# FILED Novemb er 8, 1996 Cecil W. Crowson Ap pellate Cou rt Clerk THOMAS TARPLEY, ) ) Plaintiff/Appellant, ) ) Davidson Chancery ) No. 96-370-III VS. ) ) Appeal No. ) 01A01-9608-CH-00365 CHARLES TRAUGHBER, CHAIRMAN ) TENNESSEE BOAR

D OF P AROLES, )

) Defendant/Appellee. )

IN THE COURT OF AP PEALS OF

TENNESSEE MIDDLE SECT ION AT NASHV ILLE APPEA L FROM TH

E CHANCER

Y COURT OF

DAVIDSON

COUNTY AT NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE HONORABLE ROBERT S. BRAN DT, CHANC ELLOR
Teresa Thomas #12788 Counsel fo

r the State 404 James Robertson Parkway Suite 2000 Nashville, TN 37243-0488 ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT/APPEL LEE Thomas Tarpley

#132443 CCA-SCCF P.O. Box 279 Clifton, TN 38425-0279 Pro Se/PLAINT

IFF/APPEL

LANT AFFIRMED AND

REMANDED HENRY F. TODD PRESIDING

JUDGE, MIDDL

E SECTION CONCUR: SAMUEL L . LEWIS, JUDGE BEN H. CANTRELL , JUDGE-2-

THOMAS TARPLEY, ) ) Plaintiff/Appellant, ) ) Davidson Chancery ) No. 96-370-III VS. ) ) Appeal No. ) 01A01-9608-CH-00365 CHARLES TRAUGHBER, CHAIRMAN ) TENNESSEE BOAR

D OF P AROLES, )

) Defendant/Appellee. ) 

### O P I N I O N The captioned plaintif

f, an inma

te of the Departm ent of Cor

rection s, fil ed this suit for certiorari from an adverse decision of the Boar d of Paroles. The Trial Court dismissed t

he suit for failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted.
Plaintiff’s two issues complain of the dismissal of his suit and the failure o f the Trial Co ur t t o f in d t he ac ti on of

th e P ar ol e B oa rd il le ga l a nd ar bi tr ar y.
Acc ording to t he complaint, on January 23, 1990, plaintiff wa s convicted of rape, aggravated

kidnaping , and lar

ceny and sente

nced to 20

ye ars conf

in ement which began on February 24, 1989; on December

7, 1993, he met with a hearing officer w ho recommended that plaintiff not be paroled; the Board accepted the recommendation and scheduled further hearing on Decemb er 4, 199 5, as a re sult of whi ch hear ing a he aring o fficer

recomme nded t hat paro le be refused because of “Confidential I nformation” and “Seriousness of Offense”, the B oar d modifiedthe rec ommendat ion by changin g t he grounds of refusal to read, “ Confidential Information, Seriousness of Offense, complete sex offender prog ram, participa te in education program and complete vocationalprogram” and set the next hearing for December, 1997; and the Board failed to provide plaintiff with a written statement of the r easons for its decision.
The complaint charged denial of due proc ess, arbitrary and ins ufficient grounds and condi tion s, and denia l of ri ght to a meani ngful h earing.-3- A pr ison er has no constitutional or inherent right to release prior to the expiration of a valid sentence. Greenholtz v. Inmates of the Nebraska Penal a nd Correctional Complex , 442 US-1, 199 S Ct 2100, R104, 60 L. Ed. 668 (1979). Release on parole is a privilege and not a r ight, T.C.A. § 40-35-503(b).
Parole of Tennessee prisoners lies solely within the discretion of state officials. Wright v. Tramme ll , 810 F. 2d 589, 6th Cir. 1987.
An administration agency decision is arbitrary

or capricious only w

hen it lacks any rational basis. Mobilecomm of Tennessee v. Tennessee Public Service Commission , Tenn. App. 1993, 876 S.W.2d 101.
The scope of review of decisions of the Parole Board by certiorari does not include the correctness of the decision of the Board. Powell v. Parole Eligibility Review Board , Tenn. App. 1994, 879 S.W.2d 871.
The complaint fails to state a claim for which relief can be gra

nted. The judgment of the T rial Court is affirmed. Costs of this appeal are assessed ag ainst the plaintiff. The cause i s remanded to the Tr

ial Court f

or nece ssary

further proceedings.
AFFIRMED AND REMANDED.

___________________________________ HENRY F. TODD PRESIDING

JUDGE, MIDDL

E SECTION CONCUR:

_____________________________________ SAMUEL L . LEWIS, JUDGE

_____________________________________ BEN H. CANTRELL , JUDGE-4-