Jackson v. Campbell

• Court: Court of Appeals of Tennessee
• Decided: October 15, 1999
• Docket: 01A01-9902-CH-00098
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS AT NASHVILLE

JAMES L. JACKSON ) C/A No. 01A01-9902-CH-00098 ) Davidson Chancery Petitioner ) No. 98-2052-I ) v.

TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT ) ) ) FILED OF CORRECTIONS, DONAL ) October 15, 1999 CAMPBELL, COMMISSIONER ) ) Cecil Crowson, Jr. Respondent ) Appellate Court Clerk

APPEALED FROM THE CHANCERY COURT OF DAVIDSON COUNTY

THE HONORABLE IRVIN H. KILCREASE, JR., CHANCELLOR

James L. Jackson, Pro Se S.T.S.R.C.F. Route 4, Box 600 Pikeville, TN 37367

Petitioner

Paul G. Summers Attorney General and Reporter AND Arthur Crownover, II Assistant Attorney General 425 Fifth Avenue North Nashville, TN 37243-0488

Attorneys for Respondent

AFFIRMED AND REMANDED

Houston M. Goddard, Presiding Judge

CONCUR:

FRANKS SUSANO

O P I N I O N

Goddard, P.J. This is a petition seeking a writ of certiorari filed

by James L. Jackson, an inmate of the Penal System of this State,

Pro Se. The caption lists as Respondents “Tennessee Dept. of

Corrections, Donal Campbell (Commissioner), Respondent.” The

case proceeded, however, as if only the Department of Corrections

was a party Defendant and our opinion will be based on this

assumption.

Mr. Jackson contends that he has not been given proper

credit in reduction of his sentence and that he is entitled to be

forthwith released.

The Chancellor filed a memorandum opinion denying Mr.

Jackson’s petition, resulting in this appeal wherein he raises

the following issues:

1- WHETHER DENIAL OF DISCOVERY VIOLATED JACKSON RIGHT TO FURTHER DEFEND HIS ACTION.

2- WHETHER JACKSON STATED A CLAIM UPON WHICH RELIEF COULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

3- COURT DID IMPROPER ANALYZED JACKSON WRIT OF CERTIORARI.

4- WHETHER JACKSON HAVE EXPIRED HIS SENTENCE, AND SHOULD BE FORWITH RELEASED, AS A MATTER OF LAW.

Our review of the record persuades us that this is an

appropriate case for affirmance under Rule 10(a) of this Court.

Before concluding, we should point out that the

Petitioner is not without an avenue of redress, but, as stated in

the brief of the Department of Corrections, may pursue his

2 contentions before the Criminal Court for Shelby County which,

under the authority of State v. Burkhart, 566 S.W.2d 871 (Tenn.

1978), “does have the power to correct the judgment” if

warranted.

For the foregoing reasons the judgment of the Trial

Court is affirmed and the cause remanded for collection of costs

below. Costs of appeal are adjudged against Mr. Jackson.

___________________________ Houston M. Goddard, P.J.

______________________________ Herschel P. Franks, J.

______________________________ Charles D. Susano, Jr., J.