### IN THE CO URT OF APPEALS OF TE NNE SS EE AT NASHVILL E Ass ig ne d On Bri efs Jan ua ry 31 , 20 11

ANDREW J . BRADEN, II I v . TENNESS EE DEPARTME NT OF

CORRECTI ON, E T A L


### .

D i r e c t A p p e a l f

r o m t h e C h a n c e r y C o u r t f o r H i c k m a n C o u n t y N o . 0 9

- 2 9 8 C J e f

f r e y S

. B i v i n s , C h a n c e l l o r

N o . M 2 0 1 0

- 0 1 6 4 5

- C O A

- R 3

- C V

- F i l e d A p r i l 2 5 , 2 0 1 1

This is a prisoner appea l from a disciplinary conviction. Be cause the prisoner did not file his petition for common law writ of cer tiorari within six ty day s of the denial of h i s d i s ci p l i n ary appea l or demonstrate a timely fi l i n g of the petition pursuant to Rule 5.06 of the Tenne ssee Rules of Civil Procedur e, we do not have subject matter jurisdiction to consider the issues prese nted. This appea l is dismi ssed.

T e n n . R

. A p p . P

. 3 A p p e a l a s o f R i g h t ; A p p e a l D i s m i s s e d

D A V I D R. F A R M E R , J
., delivere d the opinion of the Court, in wh i ch H O L L Y M. K I R B Y , J

. and J

. S T E V E N S T A F F O R D , J ., joined.

Andre w J . Br aden, I I I
, Pro Se

.

Robert E. Cooper, J r., Attorney Gene ral and R ep o rter, Michae l E. Moore, Solicitor Gene ral, and David S. Sadlow, Assistant Attorney Gene ral, for the appellee s, Tenne ssee Depa rt m ent of Correc tion, Commi ssioner Der rick D. Schofield
, L ester Qualls, Sergeant Mark Turney
, Warden 1 J ames F ortner, Ser g eant Nic ky J ordan, Stac y

Be ll and Ronnie Wi lliams.

MEMORAN DUM OP INION 2

I n acc ord anc e wit h Rule 19( c) of the T enn ess ee Rule s of Appel la te Pro ced ure , Der ri ck D. Scho fi el d, 1 the cur re nt Com m is si one r of the Depa rt m ent of Corr ect ion
, has bee n sub st it ute d for his pre dec ess ors , Geor ge Lit tl e a nd Ga yle Ray.

Rule 10 o f t he Ru le s of

th e Cou rt of

Appe al s of

T enn ess ee pro vides : 2

T his Cour t, wit h the con cur re nce of al l j udges par ti ci pat ing in the cas e, m ay af fi rm, re verse

or m odi fy the act ion s of the tr ia l cou rt by m emoran dum opi nio n when a for m al opi nio n (c ont inu ed.. .)The petitioner/appe llant, Andre w J

. Br aden, I I I (“ P risoner” ), is a prisoner at the Turney

Center I ndustrial Complex in Only
, Tenne ssee. On Aug ust 31, 20 0 9
, P ri s o n er pled g uilty to disciplinary char g es arising out of a conspirac y to commit theft from the prison commissary
, writing the terms “under duress” benea th his signa ture on the “Ag ree ment to P l ea Gu i l t y and Waiver of Disciplinary Hea

ring and Due Process Rights.” On September 29, 2009, the prison war den aff irmed the conviction of Prisoner. On October 29, 2009, the Commi ssioner of the Tenne ssee Depa rtment of Correc tion (“Commissioner”) returne d Pris o n e r ’ s d is c ip li n a r y a p p e a l u n a n s w e red “with no further action required” finding that the entry of a gu i lty plea under t he circumstance s constituted waiver of Prisoner’s rig ht to appea l his conviction. On Dec ember 30, 2009, Prisoner’s petition for common law wr it of cer

tiorari wa s filed with the Chance ry Court of Hickman County

.

The responde nts/appellees, the Depa rtment of Correc tion, Commi ssioner Der rick Schofield, L ester Qualls, S er gea n t Mark Turney
, Warden J ames Fortner
, Serg eant Nicky J ordan, St acy Be ll, and Ronnie Wil liams (“Responde nts”), responde d with a notice of no opposition to the g ranting of the writ of cer

tiorari. After the cer

tified rec ord was filed, h o we v er , Respondents moved for judgme nt on the rec ord arg uing in pertinent part that Prisoner did not timely file his petition for writ of cer tiorari, t h er eb y depriving the chanc ery court of jurisdiction over the issues prese nted. The chanc ery court ag ree d and dismiss ed Prisoner’s case

. Prisoner timely appea led, prese nting sever al i s s ues conce rning the validity of his g uilty plea and the actions of Respondents leading u p t o t h e entry of his plea. Prisoner, howeve r, did not addre ss whether the chanc ery court proper ly conclude d his petition was time barre d.

