Thi s Cour t , w i t h t he conc ur r enc e of al l j udges pa r t i ci pat i ng i n t he ca s e, m ay aff i r m , r eve r s e or m odi fy t he 1

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 have no pr ec ede nt i al val ue. W hen a ca s e i s dec i ded by m em or andum opi ni on i t s hal l be de s i gnat ed “M EM O RA N D U M O PI N I O N , ” s hal l not be publ i s hed, and shal l not be ci 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 JAC KSON A SS IG N E D O N BR IE FS D ec embe r 1, 200 9
ERIC THOM AS v. S TAT E OF TEN NES SEE

Direc t Appeal from the Tennessee Claims Com mission No. T20090406-1 Nancy C. M iller Herr on, Commissioner

No. W2009-01399-C OA-R3-C V - Filed Dec ember 29, 2009

Ap pe lla nt, an inmate of th e Te nn e sse e De pa rtme nt o f C or

re c tio n, fi le d a

c la im i n th e Cla ims Commis sio n, a lle g ingtha t th e De pa rtme nt of Cor re c tio n h a d f

a ile d to a pp ly 83 1 d ay s o f p re tr ia l ja il
c re dit to h is c ri min a l se nte nc e s. Ap pe lle e State of Te nn e sse e fi le d a mot ion to d ism iss . T he Cla ims Commi ssion g rante d the State’s motion to di smiss on t he g round that Appe llant had not exhausted his a dmi nis tr a tiv e re me die s, and de nie d App e lla

nt’ s mo tio n f

or n e w t r i a l or ame ndme nt o f j ud g me nt. Ap pe lla nt a pp e a ls. We a ff

ir m. Tenn. R. App . P. 3. Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Tennessee C laims Commission Affir med

J. S TE VE N S TA FF O RD , J., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which A LA N E. Highers, P.J., W.S., and D AVI D R. F ARMER , J., joined.
Eric Thoma s, Whiteville, Tenne ssee, Pro Se.
Rob e rt E. Coo pe r, Jr ., Attor

ne y G e ne ra l a ndRe po rt e r, a ndMic ha e l E. Mo or e , So lic ito r G e ne ra l, Pamela S. Lorch, Senior

Counsel, Nashville, Tenne ssee, f or Appe llee, State of Te nnessee
.

M EM OR AN DU M OP IN ION 1 Appellant Eric Thomas, an inmate of the Tenne ssee De partment of Corr ection (“ TDOC”) , wa s in iti a lly

se nte nc e d, on May 24 , 199 9, fo r se ve ra l cou nts of ro bb e ry

. Th e tr ia l cou rt fo un d h im to be a “dang erous offende r,” and order ed his sentenc es t o be served consecutively . On appe al, the-2-

Court of Criminal Appeals vac ated a portion of the trial c ourt’s orde r and remande d the matter f or further finding s on possible alternative grounds for c o n s ec utive sentenc es. State v. Thom as , No. W1999-00337-CCA-R3-CD, 2001 WL 721054 (Tenn. Crim. App. J une 26, 2001). Spec ifically , the Court of Criminal Appeals held that the tr ial court c ould stil l find Mr. Thomas elig i b l e for
consec utive sentenc es as a “prof essional cr iminal.” Upon re mand, the trial c ourt corr ecte d its ini tial finding that Mr. Thomas wa s a “da ng erous of

fende r,” a nd instead found that he was a “prof essional
cr i m i n al

. ” T h i s fi n d i n g d i d n o t ch an ge th e l en gth o f M r. T h o m as ’s i n i t i al s en t en ce , n o r d i d i tch an ge the initial ruling that the se ntence would be serve d consec utively ; however , Mr. Thomas alleg es that the trial cour

t did not enter

an ame nded orde r re flec ting the status chang e fr om “dang erous of fende r” to “profe ssional criminal.”

T h i s i s a c tu a l l y

M r

. T h o m a s ’ s s e c o n d

l aw s u i ti nt h e C l a i m s C o m m i s s i o n o n t h i s c l a i m

. In bo th h is c la ims , Mr. Th oma s ave rs that he is ent itl e d not o nly to p re -t ri a l ja il c re dit

fr om h is a

rr e st on F e br ua ry 2, 19 97 un til his ini tia l sen te nc ing on Ma y 24 , 199 9, but that he is als o e nti tle d to c re dit for time spent in incar cer ation from May 25, 1999 until his sentenc e wa s vacated on J une 26, 2001, and for 516 day s of behavior

/prog ram cre dits. In total, Mr

. Thomas claims that he is entitled to 831 day s cre dit.

