Linda Fay Barnett-Phillips v. State of Mississippi
195 So. 3d 226
| Miss. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Barnett-Phillips pleaded guilty on June 11, 2012 to two counts of sale of alprazolam (10 dosage units) and received concurrent 20-year sentences (one with 15 years to serve, the other with 1 day to serve). She did not appeal, so her convictions became final.
- In 2014 the Legislature amended Miss. Code Ann. § 41-29-139 (reducing the maximum sentence for the relevant sale amount) and amended parole-eligibility provisions in § 47-7-3; the amendments did not state they were retroactive.
- On December 11, 2014, Barnett-Phillips filed a petition for post-conviction relief (PCR) and requested the sentencing judge recommend her to the Parole Board for early release.
- The circuit court dismissed the PCR petition on the face of the pleadings under Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-11(2) and declined to recommend parole; Barnett-Phillips appealed.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) the 2014 statutory changes were not retroactive to persons whose convictions were final before the amendments, and (2) the sentencing judge had discretion to withhold a positive parole recommendation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether amended § 41‑29‑139 (2014) applies retroactively to reduce Barnett‑Phillips’s sentence | Barnett‑Phillips argued the amended statute (lower maximum) should apply to her sentence and she should be resentenced | State argued § 99‑19‑1 precludes retroactive application unless the legislature expressly provides retroactivity; the 2014 act contained no retroactivity provision | Court held the amendment does not apply retroactively; sentence lawful as imposed at time of sentencing |
| Whether § 99‑19‑33 allows relief based on timing between conviction and finality | Barnett‑Phillips asserted § 99‑19‑33 permits applying a milder penalty when sentencing law changes before conviction is final | State argued her conviction was final (no appeal) before the 2014 amendments, so § 99‑19‑33 is inapplicable | Court held § 99‑19‑33 does not apply because her conviction was final before the amendments took effect |
| Whether the court may ignore § 99‑19‑1 as "archaic" | Barnett‑Phillips contended the court should disregard § 99‑19‑1 and apply the new law | State maintained the court must follow controlling statute and precedent; appellant cited no authority to ignore the statute | Court rejected appellant’s claim for lack of authority and procedural default; did not ignore § 99‑19‑1 |
| Whether the trial judge erred by declining to recommend parole eligibility under amended § 47‑7‑3 | Barnett‑Phillips argued the judge should have issued a positive recommendation, citing the amended parole provisions and related legislative materials | State argued the statute gives the judge discretion (uses "may"), and thus denying a recommendation is permissible | Court held the judge acted within discretion; denying a parole recommendation is not an appealable judgment per controlling precedent |
Key Cases Cited
- Lampley v. State, 308 So. 2d 87 (Miss. 1975) (statute in effect at time of sentencing governs unless amendment expressly makes change retroactive)
- Daniels v. State, 742 So. 2d 1140 (Miss. 1999) (when amendment providing lesser penalty takes effect before sentencing, trial court must apply amended statute)
- McBride v. State, 914 So. 2d 260 (Miss. Ct. App. 2005) (sentence not rendered unlawful by later statutory amendment; retroactivity requires express legislative intent)
- Culbert v. State, 800 So. 2d 546 (Miss. Ct. App. 2001) (penalty in effect at sentencing applies where amendment occurs after sentencing)
- Khurana v. Miss. Dep’t of Revenue, 85 So. 3d 851 (Miss. 2012) (distinguishing mandatory "shall" from discretionary "may" in statutory construction)
- Williams v. State, 110 So. 3d 840 (Miss. Ct. App. 2013) (standard of review for dismissal of PCR motions)