WILSON, J.,
for the Court:
¶ 1. After a jury convicted Timothy Wilson of receiving stolen property, the Circuit Court of Warren County sentenced him, as a habitual offender, to serve ten years in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections (MDOC) and ordered him to pay a $10,000 fine. On appeal, Wilson raises three issues, restated as follows: (1) whether the circuit court properly instructed the jury,. (2) whether his trial counsel was ineffective, and (3) whether his sentence is illegal because he was sentenced under the law in effect at the time of his offense, rather than the law as amended by House Bill 585, 2014 Miss. Laws ch. 457. For the reasons that follow, we find no error in Wilson’s trial or sentence and affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
¶ 2. On April 2, 2012, Paul Powers witnessed two males, later identified as Wilson and Wilson’s brother, use a truck to remove a utility trailer from Powers’s neighbors’ yard'. After learning that the owners of the trailer had not given the men permission to remove it, Powers called law enforcement. Wilson and his brother were eventually arrested, indicted, and tried jointly for receiving stolen property.
¶3. During trial, Wilson presented an alibi defense, but his trial counsel failed to submit an alibi jury instruction. However, the State submitted Instruction S-3, an alibi instruction that informed the. jury, among other things, that the State was not required to disprove an alibi. The circuit judge gave that instruction and Instruction S-4, a prima facie evidence instruction. Wilson’s trial counsel failed to object to either of those instructions.
¶ 4. After the jury convicted Wilson, the circuit court imposed a ten-year sentence under the version of Mississippi Code Annotated section 97-17-70 . (Rev.2014) that was in effect at the time of Wilson’s offense. - Wilson timely filed a motion for a new trial, which the circuit court denied. This appeal followed.
ANALYSIS
I. Jury Instructions
¶ 5. We review a trial court’s-rulings on jury instructions for an abuse of discretion. Thompson v. State, 119 So.3d 1007, 1009 (¶ 3) (Miss.2013) (citing Newell v. State, 49 So.3d 66, 73 (¶ 20) (Miss.2010)). “In reviewing jury instruction issues, this Court reads the instructions together as a whole. No reversible error will be found to exist if, when read together, the instructions correctly state the law and effectuate no injustice,” McKlemurry v. State, 947 So.2d 987, 990 (¶ 3) (Miss.Ct.App.2006) (citing Miller v. State, 919 So.2d 1137, 1141 (¶ 12) (Miss.Ct.App.2005)).
A. Instruction S-3
¶ 6. Wilson argues that Instruction S-3 was improper because it required him to prove the truth of his alibi defense. According to him, the absence of a proper alibi instruction prevented the jury from considering his defense. In response, the State argues that because Wilson failed to object to the jury instructions, as given, this argument is barred.on appeal. In the alternative, the State argues that Instruction S-3 did not shift the burden of proof [411]*411to Wilson and that the jury instructions, taken as a whole, properly instructed the jury that the State bore the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt throughout the trial. The State also argues that it was Wilson’s duty to request an alibi instruction,
¶ 7. While conceding that his trial counsel failed to object to Instructions S-3 and S-4,1 Wilson asks this Court to review this issue as plain error. In Starr v. State, 997 So.2d 262 (Miss.Ct.App.2008), we explained the concept of plain error, stating:
A party who fails to make a contemporaneous objection at trial must' rely on plain error to raise the- issue on appeal, because it is otherwise- procedurally barred. The plain-error doctrine requires a party to prove that an error occurred which resulted in a manifest miscarriage of justice. This doctrine is only available when a defendant’s substantive" or fundamental rights have been violated.
Id. at 266 (¶ 11) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). A “plain error” is a ruling by the trial court that “deviated from a -legal rule” in a manner that “is plain, clear or obvious.” Neal v. State, 15 So.3d 388, 403 (¶ 32) (Miss.2009) (quoting McGee v. State, 953 So.2d 211, 215 (¶ 8) (Miss.2007)). As discussed below, this case involves no miscarriage of justice or clear or obvious error. Therefore, this issue is procedurally barred.
