### IN THE COURT OF APP EALS OF TENNESS EE AT JAC KSON A SS IG N E D O N BR IE FS JU N E 11, 200 8
CA RL ROS S v. TEN NES SEE D EP AR TME NT OF COR REC TION

Direc t Appeal from the Chancer y Court for Laud erdale County No. 13785 William C. Cole, Chancellor

No. W2008-00422-C OA-R3-C V - Filed October 30, 2008

In th is a pp e a l, w e are a sk e d to de te rm ine wh e the r the c ha nc e ry c ourt

e rr e d in fi nd ingthat th e Wes t T e n n e s s e e S t a t e P e n i t e nt i ar y D i s c i p l i n ar

y B o ar d a c t e d w i th i ni t s j ur i s d i c t i o nan d d i d n o ta c ti l l e g a l l y, arbitra rily or fr audulently

and substantially complied with its policies and proce dures in dismissing Appellant ’s cl aim s that: (1) the B oard de viated fr om TDOC Policy No. 502.01(VI )(E) (4)( a) by failingto dismi ss one of the charg es aga inst Appellant; (2) the Board deviated fr om TDOC Policy 502.01(VI )(E) (3)( c)( 6) and (VI )(E) (3)( d)(1) -(4) by failingto call Off

icer Hankins; (3) the Boa

rd deviated f rom TDOC Policy

502.01(VI )(E) (3)( e) by

failingto independently assess and verify the rel ia b il it y o f th e c o n f

id e n ti a l in f

o r ma n t; ( 4 ) th e B o ar d d e v iate d f r o m T D O C policy 502.01(VI )(E) (3)( i)(1) by finding Appellant guilty of possession of a c ontrolled substance without any evidenc e; and ( 5) the B oard deviated from TDOC Policy (VI )(E) (3)( k)(5) by

failingto provide detailed r easons f

or i ts decisions and fa iling to summarize the evidenc e which le d to the Boa rd finding Appellant guilty . We affir m.

Tenn. R. App . P. 3; Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the C hancery Court Affir med

A LA N E. H I G H ERS , P.J.,W.S., delivered the opinion of the court, in which D AVI D R. F ARMER , J., and H OL LY M. K I RBY , J., joined.
Carl Ross, Mountain Ci ty, TN, pr o s e Robert C. Cooper, Jr., Attorne y Gene ral a nd Reporter , Michae l E. Moore, Solicitor Gene ral, Ke llena Baker, A ssistant Attorney Gene ral, Na shville, TN, for Appe llee

OP IN IONH ow eve r , ac cor di ng t o A ppel l ee ’ s B r i ef , A ppel l ant s er ved onl y a t ot al of t w ent y days i n puni t i ve s egr ega t i on 1 b e g in n in g M a y 1 , 2 0 0 7

.

The Tenne s s ee D ep art m en t o f Cor r ec t i on’ s U ni f or m D i s ci pl i nar y Pr oce dur es w er e am ende d, e f f ec t i ve 2
O ct ober 1, 2007. H ow eve r , w e r efer t o the v ers i o n e ff ec t i ve J une 14, 2004, w hi ch w as i n pl ac e at t he t i m e of t he in c id e n t.
-2- I. F A C TS & P R OC EDU R A L H I S T ORY Carl Ross (“Appe llant”) is an inmate in the c ustody of t h e T en n es see D epar tment of Correc tion (“TDOC” or “Appellee” ). At all times rele vant t o this appea l, Appellant was housed at the West Tennessee State Penitentiary (“ WTS P”) in Henning , Tenne ssee, ope rate d by Appellee , serving a max imum sentenc e of 192 y ear s for a varie ty of criminal convictions. On April 23, 2007, Appellant re ceive d two discip l i n ar y char g es: (1) inc ident number 00696413, for possession of a controlled substanc e, mar ijuana, in violation of Tenne ssee Code A nnotated sec tion 39-17-417, and (2) incide nt number 00696416, for introduction of contra

band into a pena l fac ility , in violation of Te nn e sse e Cod e Anno tate d s e c tio n 3 9- 16 -2 01

. Th e c ha rg e s ste mme d f

ro m an Apr il 2 1, 20 07 vis it with Renee Wimbley

in which Ms. Wim bley

alleg edly “introduce d drug s into the fac ility and passe d them to [ Appellant.]”
On May 1, 2007, WTS P conducted a discipli n ar y h ea ri n g conce rningeac h char g e. The WTS P Disciplinary

Boa rd (“ Boa rd”) found Appe llant guilty of both violations of state law. For eac h conviction, Appellant r ece ived a $5.00 f ine and twe nty

day s punitive se g reg ation. Additionally , for 1 int ro du c ingc on tr a

ba nd int o a pe na l fa c ili ty , Ap pe lla nt re c e ive d s ix mon ths pa c ka g e re str ic tio n, six
m o n th s v i s i t at i o ns u s p en s i o n , an d wa s re co m m en d edt o th re e m o n th s o f i n t en s i v e c o un s el i n g. Appellant’s a

ppeals to the WTSP W arde n and the TD OC Commi ssioner we re denied. On J uly 18, 2007, Appellant filed a

Pet i t i o n fo r Writ of Common L aw Cer tiorari, alleg ing that Appellee committed multi ple violations of its Uniform Disciplinary Procedur es. After

