Walker v. Tenn. Bd. of Parole

• Docket Number: M2023-00219-COA-R3-CV
• Decision Date: 02 November 2023
• Parties: MARTIN WALKER v. TENNESSEE BOARD OF PAROLE
• Court: Tennessee Court of Appeals

1

MARTIN WALKER v. TENNESSEE BOARD OF PAROLE

No. M2023-00219-COA-R3-CV

Court of Appeals of Tennessee, Nashville

November 2, 2023

Assigned on Briefs October 2, 2023

Appeal from the Chancery Court for Davidson County No. 21-0995-11 Anne C. Martin, Chancellor

This appeal arises from a Petition for Writ of Certiorari filed by Martin Walker ("Petitioner"), an inmate in the custody of the Tennessee Department of Correction ("TDOC"). Petitioner seeks review of the decision by the Tennessee Board of Parole ("Board") to deny him parole. He raises numerous challenges to the propriety of the Board's action and procedures. Finding no error, we affirm.

Tenn R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Chancery Court Affirmed

Martin E. Walker, Nashville, Tennessee, Pro Se.

Jonathan Skrmetti, Attorney General and Reporter, and Dawn Jordan, Special General, for the appellee, Tennessee Board of Parole.

FRANK G. CLEMENT JR., P.J., M.S., DELIVERED THE OPINION

OF THE COURT, IN WHICH ARNOLD B. GOLDIN AND KRISTI M. DAVIS, JJ JOINED.

OPINION

FRANK G. CLEMENT JR., P.J., M.S.

Facts and Procedural History

Petitioner is incarcerated on two convictions: First-degree murder of his father, committed on July 31, 1984, for which he was sentenced to life with possibility of parole, and second-degree murder of his wife, committed on May 31, 1980, for which he was sentenced to 25 years consecutive to the life sentence.^[1] See State v. Walker, No. CCA 85-295-III, 1987 WL 1769 (Tenn. Crim. App. Sept. 29, 1987); see also Walker v. State, No. M2001-00328-CCA-R3CO, 2002 WL 517144 (Tenn. Crim. App. Apr. 5, 2002).

His convictions were based in principal part on his admissions during a recorded conversation with a third party, during which he provided a description of the murders. He admitted that the purpose of the murders was to collect life insurance benefits. He also discussed his plan to kill his sister once he was able to take out an insurance policy on her.

Petitioner had eight parole hearings^[2] prior to the commencement of this action. He was denied parole after each hearing based on "the seriousness of the offense." His last parole hearing prior to filing this Petition was in March 2021. Following the hearing, the hearing officer submitted a report recommending that the board deny parole given that Petitioner had killed two people in separate events and parole would depreciate the seriousness of the offenses.^[3] On April 5, 2021, the remaining members of the hearing panel adopted the hearing officer's recommendation to deny parole. The stated reason for their decision was that Petitioner's release from prison "would depreciate the seriousness of the crime of which [Petitioner] stands convicted or promote disrespect of the law: T.C.A. 40-35-503(b)(2)."

On May 14, 2021, Petitioner appealed the hearing panel's decision to the entire Board. By letter dated August 27, 2021, the Board denied the appeal. Although the Board deferred future consideration of parole for four years, the record before us reveals that Petitioner has had two more parole hearings since he filed the Petition in this case: One in February of 2022 and another in February of 2023. As before, the Board denied parole after these hearings based on the seriousness of the Petitioner's offenses.

On October 1,2021, Petitioner commenced this action by filing a Writ of Certiorari in the Chancery Court for Davidson County, Tennessee. In the statement of the case Petitioner stated:

The petitioner has appeared before the Board a total of six (6) times over a twelve (12) year period. Both his academic and program participation had increased at each appearance; the petitioner has maintained an institutional record free of disciplinary infractions; he has had a pre-approved home and job plan at each appearance; has ample support in the community and has never had a single protestor to appear to oppose the grant. Despite the Board's 2017 decision to grant parole, the petitioner has been denied release six (6) consecutive times. The Board has never presented any "reasonable justification" for these continual denials but has continually denied petitioner parole over and over again for the exact same reason, "seriousness of the offense."

The chancery court granted the writ and ordered the Board to file the administrative record with the court, including the audio recording from the March 24, 2021 hearing.

Following a review of the record, the petition and briefing, the chancery court dismissed the Petition pursuant to an order entered on January 19, 2023. Petitioner timely filed his Notice of Appeal on February 15, 2023.