¶8. At trial, Powers testified that on April 2, 2012, between 1, p.m. and 2 p.m., as he was standing'in his yard, he witnessed Wilson and his brother break the lock on the utility trailer in Powers’s neighbors’ yard. Suspicious, Powers called his neighbors and learned that neither Wilson nor his brother had been- authorized to remove the trailer. As Wilson and his brother drove away with the trailer, Powers followed in his vehicle, while contacting law enforcement. Powers provided law enforcement with the tag number on the truck that Wilson was driving.
¶ 9. Lieutenant Randy Lewis, the officer who responded to Powers’s' call, testified that, during his investigation, he learned that the truck used to remove the trailer was registered to Wilson. After Lieutenant Lewis located the' truck and apprehended Wilson and his brother, he located the trailer in a nearby yard. .
¶ 10. Wilson called two alibi witnesses: Willie Dotson and Henry' Ray Hunter. Dotson testified that on the morning of April 2, 2012, he and Wilson worked together cutting trees and bushes. Dotson testified that Wilson “left around [noon] or a little before [noon] for lunch and he never did come back.” Wilson’s trial counsel showed Dotson a photograph that depicted Wilson trimming trees in an attempt to establish that Wilson was‘working with Dotson when the trailer was stolen. However, Dotson’s testimony, which was inconsistent, revealed that he did not know what day or time' the photograph was taken.
¶ 11. Hunter testified that on the morning of April 2, 2012, Wilson was alsp helping him repair a house. “[H]e was going back and forth” between the house and his work cutting trees. According to Hunter, Wilson left for lunch at noon and did not return. Hunter made it clear that on April 2, 2012, Wilson did not work with him after lunch.
¶ 12. As stated, Wilson failed to submit a proposed alibi instruction, but the [412]*412circuit judge gave Instruction S-3, which stated:
[T]he State is not required to disprove an alibi. In other words, the State is not required to prove that any alibi defense is not true; the State is only required to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendants, Randy Charles Wilson and Timothy Allen Wilson, are guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt, of Receiving Stolen Property as charged.
¶ 13. Wilson cites Holmes v. State, 481 So.2d 319 (Miss.1985), as support for his argument that the alibi instruction submitted by the defendant in that case is the instruction that should have been given to the jury in this case. However, in Holmes the issue was not whether the alibi instruction given to the jury was improper or inadequate. Instead, the issue was whether, after the State and the defendant submitted proposed alibi instructions, the trial judge erred by completely failing to give one. Id. at 323. There, the trial judge refused the instructions “based on the weakness of the evidence which supported the alibis.” Id. at 321. On appeal, our Supreme. Court reversed and remanded for a new trial “[d]ue to the failure of the trial [judge] to properly instruct the jury with reference to the defendant’s theory of alibi and the failure to caution the jury regarding accomplice testimony.” Id. at 320. Here, in contrast, Wilson failed to proffer an alibi instruction, and the circuit judge had no duty to sua sponte instruct the jury on Wilson’s alibi defense. See Westbrook v. State, 29 So.3d 828, 832-33 (¶ 12) (Miss.Ct.App.2009).
¶ 14. We further note that Instruction S-3 is consistent with — and Wilson’s argument is in direct conflict with — footnote one of the Holmes opinion, which stated:
Harvey Holmes’s alibi instruction improperly stated that it was the government’s burden to convince the jury that his alibi was not true. The state is not required to disprove a defendant’s alibi; its burden is simply to prove the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Holmes, 481 So.2d at 320 n. 1. Even if there were some defect in the State’s instruction, we would be hard-pressed to find that a trial judge committed clear or obvious error by giving an instruction that substantially tracks reasoning from a Supreme Court opinion. See Green v. State, 183 So.3d 28, 30-32 (¶¶ 6-10) (Miss.2016).
