Daniels v. Traughber
| Citation | 984 S.W.2d 918 |
| Parties | Robert C. DANIELS, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. Charles TRAUGHBER, Chairman, Tennessee Board of Paroles, et al., Defendants/Appellees. |
| Decision Date | 06 May 1998 |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Tennessee |
David L. Raybin, Wagster & Yarbrough, P.C., Nashville, Tennessee, Joe Binkley, Sr., Nashville, Tennessee, attorneys for plaintiff/appellant.
Patricia C. Kussman, Nashville, Tennessee, attorney for defendants/appellees.
The plaintiff, a prisoner in the custody of the Department of Correction, filed in the Trial Court a petition for the writ of certiorari from the action of the Board of Paroles on April 18, 1996, rescinding its order of April 9, 1994, granting the prisoner a parole. At the time of the rescission, the prisoner had not been released from custody.
On July 27, 1989, the prisoner was convicted of second degree murder in the death of Sylvia Coakley and sentenced to serve thirty-five years in the custody of the Tennessee Department of Correction.
By letter dated November 27, 1989, the parents of the victim, requested the Board of Paroles to notify them of any hearing by the Board in respect to the release of the prisoner.
By letter dated January 21, 1994, counsel for the parents notified the Board that he represented the parents of the victim; that they strongly opposed any early release of the prisoner; and that he desired to be notified of any hearing on the subject of the release of the prisoner.
On April 9, 1996, the board held a hearing regarding the release of the prisoner. The Board attempted to notify the parents of the victim, but the letter was not delivered because the parents had moved from the address furnished by them.
No effort was made to notify counsel of the parents of the victim as requested by him, although his correct mailing address was on file with the Board.
On the same date, the Board approved the early release of the prisoner effective July 15, 1996. The prisoner was still in custody when the Board next acted on April 18, 1996.
On April 10, 1996, Honorable Cheryl Blackburn, Assistant Attorney General, wrote the Board protesting the meeting and action of the Board without notification to her and reminding the Board of the strong opposition of her office to any early release of the prisoner.
On April 18, 1996, the Board met again, heard the parents of the victim and rescinded its April 9, 1996, action.
On June 14, 1996, the present suit was filed seeking:
Immediate injunctive relief, common law writ of certiorari, Federal Civil Rights violation under 42 USC § 1983, both for money damages and for prospective injunctive relief.
The Trial Court heard the matter without a jury and, on June 24, 1997, filed a Memorandum and Order stating:
This matter is before the Court on the plaintiff's request for issuance of a writ of certiorari. The premise of the request for the writ is that the defendant members of the Board of Paroles ("Board") acted fraudulently, illegally or arbitrarily in granting the plaintiff parole on April 9, 1996, and then subsequently rescinding the grant of parole on April 18, 1996.
The defendants deny that there are grounds for the issuance of the writ. They assert that they acted pursuant to applicable statutes and rules. The defendants argue that they acted legally and that the rescission of parole was reasonable.
Having considered the entire record and the argument of counsel and having carefully studied this matter, the Court determines that the plaintiff has failed to carry his burden in demonstrating his entitlement to issuance of a writ of certiorari. For the reasons set forth below, the Court determines that the application for writ of certiorari shall be denied.
The record before the Court reveals that the plaintiff was convicted of second degree murder of his former wife and was sentenced to thirty-five years imprisonment on July 27, 1989. During the seven and one-half years the plaintiff was confined, he had a good institutional record and was accorded trustee status.
A parole release hearing was conducted on April 9, 1996. The plaintiff's application for parole was supported by recommendations from two assistant wardens, other prison personnel, and friends. The hearing officials unanimously recommended that the plaintiff be released on July 15, 1996 on parole.
Subsequent to the April 9, 1996 hearing, the victim's family complained to the Board that neither they nor their attorney/representative had been notified of the April 9, 1996 hearing. The Assistant District Attorney General, who had prosecuted the case against the plaintiff, also complained that she had failed to receive notice of the April 9, 1996 hearing.
The record reveals that notice of the April 9, 1996 hearing was mailed to the victim's family, but that they did not receive the notice because they had moved and had not sent their new address to the Board. The family, however, had requested that their attorney, Larry Roberts, receive notice of parole hearings. Filed with the Court by the defendants is a letter dated January 21, 1994 from Mr. Roberts stating, "My clients strongly oppose any early release date for Mr. Daniels, and I would ask that you notify me of any hearing of any thing which could result in Mr. Daniels' release from confinement [emphasis added]." The record reveals that the Board failed to notify Mr. Roberts of the April 9, 1996 hearing. The record further establishes that notice was mailed to the office of the District Attorney but for some reason the District Attorney who handled the case, Judge Cheryl Blackburn, did not receive the notice.
