Howell v. State

• Jurisdiction: Mississippi,United States
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: COLEMAN, JUSTICE, FOR THE COURT:
• Citation: Howell v. State, 358 So.3d 613 (Miss. 2023)
• Docket Number: 2020-CA-00868-SCT.
• Decision Date: 26 January 2023
• Parties: Marlon HOWELL a/k/a Marlon Latodd Howell a/k/a Marlon Cox, v. STATE of Mississippi.
• topic: Constitutional Law,Civil Procedure

358 So.3d 613

Marlon HOWELL a/k/a Marlon Latodd Howell a/k/a Marlon Cox,

v.STATE of Mississippi.

NO. 2020-CA-00868-SCT.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

January 26, 2023.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: C. JACKSON WILLIAMS .

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: LADONNA C. HOLLAND , Jackson.

EN BANC.

COLEMAN, JUSTICE, FOR THE COURT:

¶1. A Union County grand jury indicted Marlon Howell for the sale of a controlled substance under Mississippi Code Section 41-29-139(a) (Rev. 1993) on January 28, 1998. The indictment charged Howell with one count of the sale of 6.8 grams of marijuana, a Schedule 1 controlled substance. Miss. Code Ann. § 49-29-113(a)(12) (Rev. 1993). At the time of Howell's charging, Section 41-29-139(b)(3) provided for a penalty of three years' imprisonment and/or a fine up to $3,000 for the sale of one ounce or less of marijuana. Miss Code Ann. § 41-29-139(b) (Rev. 1993).¹

¶2. On March 3, 1999, the State and Howell agreed to reduce Howell's felony charge from the sale of a controlled substance to possession of a controlled substance. The parties presented an agreed order reducing Howell's felony charge to possession. On the same day, Howell pled guilty to the reduced felony charge of possession of a controlled substance. Circuit Judge Henry Lackey then sentenced Howell to three years in custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections with one year of house arrest and the remaining two years of post-release supervision in addition to $200 in restitution.

¶3. In 2016, Howell, alleging the sentence was illegal, moved to vacate the sentence for felony possession. The trial court treated Howell's motion as a post-conviction relief petition and found that Howell lacked standing under Mississippi's post-conviction relief statutes because Howell had already completed his sentence for drug possession. Howell then appealed. The Mississippi Supreme Court reversed and remanded, finding that "[o]n the narrow question presented, interpreting Mississippi Code Section 99-39-5(1), we hold that Howell has standing." Howell v. State, 283 So.3d 1100, 1101 (¶ 1) (Miss. 2019). The Court did not address the merits of Howell's post-conviction relief claim. Id. at 1103.

¶4. On remand, the trial court found that Howell's post-conviction relief petition was time-barred. The court also found that the original sentence was not illegal and that Howell had benefitted from a more lenient sentence for the crime with which he was originally charged. Howell appeals the trial court's denial of his motion for post-conviction relief. We affirm.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶5. "This Court's applicable standard of review when considering the denial of a petition for post-conviction collateral relief is well settled; this Court will not disturb the factual findings of a trial court in denying the petition unless such findings are clearly erroneous." Rowland v. State (Rowland I), 42 So.3d 503, 506 (¶ 8) (Miss. 2010) (citing Moore v. State, 986 So.2d 928, 932 (¶ 13) (Miss. 2008)). "However, where questions of law are raised the applicable standard of review is de novo." Id. (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Moore, 986 So. 2d at 932 (¶ 13)).

DISCUSSION

I. Did the trial court properly dismiss Howell's post-conviction relief claim as time-barred?

¶6. The Mississippi Uniform Post-Conviction Collateral Relief Act required Howell to request post-conviction relief within three years of the conviction he seeks to attack. Miss. Code. Ann. § 99-39-5(2) (Rev. 2020). Because Howell's plea was entered on March 3, 1999, his window to seek post-conviction relief closed on March 2, 2002. Instead, Howell filed his motion on March 26, 2016, fourteen years after the deadline.

¶7. To fight the statute of limitations, Howell contends his post-conviction relief petition challenges an illegal sentence. "[E]rrors affecting fundamental constitutional rights, such as an illegal sentence, are excepted from procedural bars which otherwise would prevent their consideration." Jones v. State, 119 So.3d 323, 326 (¶ 6) (Miss. 2013) (citing Rowland I, 42 So. 3d at 507 (¶ 7)). Rowland I is often considered to be the seminal case in which the Court began applying the fundamental-rights exception to the bars enacted by the Legislature. The Rowland I holding was clarified and narrowed in Rowland v. State (Rowland, II) 98 So.3d 1032 (Miss. 2012), overruled on other grounds by Carson v. State, 212 So.3d 22 (Miss. 2016) There, the Court wrote, "In addition to the statutory exceptions afforded by the Act, we have provided that an exception to the procedural bars exists for errors affecting certain constitutional rights." Id. at 1036 (¶ 6).