Appell ee filed a 2 Notice of No Opposition to Granting Petition for Writ of Certiora ri, the t rial cour

t entere d an Or der g ran ti n g c e rti o r ar i o nA u g u s t 2 1 , 2 0 0 7 , an d Ap p e ll e e f

il e d a c e rti f ie d c o p y o f th e d is c ip lina ry proce eding s conce rningAppellant’s c onvictions on Sep t em b er 28, 2007. Appellee the n filed a Motion for J udg ment on the Recor d and Appe llant filed a Motion for J udg ment on the Pleading . On F e br ua ry 1, 20 08 , th e tr ia l c ourt

e nte re d a n O rd e r o f D ism iss a l, f

ind ing“ that th e B oa

rd a c te d w ith in its jurisd ic tio n, did

no t a c t il le g a lly , a

rb itr ari ly or fr a ud ule ntl y , [th a t] th e B oa

rd su bs tanti a lly complied with its p o l i ci es and pr ocedur es and [that] t here [was] materia l evidence to support the Boa rd’s finding s.” This appe al followed.

II. I SSU ES P R ESENTEDThe “S t at em ent of t he I s s ues ” s ec t i on of A ppel l ant ’ s A ppel l at e Br i ef l i s t s as t he s i ngl e i s s ue, “ W het her t he 3

t r i al c our t e r r ed i n hol di ng t hat t he pr i s on di s ci pl i nar y boa r d’ s vi ol at i ons of U ni f or m D i s ci pl i nar y Pr oce dur e s wer e m i nor devi at i ons a nd di d not r es ul t i n pr ej udi ce , af f ec t i ng t he di s pos i t i on of t he c as e? ” H ow eve r , A ppel l ant ’ s “ St at em ent of t he Fact s ” des cr i bes f i ve i s s ues befor e t hi s Co urt

. W e per cei ve t he i s s ue pres ent ed un der t he “St at em ent of t he I s s ue” t o be t he s am e as t he f i ft h i s s ue des cr i bed i n t he “S t at em ent of t he Fa ct s

. ” Thus , w e bel i eve A ppel l ant has r ai s ed f i ve issu e s b e fo re th is C o u rt.
-3- Appellant has timely

filed his notice of appea l and pre sents the followingissues for re view: 3

1. Whe the r t

he B oa rd de viate d f

ro m T DO C Pol ic y 50 2. 01 (V I )( E) (4 )( a ) b y fa ili ngto d ism iss
on e of the c ha rg e s b e c a us e the c ha

rg e s w e re e xac tly

sim ila r; 2. Whether

th e B o a r d d e v ia te d from TDO C Pol icy

502.01 (VI )(E) (3)( c)( 6) and ( VI )(E) (3)( d)(1) -( 4) by fa ili ngto c a ll O ff

ic e r H ank ins a s a

wi tne ss, a s w a s r e qu e ste d b y Ap pe lla nt; 3. W heth e r t

he B oa rd de viate d f

ro m T DO C Pol ic y

50 2. 01 (V I )( E) (3 )( e ) b y fa ili ngto ind e pe nd e ntl y

a sse ss a nd ve ri fy the re lia bil ity of the c on fi de nti a l in fo rm ant; 4. Whether the B oard de viated fr om TDOC Pol ic y 5 0 2.01 (VI )(E) (3)( i)(1) by finding Appellant g uilty of possession of a c ontrolled substance which wa s unsupported by any evidenc e; 5. Whether the B oard deviated f rom established disciplinary proce dures by

to failing to provide detailed r easons f

or its decisions and fa ilin g t o summarize the evidenc e which le d to the decision to find him guilty of the two c harg es of violatingstate law. Additionally , Appellee prese nts the following issue f or re view:

6. W h et h er the trial court c orre ctly conclude d that the West Tennessee State Penitentiary Di sc ipl ina

ry B oa rd did no t a c t il le g a lly , a

rb itr ari ly , c a

pr ic iou sly , o r o uts ide the sc op e of its jurisdiction.

F or the fo llo wi ngre a so ns , w e a ff ir m th e de c isi on

of the c ha nc e ry c ourt

.
III
. S TA N D A R D O F REVIEW
“The common-law writ of certiorar i serve s as t he proper procedura l vehicle thr oug h which prisoners may

seek r eview of

decisions by

prison disciplinary

boar d s , parole elig ibilit y revie w boards, and other simil ar administrative tribunals.” Ja c ks on v. Tenn. D e p’ t of Cor r. , No. W2005- 0 2 2 4 0 -C OA -R 3 -C V, 2 0 0 6 W L 1 5 4 7 8 5 9 , at * 3 (T en n

. C t

. Ap p

. J un e 8 , 2 0 0 6 ) ( ci t i n g Rh od e n v . S tate De p’ t of Cor r. , 984 S.W .2d 955, 956 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1988)). The issuanc e of a writ of common-la

w cer tiorari is not an adjudication of any thing. Ke e n v

. T e nn. D e p’ t of Cor r. , No. M2007-00632-COAR 3 -C V, 2 0 0 8 W L 5 3 9 0 5 9 , at * 2 (T en n

