### IN THE COURT OF APP EALS OF TENNESS EE AT NAS HVILLE A ssi gne d O n B ri ef

s Ja nuary 10, 200 5

SUSAN DAUGHERT Y v. TE NNESSEE BOARD OF PROBATI ON AND PA ROL E

Appeal f romthe Chancer y Court for Davidson Cou nty No. 03-1548-I Ir vin H. Kilcrease , Jr., Chancellor

No. M2003- 02429-COA-R 3-CV - F iled Janu ary 28, 2005

The a ppellant principa lly

alleg es that she ha d a plea ag ree men t with the State that if she plea ded g uiltyto the char g e of ve hicular a ssault, the punishment for which would run consecutively to prior

se nte nc e s, sh e wo uldbe pa ro le d after se rv ing thi rt y

pe rc e nt o f h e r s e nte nc e , a ndthat th e Sta te , in eff ect, r eneg ed on the a g ree ment. She prese nted no evidenc e other than her own assertions of the plea, a nd her pe tition was denied.
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 H. INMAN , S R

. J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which W I L L I AM C. K O CH , J R ., P.J .M.S., and W I L L I AM B. C A IN , J ., joined.
Susan Daug herty , Nashville, Tenne ssee, pr o se.

Pa ul G . Su mme r, At torne y Ge ne ra l a ndRe po rt e r; Mic hael Mo ore , So lic ito r G e ne ra l; Pa me la S. L orch, Senior Counsel, Attorne y Gene ral’s O ffice , for the a ppellee, State of

Tenne ssee.

OP IN ION

The appellant was c onvicted of ve hicular a ssault in Febr uary 2001 and sente nced to a

term of three y ear s to be serve d consec utively to a one- y ear

sentenc e for

theft, and c onsecutively

to afoury e ar t e rm fo r a g g ra va te d b ur g lary , f or a tot a l of e ig ht y e ars c on fi ne me nt i n th e Te nnessee Sta te Prison for Women.

I n Dec ember

2002 a Hea

ring Offic er f

or the B oard r ecommende d parole , but a majority of the B oard de clined to follow the re commendation. The appellant ther eupon filed a petition in the Chance ry C o u rt fo r t he writ of certiorari, cla iming that she w as entitled to parole upon service of thirty perc ent of he r sentenc e bec ause of her ple a ag ree m en t wi t h the State and with the c riminal court. She further a lleg ed that her application for parole should ha ve been he ard by the full Boa

rd, rathe r than by

a He aring Offic er. The Chance ry Court of David s on Countyg rante d the B oard’ sT h e a p p e llan t also q u e stio n s w h e the r th e B o a rd d e n ie d he r d u e p ro c e ss i n o rd e rin g tha t she w o u ld no t b e a g a in 1

co nsi d ered fo r paro l e fo r t hree y ears. H o wever, she d o es no t p res ent t hi s argum ent as an i ss ue fo r our deter m i nat i o n. I n a ny ev ent t he po l i cy of t he B oard does not appear t o ru n c ount er t o t he s t at ut ory s che me.
-2- motion to di smiss for failure to state a c laim, upon a finding that the appe llant presente d no evidenc e that the State ag ree d she would be r elea sed upon ser ving thirty perc ent of a n eig ht-y ear

sentenc e, and that T e nn . Co de An n. § 4 0- 28 -1 05 (d )( 2) sp e cific a lly a uth orize s a

He ari ng Of

fi c e r t o c on du c t a hearing a nd submi t re co m m endations t o the B oard. Petitioner appea ls, claiming that the Boa rd 1 denied he r due pr ocess ( 1) by failing to parole her in acc ordanc e with the asserted ag ree ment, and (2 ) i n all owi ng her

app lic a tio n f

or pa ro le to b e he ardby

a He ari ng Of

fi c e r r a the r tha n b y

the fu ll B oa rd . Ou r revie w i s de novo on the re cord w ith no presumption of corr ectne ss since the issues involve questions of law.

I n Sweatt v. Tn. Board of Paroles , 2000 WL 1514071 (Tenn. Ct. App)( permission to appea l de nie d M a y

26 , 1 99 8) we he ld

Prisoners who asse rt that they agr eed to plead g uiltyin return f or ag ree ments that they would be paroled after serving a spec ific portion of their sentenc es must c ome forw ard w ith some competent evide nce of these ag ree ments. This evidence is readily available either in the fo rm of a writt e n ple a ba

rg a in ag re e me nt or in the fo rm of a ve rb a tim

re c or d of the ple a ba

rg a in pr oc e e din g re qu ir e d to be ke pt p ur su a nt t o Rule 11(g ) of the T ennesse e Rules of Criminal Procedur e. W ithout this evidence , a prisoner

has fa iled to state a c laim upon which re lief

can be g rante d. See, Rin gling v. Tenn essee Board of Paroles , 1997 WE 718419 (Tenn. Ct. App.)(pe rmis s i o n t o appea l denied May 26, 1998).
Ms. Daug herty

failed to pre sent evidenc e of a n alleg ed ag ree ment to be par oled upon servic e of thirty perc ent of he r sentenc e, and he r cla im was properly dismiss ed.

We further

note that the Chanc ellor cor rec tly held that Tenn. Code A nn. § 40-39-105( d)(2) pr ov ide s th a t:
(2) The chair of the boa

rd m ay desig nate individual member s of the bo ardof pr ob a tio n a nd pa

ro le a ndapp oin t he ari ng of fi c e rs wh o s ha ll be authorized to conduct hearings, take testimony and make proposed fi nd ing s o f fa c t and re c omm e nd a tio ns to the bo ard re g ard ing a g rant, denial, re vocation or rescission of par ole. Such finding s and

rec ommendations shall be re duced to w riting and revie wed by board

me mbe rs wh o s ha ll a do pt, mod if y or re je c t th e re c omm e nd a tio ns

.-3-

T h e B o ar d ’s p ra ct i ce o f o n e b o ar d m em b ero r h ea ri n g o ff i ce r p re s i d i n g o v era p ar o l e h ea ri n g, the n s ub mit tin g that me mbe r’ s r e c omm e nd a tio n in writi ng to e a c h b oa rdme mbe r i nd ivi du a lly , is consistent with the leg islative intent. Arnol d v. Board of Paroles , 956 S.W .2d 478 at 482 (Te nn. 1 9 9 7 ). T h er e i s n o s t at u t o ryb as i s fo r t h e a rgu m en tt h at t h e f u l l p an el s h al l co n d u ct t h e h ea ri n g.
The judg ment is affirme d. I n light of the appellant’ s indige ncy , costs are assessed to the State.

___________________________________ WI LL I AM H. INMAN, SENI OR J UDGE