Thereafter, written victim impact statements were received by the Board, and on April 18, 1996, a parole rescission hearing was held. The victim's aunt and cousins testified regarding the impact of the crime on the victim's family. The victim's mother testified regarding the impact of the crime on the victim's family. The victim's mother testified, attributing a stroke her husband suffered and that her son sustained cirrhosis of the liver to the crime. The same three Board members, Traughber, Hill and Chase, unanimously voted to rescind the plaintiff's parole. The stated reasons were, "Declined; Review 4/99; Seriousness of Offense; Impact on Victim's Family."
The plaintiff then filed a request for appeal of the final decision of the April 18, 1996 hearing. The appeal was denied on May 7, 1996 on the grounds that the request did not meet any of the established criteria for granting an appeal hearing.
Subsequent to rescission of his parole, the plaintiff was immediately transferred from a minimum security facility, Nashville Community Service Center, to a maximum security facility, Middle Tennessee Reception Center.
To be entitled to a writ of certiorari, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the action of the Board was illegal, fraudulent or arbitrary:
Under common law writ of certiorari, questions of law only will be reviewed by the courts. An action of an administrative agency which is not supported by any evidence is arbitrary and may be quashed on common law writ of certiorari. Whether or not there is any material evidence to support the action of the agency is a question of law to be decided by the reviewing court upon examination of the evidence introduced before the agency. Any additional evidence offered to the reviewing court is limited to the question of whether the agency exceeded its jurisdiction, or acted fraudulently, illegally or arbitrarily.
Watts v. Civil Service Board for Columbia, Tenn. 1980, 606 S.W.2d 274, 276-77.
In the case at bar, the plaintiff asserts that the writ is appropriate because the information presented to the Board on April 18, 1996 was no different from the information considered by the Board on April 19, 1996. The plaintiff argues that the Board was influenced by media and popular opinion concerns, and that those concerns caused the Board to arbitrarily rescind the plaintiff's parole.
The defendants concede that if there were no differences between the evidence presented at the parole grant hearing and that presented at the parole rescission hearing then it would have been arbitrary for the Board to have rescinded the plaintiff's parole because there would have been no evidence to support the Board's decision. The defendants, however, point to several differences between the April 9, 1996 hearing and the April 18, 1996 hearing which differences they assert support the decision to rescind parole.
First, the defendants note that the victim's aunts and cousins were present at the April 18, 1996 hearing and that the live testimony of these individuals, as well as their bearing and demeanor, greatly distinguished the April 18, 1996 hearing from the April 9, 1996 hearing. The defendants point out that the victim's mother testified that her husband, the victim's father, was now in a nursing home suffering from a stress related stroke due to the death of their daughter, and that their son suffered from cirrhosis of the liver as a result.
The defendants further assert that Judge Cheryl Blackburn, the former Assistant District Attorney who prosecuted the plaintiff, was present at the April 18, 1996 hearing and pointed out discrepancies in the plaintiff's testimony at the April 9, 1996 parole hearing and testimony from his trial. At the April 9, 1996 parole hearing the plaintiff had described an altercation with his former wife in which he characterized that he "wrestled" with her. Judge Blackburn read parts of the transcript from the plaintiff's criminal trial which established that the plaintiff had bounced the victim's head off of the ground, had bitten her, and that she had sustained a large bruise on her left arm, a swollen eye and abrasions on her right and left shoulders.
Based upon the foregoing, the Court concludes that the plaintiff has failed to carry his burden in demonstrating his entitlement to a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ross v. City of Memphis
...Tennessee Constitution,8 which provides a right of peaceable protest and petition for redress of grievance. See Daniels v. Traughber, 984 S.W.2d 918, 924 (Tenn.Ct.App.1998)(finding that these rights derive from the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Article I, Section 23 of the Te......
-
Willis v. Dept. of Corrections
...fraudulently, or arbitrarily. Turner v. Tennessee Bd. of Paroles, 993 S.W.2d 78, 80 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999); Daniels v. Traughber, 984 S.W.2d 918, 924 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998). The writ itself is an order issued by a superior court to compel an inferior tribunal to send up its record for review.......
-
Western Express, Inc. v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, No. M2005-00353-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. App. 7/11/2007), M2005-00353-COA-R3-CV.
...fraudulently, or arbitrarily, Turner v. Tenn. Bd. of Paroles, 993 S.W.2d 78, 80 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999); Daniels v. Traughber, 984 S.W.2d 918, 924 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998), and its review is limited to the record made before the administrative body unless it permits the introduction of additiona......
-
State Of Tennessee v. JOHN COTE AND SARAH COTE
...fraudulently, or arbitrarily. Turner v. Tennessee Bd. of Paroles, 993 S.W.2d 78, 80 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999); Daniels v. Traughber, 984 S.W.2d 918, 924 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998). In Lane, the Tennessee Supreme Court further defined when relief should be granted under a common law writ of certiorar......