FILED

November 8, 1996

Cecil W. Crowson

Appellate Court Clerk

THOMAS TARPLEY, )

)

Plaintiff/Appellant, )

) Davidson Chancery

) No. 96-370-III

VS. )

) Appeal No.

) 01A01-9608-CH-00365

CHARLES TRAUGHBER, CHAIRMAN )

TENNESSEE BOARD OF PAROLES, )

)

Defendant/Appellee. )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

MIDDLE SECTION AT NASHVILLE

APPEAL FROM THE CHANCERY COURT OF DAVIDSON COUNTY

AT NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE

HONORABLE ROBERT S. BRANDT, CHANCELLOR

Teresa Thomas #12788

Counsel for the State

404 James Robertson Parkway

Suite 2000

Nashville, TN 37243-0488

ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE

Thomas Tarpley #132443

CCA-SCCF

P.O. Box 279

Clifton, TN 38425-0279

Pro Se/PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT

AFFIRMED AND REMANDED

HENRY F. TODD

PRESIDING JUDGE, MIDDLE 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 BOARD OF PAROLES, )

)

Defendant/Appellee. )

O P I N I O N

The captioned plaintiff, an inmate of the Department of Corrections, filed this suit for

certiorari from an adverse decision of the Board of Paroles. The Trial Court dismissed the 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 of the Trial

Court to find the action of the Parole Board illegal and arbitrary.

According to the complaint, on January 23, 1990, plaintiff was convicted of rape,

aggravated kidnaping, and larceny and sentenced to 20 years confinement which began on

February 24, 1989; on December 7, 1993, he met with a hearing officer who recommended that

plaintiff not be paroled; the Board accepted the recommendation and scheduled further hearing

on December 4, 1995, as a result of which hearing a hearing officer recommended that parole

be refused because of “Confidential Information” and “Seriousness of Offense”, the Board

modified the recommendation by changing the grounds of refusal to read, “Confidential

Information, Seriousness of Offense, complete sex offender program, participate in education

program and complete vocational program” and set the next hearing for December, 1997; and

the Board failed to provide plaintiff with a written statement of the reasons for its decision.

The complaint charged denial of due process, arbitrary and insufficient grounds and

conditions, and denial of right to a meaningful hearing.
-3-

A prisoner has no constitutional or inherent right to release prior to the expiration of a

valid sentence. Greenholtz v. Inmates of the Nebraska Penal and Correctional Complex, 442

US-1, 199 S Ct 2100, R104, 60 L. Ed. 668 (1979).

Release on parole is a privilege and not a right, T.C.A. § 40-35-503(b).

Parole of Tennessee prisoners lies solely within the discretion of state officials. Wright

v. Trammell, 810 F. 2d 589, 6th Cir. 1987.

An administration agency decision is arbitrary or capricious only when 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 granted. The judgment of the

Trial Court is affirmed. Costs of this appeal are assessed against the plaintiff. The cause is

remanded to the Trial Court for necessary further proceedings.

AFFIRMED AND REMANDED.

___________________________________

HENRY F. TODD

PRESIDING JUDGE, MIDDLE SECTION

CONCUR:

_____________________________________

SAMUEL L. LEWIS, JUDGE

_____________________________________

BEN H. CANTRELL, JUDGE
-4-