Northcott v. TDOC

• Court: Court of Appeals of Tennessee
• Decided: November 30, 1999
• Docket: M1999-01223-COA-R3-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

FILED November 30, 1999

Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appellate Court Clerk IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT NASHVILLE

RICHARD L. NORTHCOTT, ) C/A NO. M1999-01223-COA-R3-CV ) Plaintiff-Appellant, ) ) ) ) v. ) ) ) ) APPEAL AS OF RIGHT FROM THE TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF ) DAVIDSON COUNTY CHANCERY COURT CORRECTION; DONAL CAMPBELL, ) Commissioner; BILL KEELING, ) Sentence Management Services, ) Department of Correction; FAYE ) CLAUD, Sentence Management ) Services, Department of Correction;) SHIRLEY PLUNKETT, Records Clerk, ) Turney Center, ) ) HONORABLE ELLEN HOBBS LYLE, Defendants-Appellees. ) CHANCELLOR

For Appellant For Appellees

RICHARD L. NORTHCOTT PAUL G. SUMMERS Pro Se Attorney General and Reporter Only, Tennessee Nashville, Tennessee

JOHN R. MILES Counsel Civil Rights and Claims Division Office of Attorney General and Reporter

Page 1 Nashville, Tennessee

OPINION

AFFIRMED AND REMANDED Susano, J. The plaintiff, Richard L. Northcott (“Northcott”),

is a prisoner in state custody. He sued the Tennessee

Department of Correction (“the Department”) and others,

claiming that he is entitled to “good conduct”1and “prisoner

performance”2sentence credits allegedly earned by him prior to

March 1, 1986. 3 The trial court granted the Department

summary judgment, and Northcott appealed. He raises issues

that present the following questions.

1. Did the trial court err in determining

that Northcott is not entitled to any

sentence reduction credits for periods of

time prior to March 1, 1986?

2. Did the trial court err in failing to

address Northcott’s eligibility for “good

conduct” and “prisoner performance”

sentence credits?

3. Did the trial court err in failing to address the constitutionality of Rule

Page 2 55.01, Tenn.R.Civ.P.?

I.

This is the second time that the plaintiff’s claim

has been before us. 4 In our first opinion, we recited the

pertinent facts:

On July 16, 1981, Richard L. Northcott was convicted of criminal sexual conduct in the first degree, and was given a determinate life sentence. The act for which he was convicted occurred in the summer of 1978. He claims that after he began his sentence, he was informed that he was not entitled to any sentence reduction credits.

In 1985, the Legislature changed the law pertaining to sentence reduction credits. Inmates sentenced under the old law, including the petitioner, were told that they could begin to earn sentence credits under the new provisions if they signed a waiver of their right to serve their sentences under the law in effect at the time they were sentenced. 5 Mr. Northcott, who felt he had nothing to lose, signed the waiver on March 1, 1986, and began receiving sentence reduction credits at the rate prescribed by law.

Mr. Northcott subsequently came to believe that he had been misinformed as to his right to accumulate sentence credits before he signed the waiver, and that he was therefore entitled to have his sentence reduced by a greater number of days than the Department was willing to grant. He attempted to correct the purported error through a long course of administrative appeals, which concluded on July 31, 1996 with a final denial of his contentions by the legal assistant for the Department of Correction. Having thus exhausted his administrative remedies, Mr.

Page 3 Northcott filed a Petition for Declaratory Judgment under the Uniform Administrative Procedures Act (UAPA) in the Chancery Court of Davidson County on September 27, 1996.

Northcott v. Tennessee Department of Correction, C/A No.

01A01-9707-CH-00355, 1998 WL 205224 at *1-2 (Tenn.Ct.App.

M.S., filed April 29, 1998).

II.

We measure the propriety of the trial court’s grant

of summary judgment against the standard of Rule 56.04,

Tenn.R.Civ.P., which provides that summary judgment is

appropriate where

the pleadings, depositions, answers to

interrogatories, and admissions on file,

together with the affidavits, if any, show

that there is no genuine issue as to any

material fact and that the moving party is

entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.

When reviewing a grant of summary judgment, an appellate court

must decide anew if judgment in summary fashion is

appropriate. Cowden v. Sovran Bank/Central South, 816 S.W.2d

741, 744 (Tenn. 1991); Gonzalez v. Alman Constr. Co., 857

S.W.2d 42, 44-45 (Tenn.Ct.App. 1993). Since this

Page 4 determination involves a question of law, there is no

presumption of correctness as to the trial court’s judgment.

Robinson v. Omer, 952 S.W.2d 423, 426 (Tenn. 1997); Hembree v.