Th e fi rs t c la im wa s file d with the Cla ims Com mis sio n on Jan ua ry 12 , 2 00 7. Whil e thi s c la im was pe nding, it appe ars that on Ma rch 9, 2007, Mr . Thomas al s o fi l ed a re quest for de clar atory judgme nt in the Davidson County Chance ry Court. By

Orde r of September 24, 2007, the Chance llor he ld, in r e le va

nt p art , th a t:

Tenn. Code Ann. §4-5-224( a) empower s the Chance ry Court...to hear and dec ide dec laratory

judgme n t ac tions concer ning the “leg al
va lid ity or a ppli c a bil ity of a statut e , r ule or or de r o f a

n a g e nc y to s p ec i fi ed ci rc u m s t an ce s

. ” As s t at u t o ry p re re qu i s i t es fo r br i n gi n g a decla ratory judgme nt action under

Tenn. Code Ann. §4- 5-224, the complainant must first have r equeste d a dec laratory o rder from the
a g e nc y purs ua nt t o T e nn

. Cod e Ann. § 4- 5- 22 3 and the a g e nc y mus t have de cl i n ed to issue a dec laratory order . Tenn. Code Ann. § 4- 5- 224(b).

* * * [Alt h o u g h ] th e D e p art m e n t [] a s s e rt [s ] th a t th e P e t i t i o n e r f a i l e d to exhaust his admini strative re medies, t he pleadings demonstrate that he did see k a dec laratory

order from the De partment. That said, the relief the Petitioner seeks be fore this court is not the same r elief that he so ug ht f

ro m th e De pa

rtme nt.
* * *-3- I n th is p ro c e edi ng , th e Pe tit ion e r a sse rt s th a t th is c ourt is
re q uired to find that his multipl e sente nces a re be ing se rved
concur rently beca use the trial c ourt, while findi ng that the Petitioner
wa s a pro fe ssi on a l cr imi na l.. .f a ile d to ent e r a

n A me nd e d Jud g me nt. I t is on thi s basis that he see ks a dec laratory judgme nt. T his is not the same g round upon which he soug ht a decla ratory judgme nt from the De pa rtme nt.
* * *

Th e c ourt a c kn ow le dg e s th a t “ se nte nc e c re dit dis pute s sh ou ld be resolved t hroug h the Admi nistrative P roce dures Act.” V aughn v. Sta te , 1 9 9 4 WL53845 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994) . Howeve r, the Petitioner is seekingto use the Admi nistrative P roce dures Act to have this co urt f

a s h io n r e li e f th a t is p r o p e r ly th e s o le ju r is d ic ti o n o f

the criminal trial cour

t.... I f the Petitioner is corr ect that the c riminal trial judge failed to issue an Amended J udg ment with the specific finding that h e is a p r o f

e s s io n a l c r im in a l, s o th a t h is s e n te n c e s run con s e c u ti v e ly , h e mu s t s e e k r e li e f f r o m th e c r im in a l c o urt. I f he believes that the criminal trial court err ed, his reme dy may be pursue d throug h the Tenne ssee Rules of Criminal Proce dure.

* * *

For the above stated re asons, this pr ocee ding is dismissed–not for f ailure to e x haust administrative reme dies, but f or lac k of subject matter jurisdiction.... Followingthe rulingfrom the Chancery Court on Mr. Thomas’s motion for dec laratory jud g me nt, the Ap pe lle e State of Te nn e sse e fi le d a mot ion to dis mis s Mr . T ho ma s’ s f ir st c la im w ith the Claims Com mission. By Ord er o f Oc tober 30, 2007, the Claims Commis sion dismi ssed, on jurisdictional gr ounds, the porti ons of Mr. Thomas’s claim dealingwith intentional acts, violation of c ivi l r ig hts , a

nd ne g lig e nt v iol a tio n o f s tatut or y ri g hts . T he Oc tober 30 , 20 07 Or de r s tate s, in pe rt ine nt p art , th a t:

Al tho ug h th e pl ead ing s are no t art fu lly dr a ft e d, [Mr . T ho ma s] a lso appea rs to alleg e that employ ees of the Tenne ssee De partment of Correc tion, hereina fter r efe rre d to as TDOC, improper ly ca l culated his tim e, fa il i ng to give him credit for the time he ser

ved betwe en May 25, 1999 and June 26, 2001.
The Commission would not e tha t i t is not clear f rom the
rec ord whe ther Mr. Thoma s exhausted available a dminist rative-4- reme dies prior to filing his claim. The TDO C is the ag ency resp o n s ible for c alculatinginmate sentenc es in ac corda nce w ith the
se nte nc ingc ou

rt ’s jud g me nt and wi th a

pp lic a ble se nte nc ingstatut e s. Bonn er v. T

en nessee De

pt. of Correction , 84 S.W .3d 576, 582 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001). Review of the TDOC’s ca lculations may be obtained under

the Uniform Administrative Proc edure s Ac t, § 4-5- 101 et seq ; Bonn er , 84 S.W .3d at 583,[] an inmate must first see k a decla ratory order reg ardingthe senten ce calc ulation from the Depa rtment. See Watson v. Tennes s ee Dept. of Correction , 970 S.W .2d 484, 497 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998).

