RUL E 1 0 . M E M ORANDUM OPI NI ON 1
T h i s C o u rt, w i t h t h e c o n cu rren ce o f a l l ju d g es p arti cip ati n g in th e c ase , m ay affirm , rev erse or m odi fy t he ac t i ons of t he t r i al c our t by m em or andum opi ni on w hen a f or m al opi ni on w oul d ha ve no pre cedent i al val ue. W hen a ca se i s deci ded b y m em orandum opi ni on i t s hal l be des i gn at ed “M EM O RA N D U M O PI N I O N ”, s h al l n o t b e publ i s hed, a nd s hal l not be c i t ed or r el i ed on f or a ny r eas on i n any unrel at ed cas e. 

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

AT NAS HVILLE A ssi gne d O n B ri ef

s S ep te mb er

20, 200 7 TONY BALDW IN v . TENNESS EE BO ARD OF PROBATIO N AND PA ROL E Direc t Appeal from the Chancer y Court for Davidson County No. 05-2618-IV Richard H. Dink ins, Ch ancellor

No. M2006- 01430-COA-R 3-CV - Filed November 16, 2007 A prisoner

in the custody

of the Te nnessee Depa

rtment of Corre ction filed a pe titio n for wr it of cer tiorari af ter he was de nied par ole. The tria l court di smissed the petit ion on the basis that it was no t sw or n to and did no t st a te that it

wa s th e fi rs t a

pp lic a tio n f

or a wr it. We a ff

ir m. 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 A ff ir me d; and Rem anded D AVI D R. F AR MER , J., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which W. Frank Cra wford, J., and H OL LY M. K I RBY , J., joined. Tony Baldwin, Pro Se. Robert E. Cooper, Jr ., Attorney Ge nera l and Reporter , Michae l E. Moore, Solicitor Gene ral a nd Ma rk A. Hu ds on , Se nio r C ou ns e l, f or the app e lle e , T e nn e sse e Boa rdof Pr ob a tio n a ndParo le s. M EM OR AN DU M OP IN ION 1 Tony Ba ldwin, an i nma

te in the custody

of the Te nnessee Depa

rtment of Corre ction (TDOC), fi l ed a p et i t i o n fo r wr i t o f ce rt i o rari s ee k i n g j u d i ci al re v i ew o f h i s De ce mb er 2 , 2 0 0 4 p ar o l e h ea ri n g. Th e Te nn e sse e B oa

rd of Pr ob a tio n a

nd Paro le (B oa

rd ) d e nie d h im pa

ro le ba se d on the se ri ou sn e ss of the off ense a nd schedule d his nex t parole he aringfor 2010.Thi s i s s ue w as de ci ded i n M r . Bal dw i n’ s pr evi ous c as e w her ei n t hi s Cour t he l d: 2
I n A r no l d v. Tenness ee B d. of P arol es , 9 5 6 S .W .2 d 4 7 8 , 4 8 2 ( T e n n . 1 9 9 7 ), o u r S u p re m e C o u rt h e ld t hat w hen t he Pa r ol e Boar d de cl i nes pa r ol e bec aus e of t he s er i ous nes s of

t he of f ens e, i t i s not i m po s i ng anot her pu ni s hm ent f or t he s am e c r i m e, but s i m pl y perpet uat i ng a val i dl y i m po s ed s ent ence. T h u s, M r. B a ld w in ’s a rg u m e n t as to th e g ro u n d s fo r d e n y in g h im p a ro le is w ith o u t m e rit. B al dw i n v. Tenn. B d. of P arol es , 12 5 S.W

. 3 d 42 9 , 43 1 (T en n . C t
. A p p . 20 0 3 ). -2- The Petitioner’s De cembe r 2004 hearingwas the r esult of a pr ior petition for writ of c ertiora ri filed af ter be ing de nied par ole in Febr uary 2001 based on the seriousness of the offe nse and de fer ring his ne xt paro le he ari ngun til 20 21 . O n a pp e a l, t his Court fo un d th a t th e B oa

rd a c te d a rb itr ari ly in defe rringthe next consideration of pa role for th e P et i t i o n er for 20 y ear s. Baldwin v. Tenn. Bd. of Paroles , 125 S.W .3d 4 2 9 , 4 3 4 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003) ( Baldwin I

