Lonnie Lee Warden v. State of Mississippi
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2009-CP-00639-COA
LONNIE LEE WARDEN
APPELLANT
v.
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
DATE OF JUDGMENT:
TRIAL JUDGE:
COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED:
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT:
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE:
NATURE OF THE CASE:
TRIAL COURT DISPOSITION:
DISPOSITION:
MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:
MANDATE ISSUED:
APPELLEE
03/16/2009
HON. ROBERT B. HELFRICH
FORREST COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
LONNIE LEE WARDEN (PRO SE)
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY: W. GLENN WATTS
CIVIL - POST-CONVICTION RELIEF
MOTION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF
DISMISSED
AFFIRMED-06/08/2010
BEFORE KING, C.J., ROBERTS AND CARLTON, JJ.
CARLTON, J., FOR THE COURT:
¶1.
The Forrest County Circuit Court dismissed Lonnie Lee Warden’s motion for
reduction of sentence, which the trial court treated as a motion for post-conviction relief.
Warden appealed the dismissal to this Court. However, Warden asserted no authority
showing a basis for the trial court to grant a post-conviction reduction in sentence beyond the
sentencing term of court. Therefore, we affirm the trial court’s dismissal of Warden’s motion
for reduction of sentence.
FACTS
¶2.
A Forrest County grand jury indicted Warden for possession of methamphetamine,
a Schedule II controlled substance in violation of Mississippi Code Annotated section 41-29139(c)(1)(D) (Rev. 2009), and possession of two or more precursor chemicals with the intent
to manufacture methamphetamine in violation of Mississippi Code Annotated section 41-29313(1)(A)(i) (Rev. 2009). On June 1, 2004, while represented by counsel, Warden pled
guilty to both counts of the indictment against him in the Forrest County Circuit Court. The
trial court sentenced Warden to serve twenty years on the possession of methamphetamine
charge and twenty years on the possession of precursor chemicals with the intent to
manufacture methamphetamine, with the sentences to run concurrently in the custody of the
Mississippi Department of Corrections.
¶3.
More than two years after his conviction and sentence, Warden filed a pro se motion
requesting the trial court to review and reduce his sentence. Warden argued that he received
excessive sentences, especially when compared with the sentences of other first-time drug
offenders. The circuit court then treated Warden’s motion as a motion for post-conviction
relief. In so doing, the trial court summarily dismissed Warden’s motion, because the motion
failed to state a legal basis for the trial court to reduce or modify his sentence. Consequently,
Warden then filed his notice of appeal.
¶4.
In his appellate brief, Warden argues that he received a harsher sentence than other
first-time offenders in his jurisdiction. There is no allegation that Warden’s sentences are
illegal; rather, Warden complains of the harshness of the sentences in light of his
rehabilitation and potential for further rehabilitation. In support of his motion for reduction
2
of sentence, Warden attached proof of his completion of drug and alcohol treatment and
letters from his supervisors and the jail chaplain stating that Warden possessed exemplary
work habits and character.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
¶5.
“In reviewing a trial court's dismissal of [a motion for] post-conviction relief, our
standard of review is well stated. We will not disturb the trial court's factual findings unless
they are found to be clearly erroneous.” Williams v. State, 872 So. 2d 711, 712 (¶2) (Miss.
Ct. App. 2004). “However, where questions of law are raised, the applicable standard of
review is de novo.” Brown v. State, 731 So. 2d 595, 598 (¶6) (Miss. 1999).
DISCUSSION
¶6.
Warden’s motion for a sentence reduction, along with the evidence submitted in
support of his motion, fail to fall within the parameters defined by the Legislature in the postconviction-relief statute. Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-5(1) (Supp. 2009). Therefore, we affirm
the dismissal of Warden’s motion, as no authority exists under which the trial court could
grant Warden’s requested relief beyond the expiration of the term of court during which
Warden was sentenced.
¶7.
In support of his motion for reduction of sentence, Warden submitted evidence
showing his rehabilitation, including a certificate of completion of substance-abuse treatment
and letters of recommendation from his prison work supervisor and the jail chaplain.1
1
See Uniform Rule of Circuit and County Court 11.02 (defining content of
presentencing report and setting forth extenuating and mitigation evidence for a judge to
consider at sentencing).
3
Despite the positive steps Warden took to rehabilitate himself, the trial judge possesses no
authority to reduce a sentence two years after the conviction was entered and the sentence
imposed. In Robinson v. State, 849 So. 2d 157, 158 (¶4) (Miss. Ct. App. 2003), this Court
recognized that:
A reduction or reconsideration of a sentence by a judge must occur prior to the
expiration of the sentencing term. The power to reduce the sentence after the
expiration of the term is vested in another branch of the government. The trial
judge was correct to deny the request.
(Internal citation omitted).
¶8.
Further, despite Warden’s argument that similarly situated first-time drug offenders
received less onerous sentences, Warden’s sentences constituted legal sentences falling
within the minimum and maximum sentences authorized by statute. Under Mississippi Code
Annotated section 41-29-139(c)(1)(E) (Rev. 2009), a conviction for possession of
methamphetamine carries a possible sentence of not less than six years or more than twentyfour years. Warden’s sentence of twenty years for possession of methamphetamine falls
within the minimum and maximum sentences allowed by the statute.
Id.
Likewise,
Mississippi Code Annotated section 41-29-313(1)(c) (Rev. 2009) sets forth a maximum
sentence of thirty years upon conviction of possession of precursor chemicals with the intent
to manufacture methamphetamine. The trial judge sentenced Warden to twenty years for the
possession of precursor chemicals with the intent to manufacture methamphetamine, which
is less than the maximum allowed by the statute. Id.
¶9.
Because Warden’s motion for reduction of sentence stated no legal basis for the trial
court to grant relief, we affirm the trial court’s summary dismissal of his motion.
4
¶10. THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF FORREST COUNTY
DISMISSING THE MOTION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF IS AFFIRMED.
ALL COSTS OF THIS APPEAL ARE ASSESSED TO FORREST COUNTY.
KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., IRVING, GRIFFIS, BARNES, ISHEE,
ROBERTS AND MAXWELL, JJ., CONCUR.
5
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.