DATE OF JUDGMENT: 11/01/2012.
COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: SUNFLOWER COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT. TRIAL JUDGE: HON. RICHARD A. SMITH. TRIAL COURT DISPOSITION: UPHELD DENIAL BY THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, THROUGH ITS ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES PROGRAM, OF PAROLE-DATE REQUEST.
FOR APPELLANT: GLEN CONLEY (Pro se).
FOR APPELLEE: OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: R. STEWART SMITH JR., JAMES M. NORRIS.
BEFORE GRIFFIS, P.J., BARNES AND JAMES, JJ. LEE, C.J., IRVING, P.J., BARNES, ISHEE, ROBERTS, CARLTON, MAXWELL, FAIR AND JAMES, JJ., CONCUR.
NATURE OF THE CASE: CIVIL - OTHER
¶1. Glen Conley was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. Conley v. State, 790 So.2d 773, 779 (¶ 1) (Miss. 2001). Here, he appeals the denial of a parole-eligibility date.
¶2. The murder for which Conley was convicted was committed on May 23, 1994. At that time, there were only two penalties for capital murder under Mississippi Code Annotated section 99-19-101 (Rev. 2007): death and life with the possibility of parole. Before he was convicted, section 99-19-101 was amended to include life without parole.
¶3. Conley was charged with capital murder under Mississippi Code Annotated section 97-3-19(2) (Rev. 2006). On July 3, 1998, Conley was convicted and sentenced to serve a term of life without parole, pursuant to section 99-19-101. Conley appealed his conviction and sentence. He asserted that his sentence of life without the possibility of parole was a violation of the prohibition against applying laws ex post facto. The Mississippi Supreme Court disagreed and found the claim lacked merit, and his conviction was affirmed. Conley, 790 So.2d at 804 (¶ 123).
¶4. Conley asked the Mississippi Department of Corrections (MDOC) for a parole-eligibility date. When this request was denied, Conley utilized the MDOC Administrative Remedies Program to ask for a parole-eligibility date. This request was also denied. Conley appealed this decision to the circuit court. On November 1, 2012, the circuit court dismissed his appeal. Conley now argues on appeal that his sentence is unconstitutional as a violation of the Ex Post Facto Clause.
¶5. Because the Mississippi Supreme Court already reviewed and affirmed the trial court's decision in Conley, 790 So.2d at 804 (¶ 123), Conley is barred from relitigating the issue under the doctrine of res judicata.
¶6. This Court, in Johnson v. State, 79 So.3d 516, 519 (¶ 13) (Miss. Ct. App. 2011), stated: " The doctrine of res judicata prohibits one from raising the same issues on appeal that have already been decided at trial and on direct appeal, without demonstrating cause and actual prejudice." (Citing Miss. ...