ard m u st be fi l ed w i t h i n t h i rt y da y s o f t h e p u b l i cat i o n of t h e B o ard’s ord er.

W e obs er ve t hat t he Boar d’ s or der w as s i gned by t he as s i s t ant s ec r et ar y of t he Boar d on A ugus t 28, 2006, a nd 4 by t he cha i r m an of t he Boar d on Se pt em ber 8, 2006. I n i t s br i ef t o t hi s Cour t , t he D epa r t m ent r ec i t es Se pt em ber 8, 2006,
as t he dat e on w hi ch t he Boar d i s s ued i t s opi ni on. -5- mandatorily

applicable g ener al state law ” and when ther e is a “ rea sonable ba sis for classific ation or depar ture fr om ge nera l statutes.” Sh e lby Cou nty Civ il Se rv

. Me rit Bd

. v . Li v e ly , 692 S.W .2d 15, 18 (T e nn . 1 98 5). Th us , ab se nt a ny ame ndme nt t o th e a c t or a dju dic atio n to the c on tr ary , th e Civ il Service Merit Act as enac ted by the Gene ral Assembly in 1971 ma ndates that a

ny petition for re view of the Shelby

County Civil Service Boa rd’s de terminations be filed w ithin thi rty (30) da y s of the Boa rd’s orde r. Case v. Shelby County Civil Serv. Merit Bd. , 9 8 S. W.3 d 1 67 , 1 71 n. 3 (T e nn . Ct

. 3 Ap p. 20 02 )(pe rm . a

pp

. de nie d De c . 9 , 2 00 2) (q uo tin g19 71 Te nn . Pr iv. Ac ts c h. 11 0 § 24 ); Kent v. Civil Serv. Merit Bd. of Shelby County, 652 S.W .2d 350, 351 (Tenn. A pp. 1983)(notingthat, under section 24 of the pr ivate ac t, “appe al” a uthorized to be filed within thirty day s of B oard or der w as r e v i e w o f o r d e r un d e r p e t i t i o n f o r w r i t o f c e rt i o r ar i a ndno t de novo appea l); Shelby County v

. Taylor , 1986 WL13430, at *4 (Te nn. Ct. App. Dec. 1, 1986)

. The de adline for

filing a p et i t i o n for r eview of an ag ency

decision is mandatory

and jurisdictional. United Steel W orkers of America v. T

enn. Air Pollution Cont rol Bd. , 3 S.W .3d 468, 472 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998)(pe rm. app. denie d Oct. 11, 1999). A ccor dingly , a trial c ourt lacks subjec t matter jurisdiction to adjudicate a petition filed beyond the statutory deadline. Id. Subject matter jurisdiction conce rns t he authority of the c ourt to hear

a matter and ca nnot be waive d. Meighan v

. U.S. Sprint Commc'ns Co. , 924 S.W .2d 632, 639 (Tenn. 1996) . This Court may consi d er subjec t matter jurisdiction sua sponte. Te nn. R. App. P. 13(b); R uff v . Stat e , 9 7 8 S.W .2d 95, 98 (Tenn. 1998). It is well-settled that an orde r of a court a ctingwithout ju ri s d i ct i o n i s void. E.g., Shelby Cou nty v . Ci ty of M e mp his , 413, 365 S.W .2d 291, 292 (Tenn. 1963)

. I t appea rs from the rec ord i n this cause that the Board issued its final order on September 8, 20 06

. Th e De pa

rtme nt, ho we ve r, d id no t f ile its pe tit ion

fo r r e vie w i n th e c ha

nc e ry c ourt un til 4 No ve mbe r 1 4, 20 06

. Thus , th e De pa rtme nt’ s p e tit ion

fo r r e vie w c le arl y

wa s f ile d b e y on d th e thi rt

y day s provided in sec t i o n 2 4 o f the Civil Service Mer it Act and beyond the six ty day s provided by Tenne ssee Code A nnotated § 4-5- 322 and by § 2 7 -9 -1 0 2 . Acc ording ly , the trial cour t lacked jurisdiction over this matter, and its orde r is void.

Hol din g-6-

I n light o f th e f

o r e g o in g , th e o r d e r o f th e tr ia l c o urt is v a c ate d f o r la c k o f s u

b je c t matter jur isd ic tio n, and

thi s a pp e a l is dis mis se d. Th e re so lut ion of the qu e sti on s r a ise d her e in m us t the re fo re be re so lve d a

no the r da y
. Cos ts of thi s a

pp e a l are taxed

to t he Ap pe lla

nt, She lby

County She ri ff ’s De pa rtme nt.

___________________________________ DAVI D R. FARMER , JUDGE