Opinion
C.A. No. 01A01-9504-CH-00152.
September 1, 1995.
Hon. C. Allen High, Chancellor, Davidson Chancery No, 94-2516-II.
HAROLD McCOLLUM, Clifton, pro se.
CHARLES W. BURSON, Attorney General and Reporter and MERRILYN FEIRMAN, Assistant Attorney General, Nashville.
AFFIRMED.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Rules of the Court of Appeals, 10(b): Memorandum Opinion. The Court, with the concurrence of all judges participating in the case, may affirm, reverse or modify the actions of the trial court by memorandum opinion when a formal opinion would have no precedential value. When a case is decided by memorandum opinion it shall be designated "MEMORANDUM OPINION," shall not be published, and shall not be cited or relied on for any reason in a subsequent unrelated case.
Petitioner Harold McCollum filed a pro se "Petition for Common Law Writ of Certiorari to Agency Decision" in the Chancery Court of Davidson County against the Chairman of the Tennessee Board of Paroles, and the Director of Board Operations ("respondents"), seeking review of the Parole Board's denial of parole. The chancellor granted State's motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12.02 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. On appeal, petitioner presents three issues for review: whether the chancellor erred in (1) dismissing the petition for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; (2) failing to permit discovery; and (3) failing to consider all of the issues contained in the petition. We affirm.
Petitioner, an inmate of the Tennessee prison system, was granted parole on February 28, 1991; however, he violated his parole on November 26 of that year. Petitioner was subsequently denied parole on November 18, 1992, May 18, 1993, and May 10, 1994. Following the last denial, petitioner filed a request for an appeal hearing, which was denied by the Board. He thereafter filed this petition for certiorari.
Actions taken by the Board of Paroles are deemed judicial functions and are not reviewable if done according to law. T.C.A. § 40-28-115(c) (1990); Brigham v. Lack, 755 S.W.2d 469, 471 (Tenn.Crim.App. 1988). Board of Paroles decisions are reviewable, however, under the common law writ of certiorari. See Powell v. Parole Eligibility Review Bd., 879 S.W.2d 871, 873 (Tenn.App. 1994). The scope of review under the writ is very narrow, covering only an inquiry into whether the Board has exceeded its jurisdiction or acted illegally, fraudulently, or arbitrarily. Id. Only the manner in which the decision is reached, and not the correctness of the decision, is reviewable. Id. Mere conclusory allegations, absent facts showing that relief is justified, will not entitle petitioner to the writ. Id.
Petitioner alleges that some of the Board members changed their vote after being contacted by another Board member, and in addition, failed to follow the recommendations of the hearing officer and changed his prediction scale score from one hearing to the next. Taking all of petitioner's allegations as true, he has failed to show that the Board acted illegally, fraudulently, or arbitrarily, or that it exceeded its jurisdiction. Petitioner is seeking nothing more than a review of the intrinsic correctness of the Board's decision, which is not a proper ground for issuance of the common law writ. This issue is without merit.
In light of his ruling, the chancellor did not err in refusing to grant petitioner discovery. In addition, there is no indication the chancellor failed to consider all of petitioner's claims before dismissing his petition. These two issues are also without merit.
Accordingly, the judgment of the chancellor is affirmed and the cause is remanded to the Chancery Court of Davidson County for the collection of costs in that court and any further proceedings that may become necessary. Costs on appeal are taxed to petitioner.
_____________________________________ TOMLIN, P.J., W.S.
_____________________________________ CRAWFORD, J. (CONCURS)
_____________________________________ HIGHERS, J. (CONCURS)