State, 925 S.W.2d 513, 515 (Tenn. 1996). In making our

determination, we must view the evidence in a light most

favorable to the nonmoving party, and we must draw all

reasonable inferences in favor of that party. Byrd v. Hall,

847 S.W.2d 208, 210 (Tenn. 1993). Summary judgment is

appropriate only if no genuine issues of material fact exist

and if the undisputed material facts entitle the moving party

to a judgment as a matter of law. Rule 56.04, Tenn.R.Civ.P.;

Byrd, 847 S.W.2d at 211. A “material fact” has been defined

as a fact “that must be decided in order to resolve the

substantive claim or defense at which the motion is directed.”

Byrd, 847 S.W.2d at 211.

Northcott claims that there are factual disputes

that make summary judgment inappropriate. We disagree. While

the parties differ as to certain facts, these disputes are not

material to our determination in this case. The question

before us -- whether Northcott is entitled to sentence

reduction credits allegedly earned by him prior to March 1,

1986 -- is a question of law. See Byrd v. Bradley, 913 S.W.2d

181, 183 (Tenn.Ct.App. 1995). We do not have to resolve any

factual disputes in order to reach this question of law.

III.

Page 5 In 1985, the General Assembly enacted a new sentence

reduction program for state prisoners. 6 The new legislation

broadly defined its ambit with respect to then-serving

prisoners. The following were eligible:

Any person who committed a felony, including any Class X felony, prior to December 11, 1985,...

T.C.A. § 41-21-236(c)(3)(1997) (Emphasis added). The parties

to this litigation agree that Northcott was and is eligible to

participate in this new “prisoner sentence reduction credits”

program. T.C.A. § 41-21-236(b) (1997). They also agree that

he exercised his right to opt into this new program when he

signed a waiver on March 1, 1986, pursuant to the following

statutory provision:

Any person who committed a felony, including any Class X felony, prior to December 11, 1985, may become eligible for the sentence reduction credits authorized by this section by signing a written waiver waiving the right to serve the sentence under the law in effect at the time the crime was committed....

T.C.A. § 41-21-236(c)(3)(1997). Northcott does not claim that

he has been deprived of any prisoner sentence reduction

credits to which he is entitled for his behavior and

performance from and after the effective date of his March 1,

1986, waiver; but it is clear that the new program operates

Page 6 prospectively only:

However, sentence reduction credits authorized by this section may be awarded only for conduct and/or performance from and after the date a person becomes eligible under this subsection.

T.C.A. § 41-21-236(c)(3) (1997). Since this statute does not

operate retroactively, it is of no help in addressing the main

issue before us. Thus, the issue remains: Is Northcott

entitled to any sentence reduction credits for periods prior

to March 1, 1986?

IV.

The primary issue now before us was also before us

in the case of Byrd v. Bradley, 913 S.W.2d 181 (Tenn.Ct.App.

1995). There are remarkable similarities between the two

cases. In Byrd, the defendant, on April 1, 1976, “was given a

life sentence on [a] murder conviction.” Id. At 183. In the

instant case, Northcott was convicted on July 16, 1981, of

criminal sexual conduct in the first degree and was sentenced

to life imprisonment. In both cases, the prisoner signed a

waiver pursuant to T.C.A. § 41-21-236(c)(3) (1997). Each

signed the waiver on March 1, 1986. Both Byrd and Northcott

claim that they are entitled to sentence reduction credits for

periods of time prior to March 1, 1986.

Page 7 In Byrd, we held that a defendant who received a

life sentence at a time when T.C.A. § 40-3613 (later

designated as T.C.A. § 40-28-116) was in effect was not

eligible to receive sentence reduction credits for periods of

time prior to the time they opted into the new system of

sentence reduction credits authorized under the 1985

legislation. As pertinent here, T.C.A. § 40-3613 (later

designated § 40-28-116) provided as follows:

...any person who shall have been convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment in the state penitentiary for a period or term of sixty-five (65) years or more, or life, may become eligible for parole provided such person shall have been confined or served a term in the state penitentiary of not less than thirty (30) full calendar years after receiving credit for probationary parole as authorized in § 40-3612. 7

In Byrd, we concluded that the statutes in Title 41 of the

Code dealing with sentence reduction credits did not apply “

where the question presented is one of parole eligibility”

under T.C.A. § 40-3613. Id. At 184.

It must be remembered that T.C.A. § 40-3613 made an

absolute statement with respect to prisoners such as Byrd and

Northcott who were sentenced to determinate life sentences:

such persons “may become eligible for parole provided such

person[s] shall have been confined or served a term in the

state penitentiary of not less than thirty (30) full calendar

Page 8 years.” Id. (Emphasis added). Interpreting this statute,

the Supreme Court has pointed out that

[p]arole eligibility on a life sentence can only occur in 30 years. Good and honor time do not reduce it. It is extinguished solely by the death of the prisoner or pardon.

Howell v. State, 569 S.W.2d 428, 434 n.10 (Tenn. 1978).

(Emphasis added). See also McFadden v. State, 532 S.W.2d 944,

945-46 (Tenn.Crim.App. 1975). It is clear that service of “

thirty (30) full calendar years,” see T.C.A. § 40-3613

(emphasis added), means exactly that, “full calendar years,”

and not years made up of calendar years actually served and

time “served” by the earning of behavior and/or performance

credits.