¶8. The Court never has properly addressed the effect of the codification of various bars to post-conviction relief, such as the three-year statute of limitations, on the fundamental-rights exception to the procedural bars. Because the Legislature only can enact substantive law and may not enact procedural law in the form of bars to relief or any other, today we overrule Rowland I, 42 So.3d 503, Rowland II, 98 So.3d 1032, and any other case in which the Mississippi Supreme Court has held that the courts of Mississippi can apply the judicially crafted fundamental-rights exception to constitutional, substantive enactments of the Legislature such as the three-year statute of limitations applicable to petitions for post-conviction relief.

¶9. The statute of limitations engrafted into the Post-Conviction Collateral Relief Act is no procedural rule. In point of law and fact, it cannot be. The Legislature has no Constitutional authority to enact rules of procedure, Newell v. State, 308 So.2d 71, 78 (Miss. 1975), but it does have authority "to fix reasonable periods within which an action shall be brought and, within its sound discretion, determine the limitation period [in post-conviction relief cases]." Cole v. State, 608 So.2d 1313, 1318 (Miss. 1992). The Cole Court went on to quote the Iowa Supreme Court, which had written, "Legislatures may pass laws regulating, within reasonable limits, the mode in which rights secured to the subject by bills of right and constitutions shall be enjoyed, and if the subject neglects to comply with these regulations he thereby waives this [sic] constitutional privileges." Id. at 1319 (emphasis added) (quoting Davis v. State, 443 N.W.2d 707, 709 (Iowa 1989)). "It is a well-settled principle that a state may attach reasonable time limitations to the assertion of federal constitutional rights." Cole, 608 So. 2d at 1319 (citing United States ex rel. Dopkowski v. Randolph, 262 F.2d 10, 12 (7th Cir. 1958), cert. denied, 359 U.S. 1004, 79 S.Ct. 1143, 3 L.Ed. 2d 1032 (1959)).

¶10. The statute of limitations is a substantive, legislatively enacted law and not procedural, and our judicial pronouncements regarding how we would apply judicial procedure in the face of claims of fundamental rights should hold no weight. Little v. Miss. Dep't of Transp., 129 So.3d 132, 138 (¶ 12) (Miss. 2013) ("We—the judicial branch of government—should not place ourselves in the position of changing the substantive law enacted by the Legislature...." (citing Stockstill v. State, 854 So.2d 1017, 1022-23 (¶ 13) (Miss. 2003))). Courts have a "constitutional mandate to faithfully apply the provisions of constitutionally enacted legislation." Tallahatchie Gen. Hosp. v. Howe, 49 So.3d 86, 92 (¶ 17) (Miss. 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Univ. of Miss. Med. Ctr. v. Easterling, 928 So.2d 815, 820 (¶ 23) (Miss. 2006)). Although the Uniform Post-Conviction Collateral Relief Act is civil in nature, it is instructive that in Harris v. State, 179 Miss. 38, 175 So. 342, 344 (1937) (citing State v. Traylor, 100 Miss. 544, 56 So. 521 (1911)) the Court wrote, "[w]e are admonished and have clearly in mind that penal statutes must be strictly construed, and that the court can neither add to nor take from them, and we cannot by judicial construction, or considerations of expediency, supply what is palpably omitted from a statute."

¶11. In his dissent, Presiding Justice Kitchens insists the statute of limitations is procedural. If he is to take such a position seriously, however, and if he is to take Newell seriously, then the inescapable conclusion is that all statutes of limitation found in our codebook are unconstitutional. Newell, 308 So. 2d at 77 ("[I]t would seem there is no more reason to support legislative control of court procedures than there would be to uphold court supervision of the procedures by which the legislative and executive departments discharge their constitutional duties.") Such a result would foist upon the courts the duty of setting all statutes of limitations, a duty undertaken without controversy by the Legislature pursuant to its constitutional authority to enact statutes from time out of mind. Presiding Justice Kitchens must also stand willing to overrule our earlier cases in which we held statutes of limitations enacted by the Legislature to be constitutional. See, e.g., Barnes v. Singing River Hosp. Sys., 733 So.2d 199, 203 (¶ 11) (Miss. 1999); Townsend v. Est. of Gilbert, 616 So.2d 333, 337 (Miss. 1993); Cole, 608 So. 2d at 1319; Hamner v. Yazoo Delta Lumber Co., 100 Miss. 349, 56 So. 466, 475 (Miss. 1911) (holding that the Legislature has the constitutional authority to provide a short statute of limitations for perfecting titles).

¶12. Because the Supreme Court of Mississippi cannot lawfully amend or ignore constitutionally sound law enacted by the Legislature, we overrule Rowland I, Rowland II, and any other case in which, and to the extent that, we have held that the fundamental-rights exception can apply to the substantive, constitutional bars codified by the Legislature in the Uniform Post-Conviction Collateral Relief Act. We acknowledge that other arguments may be used to attack the constitutionality of the statutory bars, either as applied to particular cases or on their face, and we have...