T en n. C t . A p p . R
. 1 0 p ro vid es: 1
T h e C o u rt, w ith the c o n c u rr e n c e o f a ll ju d g e s p a rtic ip a ting in the c a se , m a y a ff irm , re v e rs e o r m o d ify t he act i o ns o f

t he t ri al co urt by me m o randum op i ni o n when a fo rma l op i ni o n w o u ld h ave no prec edent i al v al ue. W hen a c as e i s deci ded b y memo r andum opi ni on, i t s hal l be des i gn at ed “M E M O R A N D U M O P IN IO N , ” s h a ll n o t be pub l i shed, and s hal l not b e ci t ed or rel i ed on f o r any r eas on i n a ny un r el at ed cas e. N o rt h co t tv. Te n n . D ep ’t o f C o rr. , N o . 01 A 0 1

- 9 7 0 7

- C H

- 0 0 3 5 5 , 19 9 8 W L 2 0 5 2 2 4 , at * 1 (T enn. C t . A p p . A p r. 2 2 9 , 19 9 8 ) ( N o T enn. R
. A p p . P
. 11 ap p l i cat i o n f i l ed ). 

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

AT NAS HVILLE A ssi gne d on Brie fs O ct obe r 24, 200 5 RIC HAR D L . N ORT HCO TT v. TEN NES SEE B OAR D O F P ROB ATION AN D P AR OLE ET AL 

### . Appeal f romthe Chancer y Court for Davidson Cou nty No. 03-2983-I C laud ia Bon nym an, Chan cellor
No. M2004- 00524-COA-R 3-CV - F iled Janu ary 12, 2006 This appeal in v o l v es a prisoner seeking to be re lease d on parole . After the Tenne ssee B oard of Probation and Parole de clined to g rant him parole , the prisoner filed a petition for a c ommon-law writ of certiorari in the C hance ry Court for Davidson County seeking judicial revie w of the B oard’ s decision. The trial court dismissed the petition on the g round that it was not t i m el y fi l ed, and the prisoner a ppeale d. We ag reewith the trial court’s conclusion that the petition was not timely filed. 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. Richard L . Northcott, Only , Tenne ssee, Pro Se. Paul G . Su mme rs , A tto rn e y Ge ne ral a ndRe po rt e r; Mic ha e l E. Mo or e , Sol ic ito r Ge ne ral; andPa me la S. L orch, Senior Counsel, f or the a ppellees, Te nnessee Bo ar d o f Probation and Par ole, Charles Traug hber, Sheila Swe aring en, Ray Maples, L arry

Hassel, and Townsend Ande rson. M EM ORAN DU M OP IN ION 1 Ric ha rdL . N orthc ott

wa s c on vic te d inJuly

19 81 of c ri min a l se xua l cond uct in th e fi rs t deg ree and is serving a life se ntenceat the Turne y Center Industrial Prison in Only , Tenne ssee. On 2 Fe bruary 18, 2003, the Tennessee Boar d of Probation and Par ole (B oard) declined to pa role him, and-2-

Mr. Northc ott pursued an internal ad m i n i strative appe al of this decision. The B oard de nied Mr. Northcott’s a dminist rative a ppeal on July25, 2003. Mr. Northc ott filed a petition for a common-law w rit of ce rtiorari in the C hance ry Court for Davidson County

on October

8, 2003. The pe tition was dated October 1, 2003. The B oard f iled a motion to di smiss on t he g round that the pe tition had not been filed within the six ty -day period requ i re d b y Tenn. Code Ann. § 27- 9-102 (2000) . The trial c ourt g rante d the B oard’ s motion and dismiss ed the petition. Thereafter, Mr . Northcott filed a Tenn. R. Civ. P. 59.04 m otion asserting that the time for f

iling his petition should be tolled because he was unawa re of the time limit s in Tenn. Code Ann. § 27-7- 102. The trial c ourt denied the motion, and Mr. Northcott has a ppeale d. Th e sixty -d a y

tim e lim it i n T e nn . Co deAn n. § 2 7- 9- 10 2 is mand a tory a ndjurisd ic tio na l. Hickm an v. Tenn. Bd. of Paroles , 78 S.W .3d 285, 289 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001). The B oard r ender ed its decision on J uly

25, 2003, and thus the six ty -day limit require d by Tenn. Code Ann. § 27- 9-102 expired on September 23, 2003. Mr. Northcott executed his petition and filed it after September 23, 2003. There fore , the trial court properly dismiss ed his petition and denied his Te nn. R. Civ. P . 59.02 motion. We affirm the dismiss al of the pe tition for a common-law writ of ce rtiorari and re mand the c a se to thetria l c ou rt

fo r w hate ve r f

urthe r p ro c e edi ngs may be r e qu ir e d. We t a x the c os ts o f this appeal to Richard L
. Northcott. We also find that Mr. Northcott’s petition for a writ of common-la w certiorari and subse quent appe al ar e frivolous in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 41-21-807(c), -816(a )(1) (2003).

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