. C t

. Ap p

. Fe b

. 2 5 , 2 0 0 8 ) ( ci t i n g Go rev . Te nn . D e p’ t of Cor r. , 132 S.W .3d 369, 375 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003)). Instead, it is “simply an order to t he lower tribunal to file the complete rec ord of its proce eding s so the t rial court can determine whether the petitioner is entitled to relief.” Id. (c i t i n g Ha wk ins v . Te nn . D e

p’ t of Cor r. , 1 27 S.W. 3d

74 9, 75 7 ( Te nn . Ct

. Ap p. 20 02 ); Hall v. Mc

Lesky , 83 S.W.3 d 752 , 757 (T e nn . Ct. App . 200 1) ). “ Re vie w und e r a wr it of ce rtiorar i is li mited to whether the inferior board or tribunal exceed ed i t s j urisdiction or ac ted illega lly , arbitra

rily , or fr audulently .” Jackson , 2 0 0 6 W L 1 5 4 7 8 5 9 , at * 3 (c i t i n g Mc Cal le n v . Ci tyI n hi s Repl y Br i ef , A ppel l ant a r gues t hat bot h c har ges , pos s es s i on of a c ont r ol l ed s ubs t anc e and i nt r oduct i on 4

o fc o n tra b a n d in to a p e n a l fa c ili ty , sh o u ld b e d ism isse d a n d th a t A p p e llan t sh o u ld h a v e b e e n p ro p e rly c h a rg e d w ith “c ons pi r ac y t o vi o l a t e s t a t e l a w. ” B e c a u s e Ap p e l l a n t d i d n o t r a i s e t h i s i s s u e b e f o r e t h e t r i a l c o u r t , we wi l l n o t n ow
a d d re ss it. Si m ps on v
. Fr ont i erCm t y. Cr edi t U ni on , 81 0 S.W

. 2 d 14 7 , 15 3 (T en n

. 19 9 1 ).

-4- of M e mp his , 7 86 S.W. 2d

63 3, 64 0 ( Te nn . 1 99 0) ). “Th e re vie wi ngc ourt is n ot e mpo we re d ‘ to inquire i nto the intrinsic corr ectne ss of the boar d’s dec ision.’” Go rd on v . T e nn. D e p’ t of Cor r. , No. M 2 0 0 6 -0 1 2 7 3 -COA-R3-CV, 2007 WL2200277, at *2 (Te nn. Ct. App. J uly 30, 2007) (quoting W ill is v . Te nn . D e

p’ t of Cor r. , 113 S.W .3d 706, 712 (Tenn. 2003)). Our Supreme Court has held that a common-la

w writ of c ertiora

ri may be used to re medy : “(1) f undamentally

i l l ega l rulings; (2) p r o c e e d i n g s i n c o n s i s t e n tw i the s s e n t i a l l e g a l r e qu i r e m e n t s ; ( 3 ) p r o c e e d i n g s th a te f f e c t i v e l y d e n y a party his or her day in court; (4) decisions bey ond the l ower tribunal’s authority ; and (5) pla in and palpable a

buses of discr etion.” Gordon , 2 0 0 7 W L2 2 0 0 2 7 7 , at* 2 (c i t i n g W ill is , 113 S.W .3d at 712). The r eviewingcourt doe s n o t weig h the evidenc e, but must uphold the lower tribunal’s decision if t h e l ower

tribunal “a cted within its jurisdiction, di d not act illeg ally or ar bitrarily or fra udulently , and if ther e is any materia l evidence to support the [t ribunal ’s ] fi ndings.” Jackson , 2 0 0 6 W L1 5 4 7 8 5 9 , at* 3 (c i t i n g W att s v . Ci v il Ser v. Bd

. o f Co lum bia , 606 S.W .2d 274, 276-77 (T e nn . 1 98 0) ; Da v iso n v . Ca rr , 6 59 S.W. 2d 36 1, 36 3 (T e nn

. 19 83 )) . “ A b oa rd ’s de te rm inatio n is arbitra ry and void if it is unsupported by any materia l evidence .” Gordon , 2007 WL2200277, at *2 (c i t i n g W att s , 6 06 S.W. 2d 27 4, 27 6- 77 (T e nn . 1 98 0) ). Whe the r t he re e xiste d mate ri a l e vid e nc e to support the boar d’s dec ision is a question of l aw whic h should be deter mined by the re viewingcourt based on the evidenc e submitted. Id. (c i t i n g W att s , 606 S.W .2d at 277).

This Court must revie w a tria l court’s c onclusions of matter s of law de novo with no presumption of cor

rec tness. Gordon , 2007 WL2200277, at *2 (c iting Te nn. R. Ap p . P. 13(d); Bo wde n v . W

ar d , 27 S.W .3d 913, 916 (Tenn. 20 0 0 ))

. Beca use our r eview of

the boar d’s de te rm inatio n “ is n o b ro a de r o r m or e c omp re he ns ive tha n th a t of the tr ial cou rt wi th r e sp e c t to evidenc e pre sented be fore the [b] oard[,]” Id. (c i t i n g Wa tts , 606 S.W .2d at 277), this Court “will not ‘inquire into the int rinsic correc tness of t he [ b]oard’s decision,’ but will uphol d the dec ision if it was
rea ched lawfully and in a constitutional manne r.” Id. (q u o t i n g Hopkins v. Tenn. Bd. of Paroles and Prob. , 60 S.W .3d 79, 82 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001))

.
IV. D I S CUS S I ON
A. Two Ch arges First, Appe llant asserts that the Boar d deviated f rom TDOC Policy

