Danny A. Stewart v. Derrick D. Schofield, Commissioner, Tennessee Department of Correction
368 S.W.3d 457
| Tenn. | 2012Background
- Stewart pleaded guilty to thirteen drug offenses and received consecutive determinate sentences under the 1989 Act, totaling 42 years at 30%.
- TDOC calculated a single release eligibility date for the consecutive sentences, March 8, 2010.
- The Board held a parole hearing on October 16, 2009 and later denied parole on November 24, 2009.
- Stewart sought administrative review alleging custodial parole hearings were required and challenging TDOC’s calculation; he did not challenge the Board’s parole decision itself.
- Stewart filed a common law writ of certiorari in March 2010 naming TDOC and the Board; TDOC moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction under UAPA; Board challenges were under common law writ.
- The chancery court dismissed; the Court of Appeals reversed, concluding Stewart had exhausted administrative remedies, but the Tennessee Supreme Court reinstated dismissal for lack of TDOC declaratory order and clarified procedures.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether UAPA governs TDOC’s release-eligibility calculation. | Stewart argues TDOC miscalculated by aggregating sentences under Howell. | TDOC argues UAPA applies and requires a declaratory order before suit. | UAPA governs TDOC calculation; declaratory order required before suit. |
| Whether a petition against TDOC can proceed without a declaratory order from TDOC. | Stewart did not obtain a declaratory order but seeks judicial review. | TDOC requires exhaustion of declaratory order process before a court action. | Trial court lacked jurisdiction; petition against TDOC should be dismissed. |
| Whether Howell applies to inmates under the 1989 Act with consecutive determinate sentences. | Howell-based custodial parole method may apply to Stewart. | 1989 Act provides a different method; Howell does not apply. | Howell does not apply; 40-35-501(l) requires a single release date for consecutive sentences. |
| Whether Stewart stated a cognizable claim against the Board under common law certiorari. | Board failed to consider custodial parole; sought hearing. | Board decisions are reviewable only via certiorari; custodial parole is not binding here. | Board did not err; custodial parole review is not triggered for these sentences; petition fails. |
Key Cases Cited
- Howell v. State, 569 S.W.2d 428 (Tenn. 1978) (parole eligibility for consecutive determinate sentences absent statutory method)
- Bonner v. Tenn. Dep't of Corr., 84 S.W.3d 576 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001) (agency failure to issue declaratory order before suit)
- Watson v. Tenn. Dep't of Corr., 970 S.W.2d 494 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998) (UAPA declaratory-order prerequisite)
- Cantrell v. Easterling, 346 S.W.3d 445 (Tenn. 2011) (reconsideration of modern parole calculation framework under 1989 Act)
- Shorts v. Bartholomew, 278 S.W.3d 268 (Tenn. 2009) (TDOC responsibility for calculating release dates; custodial parole)
- State v. Burdin, 924 S.W.2d 82 (Tenn. 1996) (legislative definition of punishment and sentencing authority)
- Arnold v. Tenn. Bd. of Paroles, 956 S.W.2d 478 (Tenn. 1997) (certiorari scope and review limits for Board decisions)
- Powell v. Parole Eligibility Review Bd., 879 S.W.2d 871 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1994) (limits of certiorari review of parole decisions)
- Colonial Pipeline Co. v. Morgan, 263 S.W.3d 827 (Tenn. 2008) (agency-decision declaratory-judgment prerequisites interpretation)
- McMorrough v. Hunt, 192 S.W. 931 (Tenn. 1917) (historical limits of certiorari review)