). B ased on this dec ision, Mr. Ba ldwin was g rante d another parole hear ing in Dec ember 2004 which is the subject of the petition for wr it of cer

tiorari cur rently befor e thi s Court. In that petition, Mr. Baldwin contends that he was imp ro pe rl y

de nie d p aro le ba se d o n th e se ri ou sn e ss o f t he of fe ns e , th a t he ha s a

pr otect e d li be rt

y i n t er es ti np ar o l e, an d

th atth e B o ar d ’s am en d edp ro ce d ure s wh i ch el i m i n at edan nu al p ar o l e h ea ri n gs constitutes an ex post fac to violation. The Boar d filed not ice that it was not opposed t o the g ranting of the wr it and the trial cour t gr anted the writ. A response was filed by the B oard. Upon re viewingthe writ, the trial c ourt found t h at the writ wa s improvidently g rante d beca use the pe tition was not sworn to as require d by T.C.A. § 27-8-104( a) nor did it st ate that it was the first application for the wr it in ac corda nce w ith T.C.A. § 27-8-106. Ther efor e, the wr it was dismiss e d

. N o n e th e le s s , th e c o urt th e n p r o c e e d e d to a d dr e s s th e me r it s o f th e c la im s r a ised and found them to be without merit. Mr . B a ldw in f

ile d a tim e ly a pp e a l to thi s Co ur

t and pr e se nts the fo llo wi ng iss ue s a s se t f or th in his brief: I

. Di d th e B oa

rd of Pr ob a tio n a

nd Paro le e rr in u sin g the re a so n o f [s e ri ou sn e ss] of offen se to deny

Appellant par ole, base d upon the B oard[’s] own g uid e lin e s? 2 I I

. Di d th e B oa

rd of Pr ob a tio n a

nd Paro le vio late the Ap pe lla nt’ s r ig ht a g a ins t e x pos t f a c to a s p ro vid e d b y

the Te nn e sse e and

Un ite d St a te s Co ns tit

uti on s? I I I

. Does the A

ppellant have a liberty

protec ted intere st in parole?
Ap pe lle e ’s br ie f r e phra se s Mr . B a ldw in’ s is su e s a nd state s a n a dd iti on a l is su e a s f

oll ow s: Did Mr. B aldwin’s petition meet the c onstitut ional and statutory require ments for a wr it o f c e rt ior ari ?-3-

Ar tic le VI , Se c tio n 1 0 o f t

he Te nn e sse e Con sti tut ion pr ov ide s: Th e Judg e s or Justi c e s of the I nf e ri or Court s o f L aw a

nd Eq uit y , s ha ll h ave po we r i n all civil case s, to issue writs of cer tiorari to re move any

cause or the transc ript of the rec ord there of, fr om any

in fe rior jurisdiction, into such court of la w, on suffic ient cause , supported by

oath or a ffirmation. T EN N . C O N ST . art. VI , §10. Te nn e sse e Cod e Anno tate d § 27 -8 -1 04 (a ) p ro vid e s: The judg es or the inf

erior c ourts of law hav e t h e p ower , in all civil cases, to issue writs of c er t i o ra ri to remove a ny cause or transc ript thereof from any

inferior jurisdiction, on sufficient ca use, supported by

oath or a ffirmation. Te nn e sse e Cod e Anno tate d § 27 -8 -1 06 pr ov ide s: The petiti on for certiora

ri may be sworn to befor e the cler k of the c ircuit court, the jud g e , a ny jud g e of the c ourt of g e ne ra l se ssi on s, or a no ta ry pu bli c , and sh a ll s tate that it is the fi rs t a

pp lic a tio n f

or the wr it. Th e tr ia l c ourt

c or re c tly de te rm ine d th a t Mr . B a ldw in’ s p e tit ion wa s n ot s wo rn

to, no r do e s it s tate that it is the fi rs t a

pp lic a tio n f

or the wr it. This Court rece ntly

dealt with a pr o s e pe tit ion fo r wri t of c e rt ior ari wh ic h w a s n ot s wo rn to and fa iled to state that it was the first application for a wr it. I n Jack son v. Tennesse e De

