### IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on

Briefs M ay 31, 2001 MOHAMED ALI v. T ENNESSEE BOAR D OF PAROLES Appeal from the Chancery Court for Davidson County No. 01-1711-III Ellen Hobbs Lyle, Chancellor

No. M2001-02302-COA-R3-CV - Filed October 16, 2002
Appellan t, an inmate of the Department of Corrections, appea ls the dismissal of hi s Petitio n for Certiorari in the Chancery Court of Davidson County. He was c onvicted in 1993 of one count of rape and one c ount of at

tempte d b ri be ry o f a witness. He received sentence s of twelve ye ars and three ye ars, re spective

ly, to be se rv ed co ns ec ut iv el y. He seeks mandatory parole under Tennessee Code Anno tated se ction 40- 28-117(b ) and othe r relief . We affir

m the judgment of the

trial cou rt. Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Chancery Court Affirmed
W IL LI AM B. C AIN , J., delivered the opinion of the cour t, in which B EN H. C ANT RELL , P.J., and P ATRIC IA J. C OTT RELL , J., joined. Mohamed Ali, Mountain City, Tennessee, Pro Se. Paul G. Summers, Attorney Gene ral; Michael E. Moore, Solicitor General; and Mark A. Hudson, Senior Cou

nsel, for the appe llee, Te nnessee Board o f Parole s.

OPINION Appellan t, an inmate in the Department of Corrections, was sentenced in 1993 to an effective termof fifteen y ears. He has four times been rejected for parole on the basis provided by Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-503(b)(2)(1997) that his parole “would depreciate the seriousness of the offense of thecrime of which the defendant stands convicted or promote disrespect for the law.”
He first asserts that he is entitled to ma nd at or y p arole under the provisions of Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-28-117(b). This section of the Code has never been repealed because it is still effective in certain cases involving crimes committedprior to July 1, 1982, and convictions occurring prior to May 26, 1983. See Eslick, v. Campbell , no. M1998-00944-COA-R3-CV, 2000 Tenn . App. L exis 413 (Te

nn. Ct.-2-

App. June 27, 200 0); Ishaaq v. Tennesse e Dep’t o f Corr. , No. M 2000-01957 -COA-R3-CV, 2001 Te nn. App. Lexis 934 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 28, 2001). Such has bee n the law since Chapter 227, Section 29 of

the Public

Acts of 1989 amended Tennessee Code Annotated sec tion 40-28-115(b) and Chapter 406, Section 12 of

the Public Acts of 1983 amended Tennessee Code Annotated section 40- 35-503. As Appellant does not allege that he committed the crimes for w hich he was convictedprior to July 1, 1982, and

as his petition shows on its face that he was convicted of these crimes in 1993, he is not and never has been eligible for manda tory parole und

e r any statute, including

Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-28-117(b). Next, Appellant complains that he has four times been rejected for p arole b ecause of the seriousness of

his offenses under Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-503(b)(2). A prisoner has no constit

utional or inherit r ight to pa roleprior to the expiration of a valid sentence. Greenho ltz v. Inmates of Neb. Penal and Corr. Complex , 442 U.S. 1, 7-8 (1979 ). There is no const

itutionall y protected liberty interest in parole

in Tennessee. Wrigh t v. Tramme ll , 810 F.2d589 (6 th Cir. 1987); Kaylor v. Bradley , 912 S.W.2d 728, 733 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1995). The Tennessee Supreme Court has held: “In our view, consideration of the seriousness of the of fense, the number of victims, and the risks to re-offend is appropriate to the par ole decision. Consideration of these f

ac to rs do es no t d em on st ra te th at th e B oa rd ac te d i ll eg al ly, fr au du le nt ly, ar bi tr ar il y, or in excess of its jurisdiction. Moreover, consideration of such factor s does not implicate any constitutional right unde r the circumstances.” Arn old v. Tennessee Bd. Of Paroles , 956 S.W.2d 478, 482-83 (Tenn. 1997). The Petition for Ce rtiorari fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and was properl y dismissed by the trial court. P owell v. P arole Eligibility Review Bd. , 879 S.W.2d 871 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1994). The judgment of the trial court is affirmed and c osts are assessed against Appellant.

___________________________________ WILL IAM B. CAI

N, JUDGE