WILLIAMS v. TN BRD. OF PROB

9 Citing cases

  1. Taylor v. Tenn. Bd. of Parole

    1:24-CV-00015 (M.D. Tenn. Aug. 15, 2024)

    Id. The appellate court will issue a writ of certiorari where a prisoner makes a showing that there was “any fundamental irregularity in the Board's procedures” or that “the Board acted illegally, fraudulently, or arbitrarily.” Williams v. Tenn. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, No. M2006-02336-COA-R3CV, 2007 WL 3132935, at *4 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 26, 2007).

  2. Wortman v. Tenn. Bd. of Parole

    No. 3:20-cv-00156 (M.D. Tenn. May. 27, 2020)

    A state court will issue a writ of certiorari where a prisoner makes a showing, as Plaintiff here urges he can, that there was a "fundamental irregularity in the Board's procedures" or that "the Board acted illegally, fraudulently, or arbitrarily." Williams v. Tenn. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, No. M2006-02336-COA-R3CV, 2007 WL 3132935, at *4 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 26, 2007). If a prisoner is dissatisfied with the ruling of the lower state court on his request for a writ, he or she may appeal to the Tennessee Court of Appeals.

  3. Wortman v. Tenn. Bd. of Parole

    No. 3:20-cv-00156 (M.D. Tenn. Apr. 3, 2020)   Cited 3 times

    The court will issue a writ of certiorari where a prisoner makes a showing that there was a "fundamental irregularity in the Board's procedures" or that "the Board acted illegally, fraudulently, or arbitrarily." Williams v. Tenn. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, No. M2006-02336-COA-R3CV, 2007 WL 3132935, at *4 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 26, 2007). As the Tennessee appellate decisions make clear, if the prisoner is dissatisfied with the ruling of the lower state court on his request for a writ, he or she may appeal to the Tennessee Court of Appeals.

  4. Boyd v. Staggs

    NO. 1:19-cv-00007 (M.D. Tenn. Jan. 23, 2019)   Cited 4 times

    Id. The appellate court will issue a writ of certiorari where a prisoner makes a showing that there was "any fundamental irregularity in the Board's procedures" or that "the Board acted illegally, fraudulently, or arbitrarily." Williams v. Tenn. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, No. M2006-02336-COA-R3CV, 2007 WL 3132935, at *4 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 26, 2007). The complaint does not indicate whether Plaintiff has pursued or obtained a common law writ of certiorari. And, it is unclear whether the processed described above applies to a challenge to a Tennessee parole board's decision to grant parole with conditions, as is the case here.

  5. Whipple v. Tenn. Bd. of Paroles

    No. 1:17-CV-148-RLJ-SKL (E.D. Tenn. Mar. 19, 2018)   Cited 12 times
    Dismissing plaintiff's claim in his amended Section 1983 complaint for an application for a writ of certiorari seeking judicial review of the parole board's decision to deny him parole

    Id. The appellate court will issue a writ of certiorari where a prisoner makes a showing that there was "any fundamental irregularity in the Board's procedures" or that "the Board acted illegally, fraudulently, or arbitrarily." Williams v. Tenn. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, No. M2006-02336-COA-R3CV, 2007 WL 3132935, at *4 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 26, 2007). To state the obvious, this is a federal forum, not a state court.

  6. Brennan v. Bd. of Parole for Tenn.

    512 S.W.3d 871 (Tenn. 2017)   Cited 11 times
    Reviewing a decision made by the Tennessee Board of Parole in a limited sense, only "to consider whether the Board exceeded its jurisdiction or acted illegally, arbitrarily, or fraudulently."

    WL 1540255, at *4 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 5, 2006) (holding that a five-year lapse between parole hearings was not arbitrary).Arnold, 956 S.W.2d at 482–83 (sexual offense); Bibbs, 2016 WL 1650302, at *3 (first degree murder of an eleven-year-old girl); Witt v. Tenn. Bd. of Parole, No. M2013–02843–COA–R3–CV, 2014 WL 4536648, at *2 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 12, 2014) (first degree murder); Pham v. Tenn. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, No. M2013–00955–COA–R3–CV, 2014 WL 1512820, at *2 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 15, 2014) (attempted first degree murder); Massengale v. Tenn. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, No. M2011–02249–COA–R3–CV, 2012 WL 3041298, at *2 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 25, 2012) (aggravated rape); Richardson v. Tenn. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, No. M2008–02568–COA–R3–CV, 2009 WL 3046960, at *3 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 23, 2009) (rape and armed robbery with a deadly weapon); McLemore v. Traughber, No. M2007–00503–COA–R3–CV, 2007 WL 4207900, at *7 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 28, 2007) (rape, burglary, and crimes against nature); Williams v. Tenn. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, No. M2006–02336–COA–R3–CV, 2007 WL 3132935, at *3 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 26, 2007) (robbery by use of a deadly weapon and murder during the perpetration of a robbery); Gordon, 2007 WL 2200277, at *2 (first degree murder); York, 2007 WL 1541360, at *2 (first degree murder); Berleue, 2006 WL 1540255, at *3 (first degree murder); Meeks v. Traughber, No. M2003–02077–COA–R3–CV, 2005 WL 280746, at *3 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 4, 2005) (aggravated kidnapping, aggravated robbery, and extortion); Baldwin, 125 S.W.3d at 431 (first degree murder); Ali v. Tenn. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, No. M2001–01194–COA–R3–CV, 2002 WL 83608, at *2 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 22, 2002) (first degree burglary, armed robbery, and aggravated rape); Harris v. Traughber, No. M2000–01146–COA–R3–CV, 2001 WL 788423, at *3 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 13, 2001) (sexual battery, aggravated sexual battery, and rape); Hopkins, 60 S.W.3d at 83 (aggravated rape); Dyer v. Tenn. Bd. of Paroles, No. M1999–00787–COA–R3–CV, 2001 WL 401596, at *2 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 23, 2001) (first degree murder and grand larceny); Boyd v. Tenn. Bd.

  7. Walker v. Tenn. Bd. of Parole

    No. M2023-00219-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 2, 2023)   Cited 2 times

    (2) The release from custody at the time would depreciate the seriousness of the crime of which the defendant stands convicted or promote disrespect for the law. Williams v. Tenn. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, No. M2006-02336-COA-R3-CV, 2007 WL 3132935, at *3 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 26, 2007).

  8. Cooper v. Bd. of Parole

    No. M2018-01392-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 26, 2019)

    In a case analogous to Cooper's, an inmate complained that Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-503(b)(2), "which was originally enacted by the legislature on July 1, 1982, is an ex post facto law." Williams v. Tenn. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, No. M2006-02336-COA-R3-CV, 2007 WL 3132935, at *2 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 26, 2007). In addressing the inmate's argument, we explained that:

  9. Bibbs v. Tenn. Bd. of Parole

    No. M2015-01755-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 22, 2016)   Cited 2 times
    Holding that a six-year deferral was not arbitrary

    As set out above, he argues that he is entitled to a parole review hearing each year based on the law that existed at the time of his crime and conviction. This Court has addressed this very issue in Williams v. Tennessee Bd. of Probation and Parole, No. M2006-02336-COA-R3-CV, 2007 WL 3132935 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 26, 2007), wherein we stated: When Mr. Williams was sentenced in 1982, Tennessee Department of Correction Policy 501.30 provided that if a prisoner was denied parole, "a future hearing date shall be specified to be within one year of the current hearing."