¶ 15. As to Wilson’s argument that Instruction S-3 shifted the burden of proof to him, several other instructions informed the jury that the State bore the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Instruction S-7 stated, in relevant part: “If, however, you find that the State has failed to prove any one, or more, of the elements [of receiving stolen property] beyond a reasonable doubt, then you shall find Timothy Allen Wilson not guilty.” Instruction D-2 stated: “If you find from the evidence that the State has failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt any one of the essential elements of the crime of receiving stolen property, you must find Timothy Allen Wilson not guilty.” Instruction D-4 provided, in part: “The law presumes every person charged with the commission of a crime to be innocent. This presumption places upon the State the burden of proving each defendant separately guilty of every material element of the crime with which they are charged.” D-4 also provided: “The presumption of innocence attends each defendant throughout the trial and prevails at the close unless overcome by evidence that satisfies the Jury of their separate guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” Finally, Instruction D-13 stated, in relevant part: “If the State fails to prove beyond a reasonable doubt any one of the essential elements of the crime of receiving [413]*413stolen property, you must find Timothy Allen Wilson not guilty.” Thus, the jury was instructed thoroughly on the State’s burden of proof and that Wilson bore no such burden.
¶ 16. As stated, we review the jury “instructions together as a whole” arid will not find reversible error if, “when read together, the instructions correctly state the law and effectuate no injustice.” McKlemurry, 947 So.2d at 990 (¶ 3) (citing Miller, 919 So.2d at 1141 (¶ 12)). Here, the instructions, read as a whole, adequately informed the jury that the State bore the burden of proof. Neither Instruction S-3 nor the absence of a different alibi instruction prevented the jury from considering Dotson’s and Hunter’s testimonies and determining whether Wilson had an alibi. “[T]he jury determines the weight and.credibility to give witness testimony and other evidence and is not required to believe alibi testimony.” Sanders v. State, 162 So.3d 868, 871 (¶ 18) (Miss.Ct.App.2015) (citation and quotation marks omitted). This issue is' without merit and certainly does- not rise to the level of plain error.
B. Instruction S-4
¶ 17. Wilson argues that 'Instruction S-4, which tracks the language found in Mississippi Code Annotated section 97-17 — 70(3)(b), was prejudicially defective because it lessened the State’s burden of proof. He insists that the instruction violated his right to due process because it allowed the jury to infer that he knew the trailer was stolen. Wilson further argues that the statutory language in Instruction S-4, namely the phrase “prima facie evidence,” confused the jury because it is legal jargon “clearly inserted into the statute to guide trial judges on deciding the sufficiency of the evidence when challenged by a motion for [a] directed verdict.” He also argues that even if the jury knew what the phrase “prima facie” meant, the instruction failed to inform the jury that a prima facie case is rebuttable. Also, he argues that Instruction S-4 was an impermissible comment by the circuit court on the evidence. ,
¶ 18. In response, the State again argues that Wilson’s trial counsel’s failure to object to Instruction S-4 bars his arguments on appeal. Alternatively, the State argues that the instruction did not reduce its burden of proof, as evidenced by the fact that other jury instructions, informed the jury that the State was required to prove every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.1 The State asserts that the language in Instruction S-4 was an accurate statement of the law and that the instruction did not emphasize any specific testimony. The State further argues that any error caused by Instruction S-4 was harmless, because the overwhelming weight of the evidence was sufficient to support Wilson’s conviction.
¶ 19. Instruction S-4 instructed, the jury that “proof that a defendant stole the property that- is the subject of the charge against him, or her, shall be prima facie evidence that the defendant had knowledge that the property was stolen.” Even if we were to assume for purposes of this appeal that Instruction S-4 should not have been given, Instruction S-7, an elements instruction, instructed the jury:
Timothy Allen Wilson is charged with Receiving Stolen Property.
... [I]f you find from the evidence in this[] case beyond a reasonable doubt, that Timothy Aden Wilson on, or about, April 2, 2012 in Warren County, Mississippi:
1. Intentionally possessed a sixteen-foot tandem-axle utility trailer while knowing that said utility trailer was [414]*414stolen, or having reasonable grounds >to believe that it was stolen; and
2. Was not in possession of the utility trailer with the intent to return it to [its owners]; and
3. The utility trailer was valued at more than $500.00,
Then, and in that event, the defendant Timothy Allen Wilson is guilty of Receiving Stolen Property and it is your sworn duty to so find.
If, however, you find that the State has ' failed to prove any one, or more, of the elements listed- above, beyond a reasonable doubt, then you shall find Timothy Allen Wilson nót guilty.