Issues

Petitioner has raised numerous issues for us to consider, which we find to be argumentative, convoluted and somewhat difficult to decipher. Thus, we have restated the issues, as we understand them, as follows:

1. Whether the Chancery Court and the Tennessee Board of Parole unlawfully expanded the definition of Tennessee Code Annotated § 4028-105;

2. Whether the Chancery Court erred by not finding that the Board should grant parole because the requirement of four concurring votes had been met based on an accumulation of votes over the several hearings;

3. Whether the Board's decision was arbitrary and capricious;

4. Whether the Chancery Court erred by not finding a four-year deferral of Petitioner's next parole hearing arbitrary;

5. Whether the Chancery Court erred by not finding that the Board's voting practices were arbitrary and capricious;

6. Whether the Board's decision was erroneously based on an "Average Time Served" chart;

7. Whether the Chancery Court erred by not addressing the Board's "Decision Making Guidelines" which Petitioner contends fundamentally changed his parole eligibility;

8. Whether Petitioner was provided a complete record.

For its part, the Board raises several issues, most of which are related to those raised by Petitioner. They read:

1. Whether the Chancery Court properly found that there was sufficient evidence to deny parole based on the seriousness of the offense;

2. Whether Petitioner's arguments that Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-28-105 is unconstitutional and that the Chancery Court and the Board of Parole applied the statute in an unconstitutional manner are properly before this Court;

3. Whether the Chancery Court properly found that a potential parolee who has been convicted of First-Degree murder must receive 4 votes at one hearing, not over a span of years;

4. Whether the Chancery Court properly found that the alleged inconsistent voting practices of the Board of Parole Members did not show arbitrary or capricious behavior;

5. Whether the Chancery Court properly found that the Board of Parole could legally defer review of Petitioner's review for four years;

6. Whether the Petitioner has shown that the Board of Parole bases its decisions on an "Average Time Served Chart";

7. Whether the Chancery Court properly found that the Board of Parole properly denied parole regardless of the Decision-Making Guidelines;

8. Whether the Chancery Court properly found that Petitioner had been given a complete record; 9. Whether Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-28-117 provides Petitioner with any relief.

Standard of Review

The common law writ of certiorari is the proper means by which to seek review of decisions made by prison disciplinary boards, parole eligibility review boards, and similar tribunals. Willis v. Tenn. Dep't of Corr., 113 S.W.3d 706, 712 (Tenn. 2003). The common law writ of certiorari has been used to remedy "(1) fundamentally illegal rulings; (2) proceedings inconsistent with essential legal requirements; (3) proceedings that effectively deny a party his or her day in court; (4) decisions beyond the lower tribunal's authority; and (5) plain and palpable abuses of discretion." Id.

Significantly, the decision of whether to grant or deny parole to an inmate is vested with the Board, not the courts. See Hopkins v. Tenn. Bd. of Parole &Prob., 60 S.W.3d 79, 82 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001). Thus, judicial review of the Board's decision concerning parole is limited. Id.

Judicial review of a parole decision made by the Board is narrow; it is limited to consideration of whether the Board exceeded its jurisdiction or acted illegally, arbitrarily, or fraudulently. Tenn. Code Ann. § 27-8-101; Stewart v. Schofield, 368 S.W.3d 457, 463 (Tenn. 2012); Willis v. Tenn. Dep't of Corr., 113 S.W.3d 706, 712 (Tenn. 2003). The reviewing court does not inquire into the intrinsic correctness of the Board's decision, reweigh the evidence, or substitute its judgment for that of the Board. State v. Lane, 254 S.W.3d 349, 355 (Tenn. 2008); Robinson v. Clement, 65 S.W.3d 632, 635 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001). The court considers only the manner in which the decision was made. Stewart, 368 S.W.3d at 463 (citing Arnold v. Tenn. Bd. of Paroles, 956 S.W.2d 478, 480 (Tenn. 1997); Powell v. Parole Eligibility Review Bd., 879 S.W.2d 871, 873 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1994)).

Brennan v. Tenn. Bd. of Parole, 512 S.W.3d 871, 873 (Tenn. 2017).

As a consequence, "the courts will not use the common-law writ to grant relief when the Board's decision was arrived at in a constitutional and lawful manner." Hopkins, 60 S.W.3d at 82 (citing Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-28-115(c); Arnold v. Tenn. Bd. Of Paroles, 956 S.W.2d 478, 480 (Tenn. 1997); Powell v. Parole Eligibility Review Bd., 879 S.W.2d 871, 873 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1994))." We "review the Board's decision for rationality, and the Board's decision will be upheld unless the Board lacks a rational basis for its decision." Greenwood v. Tenn. Bd. of Parole, 547 S.W.3d 207, 220 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2017).

Analysis

We begin by noting that Petitioner is a pro se litigant. While he has the right to represent himself:

Pro se litigants who invoke the complex

...