502.01 (VI )(E) (4)( a) by failingto dismi ss one of the c harg es ag ainst Appellant, as the t wo charg es were “ exactly simil ar.” 4 TDOC Policy

50.01 (VI )(E) (4)( a) provides that, “It is permissible to f ind a n inmate guilty

of two (2) ch ar ges th at ar e se p ar at e an d d i s t i n ct , b u t o cc urr i n g i n th e s am e i n ci d en t(e

. g. , an “a s s au l t ” c h ar ge which occ urre d while the inmate was also g uilty of a char g e of “being out of place ”).” In support of his argume nt t

hat th e tw o c ha

rg e s we re “ e xac tly

sim ila r, ” Ap pe lla

nt p oints o ut t

hat bo th c ha

rg e s’ disciplinary

repor ts used simil ar la

ng uag e to desc ribe the inc ident. L ikewise, Appe llant notes that-5-

identical languag e wa s used in both char g es’ Contempora neous Record of Confidential Informant Reliability

forms to descr ibe the conf idential information provided to the B oard.

In Keen v . TennesseeDepartme nt of Corr ection , N o

. M 2 0 0 7

- 0 0 6 3 2

- CO A

- R3

- CV , 2 0 0 8 WL 53 90 59 , at *3 (T e nn . Ct . App . F e b. 25 , 2 00 8), we hel d th a t th e c ha rg e s o f p os se ssi on

of a de a dly
wea pon and attempted a ssault were “sepa rate and dis tinct.” In so finding , we noted that the forme r char g e was based on a

ppellant’s “phy sical possession” of the deadly wea pons, while the latter w as pr e mis e d o n “ the pla c e me nt o f t ho se ite ms i n a wa

y tha t w a s a lle g e dly

c a lc ulate d to inj ur e ” pe rs on s. Id. L ikewise, in this case , we f ind that the char g e of possession of a controlled substance w as base d on Appellant’s “possession” of marijuana , and that the charg e of introduc ing c ontraba nd into a penal fac ility was ba sed upon Appe llant “[k] nowing ly and with unlawful int ent[,] tak[ing], send[ing] or otherwise c aus[ing] to be taken into a[] penal institution . .

. [a] controlled substanc e.” Te nn. C ode Ann. § 39-16-201 . A c c or din g ly , w e fi nd that App e lla

nt w as convic te d o f “ se pa ra te and dis tin c t” char g es as a llowed under TDOC Policy

502.01(VI )(E) (4)( a).

B. O ff ic e r Ha nki

ns Next, Appellant conte n ds that the Boa rd deviated from TD OC Poli cy 502.01(VI )(E) (3)( c)( 6) and (V I )(E) (3)( d)(1) -(4) by fa ili ngto c a ll O ff

ic e r H ank ins a s a

wi tne ss, wh e n, a c c ordi ngto Appellant, he w ould have testified tha t “[Appellant] di d not enter the search ro o m [ wh ere the marijuana was found] without being escor ted by an off icer .” The se provisions provide:

I f t he inm a te ple a ds “ no t guil ty [ ,] ” he/ sh e sh a ll b e pe rm itt e d .

. . to p re s en tth e t es t i m o n y

o f r el ev an twi tn es s (e s ), un l es s al l o wi n g a witness to appea

r would pose a threat to inst itutional safety or orde r.
TDOC P olicy 502.01(VI)( E)(3)( c)( 6).

The boa rd/hea ringoffice r

s h a llr e c o r d

o n a D is c iplinary

Continuation, C R-1831, specific rea son(s) for not permitting the attendance of a witness reque sted by

an inmate. (1) An inmate who wishe s to h av e witness(es) (inmate or staff) pr e se nt t o te sti fy

on his /he r b e ha lf

a t th e hear ingsh a ll
c omp le te an Inmate Witn e ss R e qu e st , CR- 35 11 , a nd su bmi t it to the c hairpe rson/hear ing of fice r at lea st twenty -four

(24) hours prior to the he aring

. T he cha irperson/he aringoffice r shall indicate on the form whethe r the inmate’ s reque st has been a pproved or

denied a nd, if a re quested witness is denied, the s pecif ic re ason(s) f

or not permitting the attendanc e of the witness reque sted by

an inmate. (2) I f an inmate fails to reque st a witness on CR-3511 prior to the hear ing, the cha i rperson/hearingoffice r may still allow the witness to testify

. Fa ctors to be considere d in making suc h aTD O C Pol i cy 502. 0 1 (V I) (E ) ( 3) ( f ) s t at es : “ A t a ny t i m e dur i ng t he f or m al di s ci pl i nar y pr oce s s , t he 5
di s ci pl i nar y he ar i ng of f i ce r / cha i r per s on .