Thus, S-7 fully instructed the jury on the elements that the State had to prove in this case. In addition, as discussed above, several instructions thoroughly instructed the jury on the State’s burden of proof. Under these circumstances, we cannot conclude that the trial court committed plain or obvious error by accurately quoting the relevant statute, or that any miscarriage of justice resulted,
II. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
¶ 20. Wilson argues that his trial counsel was ineffective because counsel failed to object to Instructions S-3 and S-4 and because -he failed ‘to submit an alibi instruction. The State responds that this Court should not address Wilson’s ineffective assistance claim on direct appeal. In the alternative, the State argues that the claim is without merit and that, Wilson’s trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to object to Instructions S-3 and S-4 or for failing to request an alibi instruction. The State contends that'Wilson’s counsel’s omissions “may have been trial strategy” and did not prejudice Wilson’s defense.
¶ 21. Our Supreme Court has explained:
Generally, ineffective assistance claims are more appropriately brought during post-conviction proceedings. This is because on direct appeal the-Court is limited to the trial court record in its review of the claim. Where the record lacks sufficient evidence to adequately address the claim, this Court should deny relief, preserving the defendant’s right to argue the issue through a post-conviction-relief petition. This Court may, however, address an ineffectiveness claim on direct appeal if the presented issues are based on facts fully apparent from the record..
Parker v. State, 30 So.3d 1222, 1232 (¶ 86) (Miss.2010) (internal citations and quotation marks ómitted). In this case, Wilson’s ineffective assistance claim is based on facts that are fully apparent on the record, so we will address it on direct appeal.
¶ 22. “The benchmark for judging any claim of ineffectiveness must be whether counsel’s conduct so undermined the proper functioning of the adversarial process that the trial cannot be relied on as having produced a just result.” Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 686, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). The defendant must show both (1) “that counsel’s performance was deficient” — i.e., “that counsel made errors so serious that counsel was not functioning as the ‘counsel’ guaranteed the defendant by the Sixth Amendment” — and (2) that he was prejudiced as a result — i.e., “that counsel’s errors were so serious as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial, a trial whose result is reliable.” Id. at 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052. Stated differently, “[t]he defendant must show that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” Id. at 694, 104 S.Ct. 2052. “A reasonable probability [415]*415is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.” Id.
¶23. In Taylor v. State, 109 So.3d 589 (Miss.Ct.App.2013), the defendant alleged that ■ his trial counsel was ineffective fol failing to request an alibi instruction. Id. at 598 (¶ 27). There, we held that the defendant failed -to overcome the presumption that the omission was trial strategy. Id. We also found that it was “conceivable” that, after hearing the testimonies of the defendant’s alibi witnesses, trial counsel had abandoned the alibi defense. Id. For this reason, we were unable to conclude that counsel’s failure to request an alibi instruction was beyond the range of reasonable trial strategy. Id. As in Taylor, Wilson’s trial counsel may well have abandoned the alibi defense after hearing Dotson’s and Hunter’s testimonies. But even-without an-alibi instruction, the jury was still able to consider their testimonies and to find that there was reasonable doubt as to whether Wilson was guilty of receiving stolen property. Accordingly, Wilson fails to show that his trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective for failing to request an alibi instruction or that he suffered any prejudice as a result. The same is true of Wilson’s contention that his trial counsel should have objected to the State’s alibi instruction, which, as noted above, is consistent with the Supreme Court’s opinion in Holmes,
¶ 24. With respect to trial counsel’s failure to object to Instruction S-4 — the “pri-ma facie evidence” instruction — we ■ have already discussed above that, in multiple instructions, the jury was instructed thoroughly on the State’s burden to prove each and every element of the offense charged. Therefore, even if we were to assume that counsel should have objected to S-4, Wilson cannot show that there is a “reasonable probability” that this one instruction altered the result of the proceeding. Strickland,, 466 U.S. at 694, 104 S.Ct. 2052. Accordingly, his- ineffective assistance claim necessarily fails.
