Floyd E. Rayner, III v. Tennessee Department of Correction
M2017-00223-COA-R3-CV
| Tenn. Ct. App. | Jul 13, 2017Background
- Floyd Earl Rayner, III (Appellant) is serving an effective 51-year sentence after convictions for multiple counts of rape of a child and aggravated sexual battery; sentencing orders imposed two 21-year rape sentences and one 9-year aggravated-sexual-battery sentence consecutive, others concurrent.
- The criminal court awarded 317 days of pretrial jail credit covering April 10, 2000 to February 21, 2001; Rayner contended he was arrested December 9, 1999 and sought credit from that earlier date.
- TDOC calculated the sentence expiration as April 10, 2051, applying the court-ordered credit and treating rape-of-a-child sentences as 100% service (no sentence reduction credits) while the aggravated sexual battery sentence is eligible for up to 15% credits but only after required time served.
- Rayner filed a declaratory-judgment action under the Uniform Administrative Procedures Act (UAPA), challenging TDOC’s calculation and the constitutionality of Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 39-13-523 and 40-35-501.
- The chancery court dismissed the complaint, concluding TDOC followed the criminal judgments in its calculation and that constitutional challenges to criminal convictions/sentences cannot be pursued via UAPA declaratory proceedings.
- Rayner appealed; this Court reviews de novo and affirmed the dismissal, rejecting Rayner’s claims and treating his discovery-related motion as waived/moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether TDOC incorrectly calculated pretrial jail credit | Rayner: TDOC should credit custody from arrest on Dec. 9, 1999 | TDOC: It must apply the trial court’s judgment awarding credit from Apr. 10, 2000; TDOC cannot alter the criminal judgment | Held: TDOC properly calculated credit per sentencing orders; Rayner’s request for earlier credit is not for TDOC to grant |
| Whether TDOC misapplied sentence-reduction credits for child-rape counts | Rayner: Sentence-reduction credits should apply to reduce expiration | TDOC: Rape-of-a-child sentences are to be served at 100% under statutes and judgments; no reduction allowed | Held: Rape-of-a-child sentences properly served at 100% without credits (statute and judgments control) |
| Whether UAPA declaratory relief can be used to challenge constitutionality of sentencing statutes | Rayner: Seeks declaratory relief declaring §§ 39-13-523 and 40-35-501 unconstitutional | State: UAPA is not a vehicle to challenge criminal convictions/sentences; exclusive remedies are direct appeal, post-conviction, or habeas | Held: Dismissed—constitutional challenge to criminal sentence cannot be pursued under UAPA |
| Whether the trial court erred by ruling Rayner’s pending discovery motion moot | Rayner: Trial court should have adjudicated sufficiency of responses to requests for admissions | State: Issue was not properly raised post-judgment; legal issues already decided; motion waived | Held: No error—issue waived on appeal and trial court’s disposition was not erroneous |
Key Cases Cited
- Colonial Pipeline Co. v. Morgan, 263 S.W.3d 827 (Tenn. 2008) (standard of de novo review for legal issues)
- Smith v. Lewis, 202 S.W.3d 124 (Tenn. 2006) (holding child-rapist sentences must be served undiminished by credits)
- Bonner v. Tennessee Dept. of Correction, 84 S.W.3d 576 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001) (TDOC must calculate sentences according to the sentencing court’s judgment and statutes)
- Mitchell v. Campbell, 88 S.W.3d 561 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002) (UAPA declaratory proceedings cannot be used to attack criminal conviction or sentence)
- Burkhart v. State, 566 S.W.2d 871 (Tenn. 1978) (TDOC may not alter a court’s judgment even if illegal)