. . m ay or der t he hea r i ng c ont i nued. I n t hi s i ns t anc e, t he aff ec t ed i nm at e or hi s / her advi s or s hal l be not i f i ed of t he cont i nu ance a nd t he r eas on ( s ) docu m ent ed on t he hear i ng s um m ar y. ”
-6- de c isi on incl ud e the wi tne ss, the natur e of the wi tne ss’ te sti mony and ho w dif fi c ult it wo uld

be to o bta in t

he wi tne ss’ t e s t i m o n y. (3) An inmate may

submit a written witness statement whe n the persona l appea

ranc e of a witness has bee n denied. (4) When a witness ca nnot be phy sically prese nt at a hearing , the chair person/hea

ring office r may

allow his/her testimony

to be g ive n b y tel ephon e , p ro vid e d a

sp e ake r t e le ph on e is u se d s o that all p er s o n s participatingin the hear ing c an hea r the t e s t i m o n y.
TDOC P olicy 502.01(VI)( E)(3)( d)(1)-( 4)

. Appellant admits that he did not comply with TDOC Policy

502.01(VI )(E )( 3 )( d )(1) ’s require ment that he complete a CR-3511 witness reque st form. Howeve r, Appe llant contends that he wa s unable to do so, as he was being held in seg reg ation, and his inmate advisor, f rom whom such forms m ust be requested, did not “come to see [ him] until moments prior to the hearing .” From the
rec ord, it appea

rs that Appellant’ s inmate advisor, in the he aringon the cha rg e of posse ssion of a controlled substanc e, aske d to call Off icer Hankins as a

witness. Howeve r, Off

icer Hankins wa s not
ava ila ble to t e sti fy

be c a us e he wa s w or

kin g a dif fe re nt s hif

t. D e sp ite his fa ilure to co mpl e te aCR3511 form, Appellant maintains that pursuant to TDOC Policy 502.01(VI )(E) (3)( d)(4) , the hea ring office r should have attempted to contact Of fice r Ha nkins by t elephone . Fur

thermore , Appellant argues that the he aringoffice r, under TDOC Policy

502.02(VI )(E) (3)( f), should have c ontinued the 5 hear ing until a time whe n Offic er H ankins was available.

We find no merit in A

ppellant’s arguments. TDOC Policy 502.01(VI )(E) (3)( d)(1) provides that inmates who “w ish[ ] t o have w itness(es) (inmate or staff) prese nt to testify on his/her beha lf at th e h ea ri n g sh all

c omp le te an Inmate Witness Request, CR-3511[.] ” (e mphasis added) . Howeve r, when inmates f

ail to do so, as is the case here , TDOC Policy 502.01(VI )(E) (3)( d)(2) provides that “the ch ai rp er s o n / hear ing of fice r may still allow the witness to testify .” Thus, it is within t he chair person’ s discretion t o allow testimony when a CR-3511 form has not bee n completed. Fur thermore , we f

in d t h at the hea

ringoffice r wa s under no a ffirmative duty to contact Of

fice r Hankins by

telephone or continue the hear ing until Of fice r Hankins wa s available , espec ially absent
a re quest by Appellant that such measure s be taken. L ikewise, Appe llant failed to submit a written witness statement, which w as ava ilable to him under TDOC Policy 502.01 (VI )(E) (3)( c)( 6)(3)

.T h i s l an g u ag e refl ect s t h e M ay 15 , 20 0 6 am en d m en t t o T D O C Po l i cy 50 2

. 0 2 (V I) (E )( 3 )( e). 6

-7- C. C onf identia l Inf

or mant Appellant next argues “that the Boa rd deviated from TD OC Poli cy 502.01(VI )(E) (3)( e) by failingto independently

a[ss] ess and ve rify

the re liability

of the c onfidenti al i nformant.” TDOC Pol ic y 50 2. 01 (V I )( E) (3 )( e ) p ro vid e s: When the disciplinary

hear ing of

fice r/cha irperson d etermines that he /sh e sh ou ld r e c e ive te sti mony fro m a c on fi de nti a l so ur c e wh os e identity cannot be disclosed due to fe ar o f repr isals, it shall be the dis c ipl ina ry he ari ngof

fi c e r’ s/c ha ir

pe rso n’s res pons ibi lity

to independe ntly

acc ess [si c] a

nd verify the reliability of the informant’ s testimony and/or the confidential security sensitive evidenc e. Where the re liability

of the c onfidential informan t and/or the evidence of
secur ity sensitive nature has not bee n independe ntly verifie d, such testimony or evide nce sha ll not b e co n s idere d by the disciplinary board/he aringoffice r in the disposition of the disciplinary char g e(s)

. Whenever confide ntial information or confide ntial security sensitive evidenc e is util ized by

the disciplinary

hear ing of

fice r/cha irperson a s a ba s is f o r it s d e c is io n , th e T D O C Co n te mp o r an e o u s Re c ord of Con fi de nti a l Inf

or mant R e lia

bil ity , CR -3 51 0, sh a ll b e c omp le te d to document the f

act u al b asi s for the disciplinar y hear ing of fi c e r’ s/c ha ir

pe rs on ’s fi nd ingthat th e inf or mant a nd /or se c ur ity
sen s it iv e e v id e n c e w a s r e li a b le

. . . . T h is f

o r m s h a ll b e c o n s id e r ed confide ntial and k ept as a non-public ac cess r ecor d in an ar ea desig nated by

the Warden. 6

In support of his a

rgument, Appellant points to the Contemporaneous Record of Confidential Inf or mant R e lia

bil ity (C R- 35 10 ) f

or ms whic h r e a d, in p art :
The c onfidential witness provided the board w ith the following information: On April 21, 2007, inmate Ross #107545 rec eived a visit fr om Renee Wimb le y . Inf

or matio n w a s r e c e ive d th e week prio r t hat Ms

. Wim bley was bring ing in c ontraba nd (drug s) [ ]t o inmate Ross and that drug s had bee n beingpassed of f and pla ced in the coa t s i n the
sear ch room a

nd picked up aft er the visits were ove r. Duringthe visit, i nmate Ross stepped into the shake down wher e the c oats wer e located and quickly

stepped ba ck out and sig naled to the visitation office r that he was rea dy to be sear ched. The visitatio n o ff i cer immediately

enter ed the se arc h room and checke d the coats. A black-8- packa g e was retrie ved and ope ned. It contained a pproxi mately