III. Sentencing
■¶ 25. Wilson committed the offense of receiving stolen property on April 2, 2012. He was indicted on January 23, 2013. - The indictment charged him with receiving stolen property that had “a value in excess of $500.00.” Prior to Wilson’s trial, the Legislature amended subsection 97-17-70(4) to change the $500 threshold to a range of more than $1,000 but less than $5,000 and to reduce the maximum punishment. 'See 2014 Miss. Laws ch. 457, § 22. However, the jurors at Wilson’s trial were instructed that in order to convict him, they -had to find beyond a reasonable doubt that the utility trailer he was charged with receiving “was valued at more than $500.” The jury so found and convicted Wilson. Finally, Wilson was sentenced under the version of the statute in effect at the time he committed his offense, which provided that “[a]ny person ... convicted of receiving stolen property which exceeds Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00) in value shall be committed to the custody of [MDOC] for a term not exceeding ten (10) years.... ” Miss.Code Ann. § 97-17-70(4) (Rev.2007). He was sentenced to the statutory maximum of ten years’ imprisonment because he is a habitual offender.
¶26. Although the Legislature amended the statute under which Wilson was convicted prior to his trial, the circuit court’s decision to conduct his trial and sentencing under the prior version of the statute was in accordance with applicable law. Mississippi Code Annotated section 99-19-1 (Rev.2015) provides:
No statutory change of any law affecting a crime or its punishment or the collection of a penalty shall affect or defeat the prosecution of any crime committed [416]*416prior to its enactment, or the collection of any penalty, whether such prosecution be instituted before or after such enactment; and all laws defining a crime or prescribing its punishment, or for the imposition of penalties, shall be continued in operation for the purpose of providing punishment for crimes committed under them, and for collection of such penalties, notwithstanding amendatory or repealing statutes, unless otherwise specially provided in such statutes.
Accordingly, in general, the version of the statute in effect at the time an offense is committed will continue to control the defendant’s prosecution and his punishment.
¶ 27. There is an exception to the rule set out in section 99-19-1. Mississippi Code Annotated section 99-19-33 (Rev.2015) provides:
If any statute shall provide a punishment of the same character, but of milder type, for an offense which was a crime under pre-existing law, then such milder punishment may be imposed by the court but no conviction, otherwise valid, shall be set aside and new trial granted merely because of an error of the court in fixing punishment. Such error shall only entitle the party injured to vacate or reverse the judgment as to the punishment, and the legal punishment shall then be imposed by another sentence based on the original conviction or plea of guilty.
Further, interpreting section 99-19-33, our Supreme Court has made clear that “when a statute is amended to provide for a lesser penalty, and the amendment takes effect before sentencing, the trial court must sentence according to the statute as amended.” Daniels v. State, 742 So.2d 1140, 1145 (¶ 17) (Miss.1999) (emphasis added).2
¶28. However, in a more recent decision, the Supreme Court made clear that “section 99-19-33 and Daniels are totally irrelevant to” a “case where we are not dealing with an amended sentencing statute, but instead an amended statute as it relates to the elements of the offense.” Wilson v. State, 967 So.2d 32, 42 (¶ 22) (Miss.2007). Wilson was a shoplifting case. The defendant in that case was indicted and found guilty of shoplifting merchandise priced at more than $250, a felony punishable by up to five years’ imprisonment at the time she committed the crime. After she was indicted but before she was tried, the Legislature amended the shoplifting statute to provide that felony shoplifting required proof that the defendant took merchandise priced at more than $500 — and that shoplifting $500 or less of merchandise was punishable as a misdemeanor. The defendant argued that under section 99-19-33 and Daniels, she was entitled to the benefit of the amendment — i.e., to be sentenced for the misdemeanor instead of the felony. See id. at 41-42 (¶ 21). The Supreme Court disagreed. In its brief discussion of the issue, the Court reasoned that “section 99-19-33 and Daniels [were] totally irrelevant to” Wilson’s case because “only the elements of the crime of felony shoplifting changed and not the penalty, which ha[d] remained the same during [the] amendment process.” Id. at 42 (¶22).3
[417]*417¶29. The instant case is distinguishable from Wilson in that, after Timothy Wilson committed his crime but before he was sentenced,, the Legislature amended both the elements of the crime of- receiving stolen property and the applicable penalties. Thus, unlike Wilson, it cannot be said that “only the elements of the crime” were changed. Id. (emphasis-added). However, for, the. same reason, the instant case is also distinguishable from Daniels and other cases that involved only amendments to punishments. See Daniels, 742 So.2d at 1144 (¶ 13). Although neither case is directly on point, we are persuaded that Wilson and section 99-19-1, supra, are controlling, We reach this conclusion because, for the reasons explained below, it is impossible to retroactively apply the amendments to the punishments for receiving stolen property without also retroactively applying the amendments to the elements of the offense. The amendments 'to the elements and the amendments to the punishments are inextricably interrelated. Because Wilson and section 99-19-1 make clear that we may not retroactively apply amendments to the elements of the crime, we conclude that we cannot apply interrelated amendments to its punishments either.