Th e Commis sio n c on tin

ue d th e matte r fo r t

he pa rt ie s to su bmi t do c ume nts and

ple a din g s to deter mine whether

Mr. Thomas had exhausted his administrative remedie s. On Novembe r 1, 2007, the State re newe d its motion to dismiss on the g round that Mr. Thomas f ailed to show that he ha d exhausted his administ rative r emedies by seekinga decla

ratory order with the TDOC. B y Orde r of Fe bruar y 21, 2008, the Claims Commi ssion g rante d the S tate’s moti on, and dismissed Mr. Thomas’s first claim in its entirety

for f ailure to e x haust administrative re medies.

Th e re is no ind ic a tio n in the re c or d that Mr. Th oma s took any fu rt he r a c tio n to e xha

us t hi s administr at i v e reme dies or to otherw ise appe al the trial c ourt’s dec ision to t he Court of Criminal Appea ls; however , o n October 8, 2008, Mr. Thomas a g ain filed suit in the Claims C ommissi on, a lle g ingtha

t he is e nti tle d to 83 1 d ay s c re dit . O n M arc h 1 7, 20 09 , the State mov e d th e Cla ims Commis sio n to a g a in d ism iss Mr . T ho mas’s claim f or fa ilure to e xha

us t a dmi nis tr a tiv e re me die s. By Orde r of Apr il 29, 2009, the Claims C ommissi on g rante d the State’s motion, and dismissed Mr. Thomas’s cla im for the sec ond time. I n response , Mr. Thomas filed a motion for n ew t ri al or amendment of

judgme nt, which motion was subsequently denied b y order

of June 23, 2009. Mr. Th oma s a pp e a ls. Th e so le iss ue be fo re thi s Co ur t is wh e the r t

he Cla ims Com mis sio n e rred in dis mis sin g Mr . T ho ma s’ s se c on d c la im f or fa ilure to e xha

us t hi s a dmi nis tr a tiv e re me die s.
On c e an inmate is i n th e c us tod y of the De pa rtme nt o f Co rrect io n, an a g e nc y of the state g overnme nt, t h e p ro p er avenue by which to addr ess sentenc e re duction cre dits is t hroug h the U n if o r m A dmi n is tr a ti v e Pr o c e d ur e s A c t, T e n n

. Co d e A n n

. § 4

- 5

- 1 0 1 , e t s e q

. ( “ UAPA”)

. State v. Da v id N . Kun tz , No. 01C01-9101-CR-00019, 1991 WL101857 (Tenn. Crim. App., June 14, 1991), pe rm . to a

pp e a l de nie d, (T e nn .1 99 1) . T he UA PA p ro vid e s:
A d e c larator

y jud g me nt s ha ll n ot b e re nd e re d c on c e rn ingthe va lid ity or applica bility of a statute, rule or order unless the complainant ha s petitioned the ag ency

for a decla ratory order and the age n cy

has ref used to issue a de clar atory order

. Te nn . Co de Ann. § 4 -5 -2 25 (b ). I f the pet iti on e r c la ims that T DO C in c or re c tly c a lc ulate d h is sentenc e, he must first seek a decla ratory order reg arding the calculation from the TDOC. Bonn er v . T e nn. D e p’ t of Cor r. , 84 S.W .3d 576, 583 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001)(c iting Tenn. Code Ann. §4- 5--5-

22 5( b) ; Watson v. Tenn. Dep’t. of Corr., 970 S.W .2d 494, 497 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998))

. Fur thermore , until the petitioner seeks a d ec l ar atory order from the a

ppropriate ag ency , the cour t does not have subject matter jur isdiction over the petition. Id.
We h ave tho ro ug hly

re vie wed th e c omp la int

and the e nti re re c or d, g ivi nge ve ry po ssi ble benef it to Mr. Thoma s as a pro se litigant. See Hessmer v. Hessm er , 138 S.W .3d 901, 903-04 (Te nn. Ct. App.2003). We find that Mr. Thomas failed to se ek a de clar atory order from the TD OC prior to s e e kin g jud ic ia l r e vie w o f t he TD OC ' s a c tio ns . “ A d e c lara tor y jud g me nt a c tio n is pre matur e if the petitioner proc eeds directly to judicial revie w without seekingan administrative de termination.” Da v is v . Sund qui st, , 9 47 S.W. 2d

15 5, 15 6 ( Ten n. Ct. Ap p. 19 97 ). Con se qu e ntl y , th e Cla ims Commis sio n c or

re c tly fo un d that Mr. Th oma s cann ot se e k re lie f fr om the Com mis sio n unti l he fi rs t exhausts his administrative re medies. More over, be cause Mr. Thomas fa iled to seek a decla ratory order from the TD OC, the Claims Com mission lacke d subject matter jur isdiction over his petition. See Bonn er , 84 S.W .3d at 583.

For the fore g oing r easons, we aff irm the order

of the Claims Com mission, di smissi ng Mr. Th oma s’ s c la im. Cos ts o f t his a pp e a l are a sse sse d to the Ap pe lla nt, Er ic Th oma s.

___________________________________ J. STE VE N ST AFF OR D, J.