4.0 oz. of a g ree n leaf

y substance wh i ch fie ld tested positive for Marijuana

. Ms. Wim bley introduced the contra band (dr ug s) into the fa ci l i ty an d p as s ed i tt o I/ M R o s s

. He wa s i n p o s s es s i o no f t h e d ru gs lon g e no ug h to pla c e the m in to a co a t ha ng ingin t he se arc h r oo m. Offic er H ankins had c onducted a sear ch of the room inmate Ross had enter ed just minutes prior to his entry and no other

person wa s observe d in the room. Inmate Ross wa s char g ed with introduction of contra band into a pena l fac ility : TCA 39-16-201.

The re liability

of the infor

mant was ve rified in the f

ollowing manne r:
C o rr o b o ra t i n g t es t i m o n y

fr o mwi tn es s ath ea ri n g.

X Sworn statement bef ore the board by

the investig ating office r.

T er esa Edw ards, Corpor al That he / she believe s the confide ntial informant (s) infor mation to be reliable beca use the pa rt ic ula r i nf or mant ( s) ha s / h ave pr ov e d r e lia ble in s peci fic pa st ins tanc e s.

X Sworn statement b e f ore the board by

investiga ting office r.

Tere sa Edwa

rds, Corpora l t h at h e / s he believe s that confide n ti a l i n f

o r ma n t ( s ) in f o r mati o nto b e r e li a

b le b e c a u s e it h as be e n in de pe nd e ntl y

c or ro bo rate d o n s pe c if

ic mate ri a l po int s.

________ Firsthand know ledg e of the source (s) of the information and k n o wl edg e of the ir reliability based upon the i n f o r m an t( s ) p a s tr e c o r d

o f r e l i a b i l i ty.

First, Appe llant points to the detailed descr iption of the information provided to the B oard by the conf i d en t i al i nformant a

nd contends that a

n inmate conf

idential informant could not have provided a ll of the information listed. Thus, he argues that either two documents should have be en pr e pa re d– on e c on ta ini ngthe inf or matio n a c qu ir e d b y

the inf or mant a nd on e “ de ta ili ngthe fa c ts g ather ed fr om the offic ers a nd from watching the tape f rom the ca

mera located in the visiting g allery”–or that the confidential informant was an employ ee, r ather than an inmate, which Appellant claims is not allowed.T D O C P o licy 5 0 2 .0 1 (V I) (E )( 3 )( i)(1 ) p ro v id e s: 7

(c o n tin u e d ...)
-9- Se c on d, Ap pe lla

nt c la ims that the B oa

rd vio late d T DO C Pol ic y

50 2. 01 (V I )( E) (3 )( e ) b e c a us e the B oa rd c ha ir pe rs on did no t c omp le te the CR- 35 10 fo rm and be c a us e Cor po ra l T e re sa

Ed wa rd s, rathe r than the confidential informant, himself, prese nted the conf idential information to the B oard. Appellant ar g ues that “[b]y the chair person acc epting the inmate conf idential witness’ statement a s rec orded on CR-3510, without separ ating the fa ctual obser vations alleg ed as ha

ving be en g ather ed from the of

fice rs workingin the visiti ng g allery , [Appellee depa rted] from the Department Unifor m Disciplinary

Procedur es.”

W e find Appellant’s c laim that the Boa rd fa iled to independently assess and ve rify

the reliability of the c onfident i al i n fo rm ant without merit. First, that the CR-3510 forms c ontained surplus languag e st yled as “ provided” by the “c onfidential witness,” doe s not evidence a deviation from proce dure. By signing the CR-3510 f orm, the Boa

rd chair person eff

ectively showed that the informant’s r eliability

was ve rified by

s wo rn statements by

Corporal Te resa

Edwar ds that she believed the confide ntial informant’s information reliable beca use “the particula

r informa nt . . . had pr ov e d r e lia

ble in s pe c if

ic pa st i ns tanc e s[, a

nd ] be c a us e [the inf

or matio n] ha d b e e n in de pe nd e ntl y co rr o b o ra t edo ns p ec i fi c m at er i al p o i n t s