We recognize that Northcott seeks credits under

T.C.A. § 41-21-229 and T.C.A. § 41-21-230, two statutes that

were not specifically mentioned in the Byrd opinion. We do

not find this to be material. T.C.A. § 41-21-229 and -230

are successor statutes to the statutes mentioned in Byrd, i.e.,

T.C.A. §§ 41-332, -334, and -358. Just as the Title 41

statutes mentioned in Byrd did not override T.C.A. § 40-3613,

there is nothing in the language of T.C.A. §§ 41-21-229 and

-230 to indicate that they were intended to modify the import

of T.C.A. § 40-3613.

Page 9 The 1985 legislation pertaining to sentence

reduction credits was the first legislation enacted after

Northcott’s conviction that was clearly applicable, if

accepted by execution of a waiver, to pre-December 11, 1985,

imposed life sentences. Northcott is receiving the benefit of

that 1985 legislation. As a prisoner serving a life sentence,

he is not entitled to any sentence reduction credits for any

periods of time prior to the effective date of his execution

of the opt-in waiver on March 1, 1986.

Northcott relies heavily on an unreported case

authored by Judge Koch of the Middle Section of this Court.

See Jones v. Reynolds, 01A01-9510-CH-00484, 1997 WL 36 7661

(Tenn.App. M.S., filed July 2, 1997). He puts particular

emphasis on the following excerpt from the opinion in that

case:

In 1980 the General Assembly enacted new sentence credit statutes that were intended to completely replace Tenn.Code Ann. §§ 41-332 and 41-334 beginning on July 1, 1981. TENN.CODE ANN. § 41-359 (later designated as Tenn.Code Ann. § 41-21-229) established a system of “good conduct sentence credits” that prisoners could earn by proper behavior, and Tenn.Code Ann. § 41-361 (later designated as Tenn.Code Ann. § 41-21-231) provided a mechanism for converting Tenn.Code Ann. §§ 41-332 and 41-334 credits earned prior to July 1, 1981 to “good conduct sentence credits.” The General Assembly envisioned that the new good conduct sentence credit program would apply across-the-board to

Page 10 all prisoners and thus did not provide a waiver or opt-in system to prisoners who committed crimes prior to July 1, 1981.

Id. 1997 WL 367661 at * 3. (Emphasis added).

We believe Northcott is reading the above-quoted

italicized statement out of context. In saying that the new

good conduct sentence credit program embodied in T.C.A. §

41-21-229 and -231 was “envisioned” by the General Assembly to

“apply across-the board to all prisoners,” the Court was

merely explaining why there was no need to have a specific

opt-in provision to make these statutory provisions applicable

to prisoners who were sentenced prior to the effective date of

the new good conduct credit program. Jones does not

explicitly state that the credits described in T.C.A. §

41-21-229 and T.C.A. § 41-21-230 could be earned by prisoners,

such as Northcott, who were serving life sentences. We

believe it is also significant that the Court in Jones did not

explicitly disagree with or distinguish the holding in Byrd.

In fact, the Byrd decision is not even mentioned in Jones.

Northcott’s reliance on Jones is misplaced.

V.

Northcott argues that the trial court failed to

specifically address whether he was entitled to “good conduct”

or “prisoner performance” credits other than to say that he

Page 11 was not entitled to any sentence reduction credits prior to

his signing of the waiver. Northcott claims that he is

entitled to 5,291 days of good conduct credits and to 1,776

days for performance credits. Nothing more needs to be said;

if Northcott is not entitled to credits for any periods,

pre-waiver, it is not necessary to specifically discuss the

terms of T.C.A. §§ 41-21-229 and -230 beyond that which we

have already said.

VI.

Northcott also argues that the trial court did not

address the issue of the constitutionality of Rule 55.01,

Tenn.R.Civ.P. 8 Northcott raises this issue in order to attack

the trial court’s setting aside of the default judgment

granted to him in the initial proceeding. In the first

appeal, this Court reviewed and affirmed the trial court’s

setting aside of the default judgment in Northcott’s favor. “

Under the law of the case doctrine, an appellate court’s

decision on an issue of law becomes binding precedent to be

followed in later trials and appeals of the same case

involving the same issues and facts.” Ladd v. Honda Motor Co.,

939 S.W.2d 83, 90 (Tenn.Ct.App. 1996). Thus, we decline to

address this issue further.

VII.

Page 12 For all of the foregoing reasons, the judgment of

the trial court is affirmed. Costs on appeal are taxed to the

appellant. This case is remanded to the trial court for

collection of costs assessed below, all pursuant to applicable

law.

__________________________ Charles D. Susano, Jr., J.

CONCUR:

________________________ Houston M. Goddard, P.J.

________________________ D. Michael Swiney, J.

Page 13