The opinion
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
AT NASHVILLE
ROBERT C. DANIELS, )
)
Plaintiff/Appellant, ) Appeal No.
) 01-A-01-9707-CH-00297
)
VS. ) Davidson Chancery
) No. 96-1814-III
)
CHARLES TRAUGHBER, Chairman,
TENNESSEE BOARD OF PAROLES,
ET AL.,
)
)
)
FILED
)
Defendants/Appellees. ) May 6, 1998
Cecil W. Crowson
Appellate Court Clerk
CONCURRING OPINION
I concur with the decision to affirm the trial court’s order. In my view, it
is simply a case of statutory application. In the “Open Parole Hearings Act” of 1993
the legislature provided that the Parole Board shall receive and consider victim impact
statements, Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-28-504(a); that notice be given to the victim or the
victim’s representative and to the trial judge and district attorney involved in the
original criminal prosecution, Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-28-505(b)(1), (2) and (4); and that
on a failure to provide the required notices, the Board may schedule a new hearing
if the Board receives a written victim impact statement within fifteen days of the time
the parole decision is finalized, Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-28-505(d)(2).
The facts of this case fit the statute almost perfectly. I believe the Board
was justified in scheduling the second hearing and in considering the feelings of the
victim’s family. I believe that is what the legislature intended for the Board to do.
_________________________________
BEN H. CANTRELL, JUDGE