# Daniels v. Traughber

> Court of Appeals of Tennessee · May 6, 1998 · 984 S.W.2d 918

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9526248

## Case

- **Full name:** Robert C. DANIELS, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. Charles TRAUGHBER, Chairman, Tennessee Board of Paroles, Et Al., Defendants/Appellees
- **Court:** Court of Appeals of Tennessee
- **Decided:** May 6, 1998
- **Citations:** 984 S.W.2d 918; 1998 Tenn. App. LEXIS 315; 1998 WL 221075
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Koch
- **Judges:** Presiding Judge Henry F. Todd
- **Cited by:** 24 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9526248

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- finding that these rights derive from the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Article I, Section 23 of the Tennessee Constitution

## Opinion text

WILLIAM C. KOCH, JR.,
Judge, concurring.
I concur with the results of the presiding judge’s opinion but file this separate opinion to explain my reasoning. Mr. Daniels has a right to expect that the Board of Paroles will follow its established procedures for considering him for parole. Tenn.Comp.R. & Regs, r. 1100-1-1-03(12) (1995) permits the Board to terminate a prisoner’s parole based on pertinent information not available to the Board at the time of the hearing. When the Board considered Mr. Daniels for parole on April 9, 1996, it did not have available to it the victim impact statements of his victim’s surviving family members.
We need not address the questions concerning who is entitled to notice under Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-28-505 (1997) or who should bear the burden of failure to comply with Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-28-505’s requirements. Under the Board’s procedural rules, it matters little why the pertinent information was not available to the Board. I find that the Board did not act arbitrarily or capriciously when it decided to hold a second hearing and to consider the victim impact statements.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9526248. Public record. Not legal advice.