The dispositi ve issue befor e this Court is whether we have subje ct matter jurisdiction to enter tain Prisoner’s a

ppeal. “ The proper vehicle for challeng ing a di sciplinary action is a petiti on for a common law writ of cer tiorari, and the petition must be filed within six ty day s of the challeng ed action.” Rhoden v . State Dep’ t of Correction
, 984 S.W .2d 955, 956 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998) ( citing Tenn. Code Ann. § 27-9-102; Bishop v. Conley
, 894 S.W .2d 294, 296 (Tenn. Cr. App. 1994 )). 3 “F ailure to file within the statutory time limit deprive s the court of subject matter jurisdiction.” Gore

(... con ti nue d) 2 woul d have no pre ced ent ia l value. Wh en a cas e is dec ide d by m emorand um opi nio n it sha ll be des ignat ed “M EMORANDUM OPI NI ON”, sha ll not be publ is hed
, and sha ll not be ci te d

or re li ed o n f

or any re aso n i n an y unrel at ed c ase

.

T enn ess ee Code Annot at ed s ect ion 27- 9- 102 pro vides : 3

Such par ty sha ll
, wit hin si xty (60 ) days fr om the ent ry of th e ord er or j udgm ent , fi le a pet it ion of cer ti ora ri in the cha nce ry cou rt of any cou nty in whic h any one (1) or m ore of the pet it ion er s, or any one (1) or m ore of the m at er ia l def end ant s re si de, or have the ir pri nci pal off ic e, st at ing bri ef

ly the is sue s invol ved in the cau se, the sub st anc e of the ord er or j udgm ent complai ned of, of the re spe ct s in whic h the pet it ion er cl ai ms t h e ord er or j udgm ent is

er ron eou s, a nd p ra ying for an a cco rda nt re view.

T enn . Code Ann. § 27- 9- 102 (20 00)

.
-2-v. T

enn. Dep’t of Correction
, 132 S.W .3d 369, 379 (Tenn. Ct. Ap p

. 2003) (citing W heele r v. C ity of Mem phis
, 685 S.W .2d 4 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1984)). This Court often g ives a prisoner the benef it of the latest possible date on w hich the time for f iling beg ins to run when dete rmining the timeliness of a petition for writ of cer tiorari. E.g.
, Jack

son v. Tenn. Dep’ t of Correction
, 240 S.W .3d 241, 247 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006); W

ilson v. Tenn. Dep’ t of Correction
, No. W2005-00910-COA-R3-CV, 2006 WL 32 5 9 3 3
, at *5 (Tenn. Ct. App. Fe b. 13, 2006), pet. to rehear denied (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 9, 2006). Additionally
, pro se prisoners may comply with the filing deadline mere ly by demonstrating that the petit ion was “delivere d to the appropriate indivi dual at the correc tional fac ility within the time fix ed for filing,” even if the cler k of the court rec eives the petition afte r the time fix ed for filing. Tenn. R. Civ. P. 5.06. The burden to demonstrate compliance with Rule 5.06 of the Tenne ssee Rules of Civil Procedur e nonetheless rests with the petitioner if timeliness of the filing become s an issue. Id. ; accord Jack

son , 240 S.W .3d at 247.

The latest possible date upon which the time for filing Prisoner’s petition for writ of common law ce rt i o ra ri b eg an was October 29, 2009. Prisoner’s petition was filed with the cler k of the chanc ery court on Dec ember 30, 2009, six ty -two day s afte r t he denial of his disciplinary appea l. Prisoner thus d i d n o t timely file his petition with the cler k of the chanc ery court. The rec ord demonstrates, howeve r, that Prisoner signe d his petition on Dec ember 28, 2009, the final day of the timely filing period. This leave s open the possibili ty that Prisoner complied with the filing deadline of Tenne ssee Code Annotated 27-9-102 if he also delivere d the petition to the appropr iate individual
at the Turney Center I ndustrial Complex on Dec ember 28. But the rec ord is silent on this issue and Prisoner does not arg ue that he complied with the timely filing period. Petitioner there fore has not borne his bur den to de monstrate compliance with the six ty -day filing period under Rule 5.06. We dismiss this appeal for

lack of subject matter jur isdiction.

Conclusion

For the fore g oing rea s o n s , t h i s appea l is dismiss ed. Costs of this appea l are taxed to the appellant, Andr ew J. Bra den, I I I , for whic h execution may issue if nec essar

y

.

_________________________________ DAVI D R. FARMER, J UDGE

-3-