. ” F urt h erm o re , ev en i f w e f o un d th e s u p er fl u o u s l an gu age was a deviation from policy , it i n n o wa y prejudice d Appellant, such that dismi ssal of the disciplinary offe nse i s require d. See Je ff rie s v . Tenn. De

p’ t of Cor r. , 108 S.W .3d 862, 873 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002) (“N ot e very depar ture from the Unif

orm Disciplinary

Procedur es amounts to a due proce ss violation wa rr an t i n g relief throug h a wr it of common-law c ertiora ri. Tenn. De p’t Corr. Policy No. 502.01(V) itself provides that ‘minor de viations’ from the pr ocedur es that do not prejudice the prisoner

do not require dismiss al of the disciplinary offe nse. To trig g er judicia l relief,
a de pa rt ur e fr om t

he Un if or m D isc ipl in ary

Pr oc e dure s mu st e ff

e c tiv e ly de ny the pr iso ne r a

fa ir he ari ng .” ). Ne xt, w e fi nd no su pp or t f or Ap pe lla nt’ s argume nts that an emp lo y ee c ann ot a c t a s a confide ntial informant, that the boar d ch ai rper son must complete the CR-3510 form, and that the
c o n f id e n ti a l in f

o r ma n t, h im s e lf

, mu s t te s ti f

y b e f o r e th e d is c ip li n ar

y b oard. See Har

mer v . T e nn. De p’ t of Cor r. , No. E2006-00333-COA-R3-CV, 2006 WL 1864017, at *3 (Te nn. Ct. App. J uly 6, 2006). Thus, we find that the t rial court was c orre ct in its determination that the B oard c hairpe rson did verify the re liability

of the c onfidential informa nt as requir ed by

the Uniform Disc i plinary Procedur es.

D. No Evidence Presented

The four th issue raised by

Appellant is whether the “B oard de viated fr om TDOC Policy 502.01(VI )(E) (3)( i)(1) b y f in d in g [A ]ppellant guilty

of possession of [a] controlled substance which 7(

. . . cont i nued) 7
A t th e c o n c lu sio n o f th e h e a rin g , th e d isc ip lin a ry h e a rin g o ff ic e r/c h a irp e rs o n

. . .

s hal l r e v i e w a n d c o n s i d e r fi n d i n g s i n t h e c a s e

. Th e d i s c i p l i n a r y h e a r i ng offi cer / chai r pers on s hal l bas e t he deci s i on s ol el y on t h e i nfor m at i on obt ai ned d u rin g t h e h e a rin g p ro c e ss, in c lu d in g sta ff re p o rts, th e sta te m e n ts o f th e in m a te char ged a s w el l as hi s / her advi s or, and a ny ot her evi dence deri ved f r om w i t nes s es
an d d o cu m en t s.
( 1 ) The i n m a t e i s p r e s u m e d i n n o c e n t a n d t h e c a s e a g a i n s t h i m / h e r m u s t be proved b y a pre po nd er ance of t he evi dence.
-10- was unsupporte d by

any evidenc e.” T o lend aid to this argument, Appellant p o i n t s out that the Disciplinary

Continuation form (CR-1831) for the c harg e of introduc tion of contra band into a

penal fac ility states that “confidential i nformation [ was] prese nted t o [t he] [B]oard[,] ” while the f orm for the cha rg e of possession of a controlled subst ance does not contain such languag e. Whil e it is true that the Disciplinary Continuation for m f or the possession of a contr olled substance c harg e does not state that confidential information was prese nted t o the Board, it does not follow that “no evidence ”
wa s p re s en t edt o s u

p p o rt th e B o ar d ’s fi n d i n g.

“[T] he Uniform Disciplinary Procedur es differ in some signific ant way s from the proc edure s that bind our criminal cour ts, procee din gs wh i ch may result in the initial loss of free dom. For example, guilt of a

disciplinary

infrac tion does not have to be proven beyond a re asonable doubt, but
o n ly b y a p r e p o n d e r an c e o f th e e v id e nce.” Keen , 2008 WL539059, at *5 (c itation omit ted). Fur thermore , a disciplinary

board ma y “conside r any evidenc e it finds reliable , whether or not such evidenc e would be admissible in a court of la

w.” Id. (c itatio n o mitte d) . A s w e no te d a bo ve , th is Court may not rew eig h the evidence, “ but must affirm the B oard’ s decision if there is any materia l evidenc e to support it.” Pi rtl ev . T e nn. D e p’ t of Cor r. , N o

. W2 0 0 6

- 0 1 2 2 0

- CO A

- R3

- CV , 2 0 0 7 WL 2 4 1 0 2 7 , at* 5 , (T en n

. C t

. Ap p

. J an

. 3 0 , 2 0 0 7 ) ( ci t i n g W att s , 606 S.W .2d at 276-77).

At Appellant’s he aringon t h e cha rg e of posse ssion of a controlled substanc e, Appe llant’s inmate advisor asked the repor ting official, C orpora l Tere sa Edwa rds, whethe r Appe llant possessed the marijuana . Corporal Edwa rds re sponded that Appe llant had, in fac t, posse s s ed the c ontrolled substance “ at one time.” Furthermore, the Contemporaneous Rec ord of Confidential Informant Reliability

(CR-3510) conc er n ing the possession of a c ontrolled substance char g e states that the board w as pre sented with the followinginformation:

On April 21, 2007, inmate R oss #107545 rec eived a visit from Renee Wimb le y . Inf

or matio n w a s r e c e ive d th e we e k p ri or th at Ms. Wim bley was briningin contraba

nd (drug s) into inmate Ross and that drug s had been being passed off a nd place d in the coats in the sea rch
ro om a nd pic ke d u p a ft e r t he vis its we re ov er. Duringthe vis it, inmate Ross stepped into the shakedown wher e the c oats wer e located-11- and quickly

stepped back out and sig naled to the visitation office r that he wa s r e a dy

to b e se arc he d. Th e vi sit a tio n o ff ic e r i mme diate ly enter ed the se arc h room and checke d the coats. A black pa ckag e wa s retrie ved and ope ned. It contained a pproxi mately