partment of Corrections , No. W2005-02239-COA-R3-CV, 2006 W L 1491445 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 31, 2006), we sa id a s f

oll ow s: A r e qu ir e me nt t

hat a pe tit ion e r s we ar t o the c on te nts of his pe tit ion un de r o a th nece ssarily connotes that the petitioner is f irst a dminist ere d an oath and then state s in acc ordanc e with that oath that the c ontents of the petition are true. Se e D. T. McCall &Sons v. Seagrav es , 796 S.W .2d 457 , 4 6 2 -63 (Te nn. Ct. App. 1990). Notarization and ver ification ar e distinct conce pts. Underwood v. Tenn. Dep’ t of Cor r ., No. W2004-01630-COA-R3-CV, 2005 Te nn. App. L EXI S 23, at * 5 (Tenn. Ct. App. J an. 20, 2005), a p p ea l denied , 2005 Tenn. L EXI S 723 (Tenn. Aug . 22, 200 5 ). “[ A] verification establishes the truth of the doc ument’s contents, D. T. McCall Sons , 796 S.W .2d at 463, “ wh ere as notarization acknow ledg es the prope r execu t i o n of a doc ument,” Underwood , 2005 Tenn. App. L EXI S 23, at *5. When discussing the se unique c oncepts, the Te nnessee Court of Crim in a l A

p p e a ls h as noted th e f o l l o wi n g:-4- I n Tenne ssee, a ck n o wl edg ed docume nts are one s which have been notarized by

a notar y public or ac k n o wledg ed in the pre sence of an officia l. Se e ge ne ra lly

Cohen, Tenne ssee L aw on Evide nce § 9.02 [ 1 0 ] ( 4 e d

. 2 0 0 0 )

. A s d e f i n e d i nB l a c k ’ s L aw D i c t i o n ar y, “ v e r i f y” th mean s “ to p r o v e to b e tr u e ; t o c o n f

ir m o r e s ta b li s hth e tr

u th or truth fu l n es s of.” B lack’ s L aw Dic tionary 1561 (6 ed. 1990).

th Bla ck’s f urther e x plains, as an e x ample of v erification, that “a ve ri fi e d c omp la int

ty pic a lly ha s an atta c he d a ff

ida vit of plaint iff to the eff ect that the complaint is true.” Id

. There is no doubt that the e sse nc e of a ve ri fi c a tio n is tr uth fu lne ss of the do c ume nt’ s co nt ents
. As J ud ge K oc h e xpla ine d in an o pin ion

fr om t he Court of Ap pe a ls, “an acknowledg ment establishes the prope r execution of the document while a

verific ation establishes t he truth of the doc ument’s contents.” D.T. McCall & Sons v. Seagrav es , 796 S.W .2d 457, 463 (Tenn. C t
. App. 1990)(r ecognizi ng a distinction in Tennessee be tw e e n a

n a c kn ow le dg me nt and a v e ri fi c a tio n) ; see also Varner v

. Mo or e , 1994 Tenn. App. L EXI S 685, No. 03A01-9405-CV-00171, 1994 WL 666902, at * 2 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1994)( discussing the differ ence betwee n acknow ledg ed docume nt and a ve ri fied doc ument for pur poses of self

-authe ntication pursuant t o Ru le 902(8) of the Tenne ssee Rules of Evide nce)

. Mo nta gu e v . S tate , N o . E 2 0 0 0

- 0 1 3 3 0

- C C A

- R 3

- P C , 2 0 0 1 T e n n . C r i m . Ap p . LE X IS 692, at *3-4 (T enn. Crim. App. Sept. 4, 2001)( no perm. app. filed ). I n o r d e r f o r a p e ti ti o n f

o r a c o mm o n la

w w r it o f c e rti o r ar i to b e valid, the petitioner must v er i fy t h e content of the petition and swea r to the conte nts of the petition under oath, ty

pically by utiliz ing a notary public. See T EN N . C ODE ANN . §§ 27 -8 -1 04 (a ), -1 06 ( 2 0 00 ); Underwood , 2 00 5 T e nn . App . L EX I S 23 , at *7 -8 ; Bowling v. Tenn. Bd. Of Paroles , N o . M 2 0 0 1

