Willie Lee Madden, Jr. v. State of Mississippi

GRIFFIS, P.J., for the Court: ¶ 1 Willie Lee Madden Jr. appeals the denial of his fifth motion for post-conviction collateral relief (PCCR). Madden requested a reduction of his sentence based on recent améndments' to the sentencing requirements in Mississippi Code Annotated section 41-29-139. The circuit court denied the motion. We find no error and affirm. ¶ 2 In 2004, Madden pleaded guilty to the charge of transfer of a controlled substance. The Court sentenced Madden as a habitual offender to fifteen years to serve day-for-day, See Miss.Code Ann. § 99-19-81 (Rev.2015). Madden has subsequently filed multiple PCCR motions before this Court. 1 Each has been denied or dismissed. ¶ 3 When “reviewing a trial court’s dismissal of [a PCCR motion], ... [w]e will not disturb the trial court’s factual findings unless they are found to be clearly erroneous.” Mann v. State, 2 So.3d 743, 745 (¶ 5) (Miss.Ct.App.2009). “[Wjhere questions of law are raised, the applicable standard of review is de novo.” Id. ¶ 4 The Court notes that Madden’s PCCR motion was untimely filed and constitutes a successive writ. See Miss.Code Ann. § 99-39-23(6) (Rev.2015). Despite these procedural bars, the Court will address Madden’s claim. ¶ 5 In the motion now before us, Madden seeks a reduction in his sentence based on House Bill 585, a 2014 Legislative amendment to the sentencing requirements found in section 41-29-139. The penalty for the transfer of a controlled substance was amended to “not more than eight years.” Miss.Code Ann. § 41-29-139(b)(1) (Supp,2015). Madden is currently serving fifteen years, under the former version of the statute. See Miss.Code Ann. § 41-29-139(b)(1) (Supp.2004). ¶ 6 The Mississippi Supreme Court has held that when sentencing occurs before a statutory amendment, the statute that existed at the time of the sentencing applies. Lampley v. State, 308 So.2d 87, 90 (Miss.1975). If the Legislature chooses to apply an amendment to the sentencing requirements retroactively, it may provide such an instruction in the language of the amendment. Id. The 2014 amendments provide no such instruction. Thus, Madden is not entitled to a reduction in his sentence. We find no error and affirm. ¶ 7 THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF HARRISON COUNTY DENYING THE MOTION FOR POST-CONVICTION COLLATERAL RELIEF IS AFFIRMED. ALL COSTS OF THIS APPEAL ARE ASSESSED TO HARRISON COUNTY. *943 LEE, C.J., IRVING, P.J., BARNES, ISHEE, CARLTON, FAIR, JAMES AND WILSON, JJ. CONCUR. GREENLEE, J., NOT PARTICIPATING. Footnotes [1] See Madden v. State, 176 So.3d 35 (Miss.Ct. App.2014); Madden v. State, 75 So.3d 1130 (Miss.Ct.App.2011); Madden v. State, 52 So.3d 411 (Miss.Ct.App.2010); Madden v. State, 991 So.2d 1231 (Miss.Ct.App.2008).