4.0 oz. of a g ree n le a fy su bs tanc e wh ic h f

ie ld t e ste d pos iti ve fo r M a ri jua na . M s. Wim bley introduced the contra b an d (drug s) into the fac ility and p as s edi tt o I/ M R o s s

. He wa s i n p o s s es s i o n o f th e dru gs l o n g en o u gh to p la c e th e m into a c o a t h an g in g in th e s e ar c h r o o m. Offic er Hankins had conducte d a sea rch of the room inmate Ross had ente red jus t mi nutes pr ior

to h is e ntr

y and no oth e r p e rs on

wa s o bs e rv e d in the room. Inmate Ross was cha rg ed with introduction of contr aband into a penal f

acility : TCA 39-16-201.

Thus, we find Appellant’s assertion that he was convicted w ithout “any evidenc e” w ithout merit.

E. Su m m ary of Evide nce

Finally , Appellant ar g ues t hat “the B oard de viated fr om established disciplinary proce dures in reg ard to failing to provide detailed rea sons for its decisions and failing to summarize the evidence which led to the decision to find him g uilty of t he two char g es of violating state law.” TDOC Policy 502.01 (VI )(E) (3)( k)(5) require s that within five workingday s after the dis ci p l i n ar y

hear ing, the board c hairpe rs o n / h ea ringoffice r re nder a CR-1834 form “[s] tating de tailed re asons for the board’ s/hearingoffice r’s . . . decision and summarizing t he evidence which l ed to s uch dec ision.” In this case, the D isciplinary Report Hea

ringSummary

(CR-1834) form s for both cha rg es listed under “ finding s of fac t a

nd specific evidenc e re lied upon to support those findings” and “disposition and a statement of re asons which supports that de cision” the blanke t statement “pre pondera nce of evidenc e.”

The trial c ourt, in finding that the Boa rd “did not ac t illega lly , arbitra rily , or fr audulently ,” noted that althoug h the CR-1834 f orms did not list the finding s of fa ct, the conf idential informant’s statement did provide a

fac tual basis for the B oard’ s decision. Fur thermore , it cited TDOC Policy No. 502.01(V), which provides that “‘minor deviations’ from the proce dures that do not prejudice the prisoner

do not require dismiss al of the disciplinar y offen s e. To trig g er judicia l relief, a de pa rt ur e f r o m th e U n i f

o r m D i s c i p l i n ar

y P r o c e d ur e s mu s t e f

f e c t i v e l y d e n y th e p r i s o n e r a fa ir h e ar in g .” Jeff

ries , 10 8 S. W.3 d at 87 3. Al tho ug h th e tr ia l c ourt fo un d th a t App e lla

nt “ wa s [no t] denied a fair he aringby [t he] omission[,] ” the court noted that “[t] he better prac tice would be for the hear ing of

fice r to state spec ific finding s of fa ct that support the B oard’ s decision.”

Appellant is corr ect in his asser tion that this Court, in Ivy v. Tennesse e De

partment of Correction , N o. M2 00 1- 01 21 9- CO A- R3- CV , 2 00 3 WL 22 38 36 13 , at * 5 n .7 (T e nn . Ct . App . O c t.-12-

20, 200 3 ) , n o te d th a t s tati n g o n a CR

- 1 8 3 4 f o r m th a t th e B o ar d “ r e li e d u p o n th e ‘ T e s timony

of Reporting Offic ial & Witness’” did not comply with TDOC Policy

No. 502.02(VI )(E) ([3] )(k) (5). Howeve r, in that ca se, we did not determine whe ther such non -c o m p l i an ce constituted a “minor deviation” or a subst antial departure effe ctively denying the prisoner a fair he aring

. Id. Her e, we ag ree with the trial cour t an d fi n d that the fa ilure to comply with TDOC Policy

No. 502.02(VI )(E) (3)( k)(5) was mer ely a “minor de viation” from pr ocedur e that did not prejudice Appellant. We base this finding on the f act that both CR-1834 forms, along with the blanke t statement “pr eponder ance of evide nce[,]” cited forms CR-3510, to which Appellant wa s privy . The CR-3510 forms for both cha rg es included the information provided by the conf i d en t i al informant and also stated that the informant’s reliability had been verifie d beca use the infor

mant had prove d
re lia ble in t he pa st a nd be c a us e the inf

or matio n h a d b e e n in de pe nd e ntl y c orrob orat ed o n s pe c if

ic materia l points. Beca

use Appe llant was af

forde d the “de t ai l ed reasons for the boa rd’s/hea ring office r’s .

. . decision” and a “summary of t he evidence which l ed to such de cision,” we find that the fa ilure to sp e c if

ic a lly inc lud e su c h in fo rm a tio n o n th e CR- 18 34 fo rm , r a the r t ha n th e CR- 35 10 fo rm , did not prejudice the Appellant such that a dismissal of the char g es is war rante d.

V. C ONCL US I ON

For the af oreme ntioned rea sons, we af firm the dec ision of the chanc ery court. Costs of th i s a p p e a l ar e t a x e d

t o Ap p e l l an t , C ar l R o s s , f o r w h i c he x e c u t i o nm ay i s s u e i f n e c e s s ar y.

___________________________________ AL ANE. HI GH ERS , P. J. , W .S.