- 0 0 1 3 8

- C O A

- R 3

- C V , 2 0 0 2 T e n n . Ap p . LE X IS 291, at *9 (Te nn. Ct. App. Apr. 30, 2002). As the T ennesse e Court of Criminal Appea ls noted, “mere ly swea ring to having knowledg e of the alleg ations contained in the petition i s i n s u ff

i cient to qualify

as a ve rification under oath. To c onclude otherwise w ould allow a petitioner to file a petition which knowing ly contained frivolous, false , and eve n perju re d alleg ations or statement of f acts.” Montague , 2001 Tenn. Crim. App. L EXI S 692, at *5. Subject matter jurisdi ction “ca n only be confe rre d on a court by

constitutional or leg islative act.” Nor thl an d I ns . Co . v . S

tate , 3 3 S

. W

. 3 d

7 2 7 , 7 2 9 (T en n . 2 0 0 0 ) ( ci t i n g Kane v. Kane , 547 S.W .2d 559, 560 (Tenn. 19 77 ); Com

pu te r S ho pp e, I nc . v . S tate , 780 S.W .2d 729, 734 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1989))

. The Te nnessee Constit ution and the statutes promulg ated by the leg islature re quire that a petition for a writ of common law cer tiorari be made under oath. See T EN N . C O N ST . art . 6 , § 10 ; T EN N . C ODE ANN . §§ 27-8-104( a), - 106 (2000). While Wil son’s pe tit ion c on ta ine d his ve ri fi c a tio n that its con te nts we re tr ue and c or

re c t to th e be st-5-

of his knowledg e, he f

ailed to have t h e p et i t ion notarized by a notar y public. Acc ording ly , the trial court did not err in dismissing his pe tition for a lac k of subject matt e r ju r is d iction. C

f . Underwood , 2005 Tenn. App. L EXI S 23, at *7-8 (holding that a trial court corr ectly dismiss ed a pr isoner’s pe tition for a writ of c ommon law cert iorari whe n the prisoner failed to ve rify

his petition, t here fore , the trial cour t lac ked su bjec t matte r j ur isd ic tio n) ; Bowling , 2002 Tenn. App. L EXI S 291, at *9 (r uli ngtha t a pr iso ne r’ s p e tit ion

fo r a wr it o f c omm on

law c e rt ior ari wa s p ro pe rl y dismiss ed whe n the prisoner failed to ve rify

the contents of his pe tition). Id

. at* 3 -4 (q u o t i n g W

ils on v . Te nn . D e

p’ t of Cor r ., No. W 2005-00910-COA- R3-CV, 2006 Tenn. App. L EXI S 91, at *3 (Tenn. Ct. App. F eb. 13, 2006))

. Mr. Baldwin’s response i s that his previous petiti on, which was the subject of Baldwin I , was i nc o mp l i an c e w i thth e c o n s t i tu t i o n a l an d s t a tu t o r y r e qu i r e m e n t s an d

th a t t h i s c a s e i s m e r e l y a continuation of t he previous case . We disag ree . Baldwin I held that the B oard’ s decision to defe r f o r f urth e r p ar o l e c o n s i d e r a t i o n f o r 2 0 ye ar s c o n s t i tu t e d ar

b i tr ar y e x e r c i s e o f

th e B o ar d ’ s a

u th o r i ty. That opinion was filed August 15, 2003 and permission to appea l was denied by the Supreme Court o nDe ce mb er 2 2 , 2 0 0 3

. M an d at e i s s u edo nJ an u ary 7 , 2 0 0 4

. T h at i s a s ep ar at e c as e i n v o l v i n g a separ ate a nd distinct petiti on. He f

urther a rgues that t he Board w aived this argument by not raising it in it s response to his petition. We find this arg ument to be without merit as this involves a matter of subject matter

jurisdictio n whi ch this Court may raise su a s

po nte . Ru le 13 (b ) T e nn . R. Civ . P.
We hold that the tr ial court did not commit error when it dismissed the Appellant’s pe tition for wr it of cer

tiorari base d on the fa ct that t he petiti on was not sworn to a nd failed to state that it was the first application for a wr it. The rema ining issues a re preter mitted. Costs of this appea l are taxed t o th e Ap p e l l an t , T o n y B a l dw i n , 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.

___________________________________ DAVI D R. FARMER , JUDGE