¶ 30. House Bill 585, 2014 Miss. Laws ch. 457, § 22, amended the relevant parts of section 97-17-70 as follows:
Prior to July 1, 2014:_ As amended, effective July 1, 2014:_
(4)Any person who shall be convicted of receiving stolen property which exceeds Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00) in value shall be committed to the custody of the State. Department of Corrections for a term not exceeding ten (10) years. . . (4) Any person who shall be convicted of receiving stolen property which exceeds One Thou'sand Dollars ($1,000.00) or more, but less than Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000.00) in value shall be punished by imprisonment. . . for a term not exceeding five (5) years. . . .
(5) Any person who shall be convicted of receiving stolen property which exceeds Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000.00) or more but less than Twenty-five Thousand Dollars ($25,000.00) in value shall be punished by imprisonment. . .for a term not exceeding ten (10) years. ....
(6) Any person who shall be convicted of receiving stolen property which exceeds Twenty-five Thousand Dollars ($25,000.00) in value shall be punished by imprisonment. . .for a term not exceeding twenty (20) years. ■ ■ ._
(7) Any person who shall be convicted of receiving stolen property which does not exceed One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00) in value may be punished by imprisonment in the county jail for not more than six (6) months. . . ■ (5) Any person who shall be convicted of receiving stolen property which does not exceed Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00) in value shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than six (6) months. . . .
¶ 31. Here, as described above, Wilson [418]*418was indicted and the jury convicted him of the crime of receiving stolen property with a value in excess of $500. Under the statute as amended, that crime no longer exists.. There is a crime of receiving stolen property valued at more than $1,000 and less than $5,000. And there is another crime of receiving stolen property valued at $1,000 or less. But there is no longer a crime of receiving stolen property valued at more than $500.
¶ 32. There are at least two ways, that we could go about trying to apply the amendments to section 97-17-70 to Wilson’s case. First, we could apply the new statute based on the jury’s actual finding that Wilson received stolen property with a value of more than $500. But if we take that route, Wilson’s felony offense is transformed into a misdemeanor punishable by no more than six months in the county jail. See Miss.Code Ann. § 97-17-70(7). Such a result is directly foreclosed by the Supreme Court’s decision in Wilson, 967 So.2d at 41-42 (¶¶ 21-22).
¶33. Alternatively, we could conduct our own review of the evidence, decide the value of the trailer, and then re-sentence Wilson under the amended statute. This is what the dissent4 would do. The dissent-believes this is permissible because “the State offered proof that the trailer was valued at $1,500.” Post at (¶ 47). The dissent then applies the amended statute to this valuation to arrive at a new sentence of five years’ imprisonment.
¶34. Of course, the dissent’s starting premise is not based on any finding by the jury. It stands on Paul Powers’s lay opinion that the trailer was worth $1,500. The trailer’s owner testified that she purchased it for $1,400 three years prior to the theft. The jury found only that the trailer was worth more than $500. That finding tells us nothing about whether the jury found that the trailer was worth $500.01 or $1,500 or some other amount. “Absent knowledge of the jury’s finding, we lack the omniscient power to ascertain what [value the jury assigned to the trailer].” Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Learmonth, 95 So.3d 633, 639 (¶ 8) (Miss.2012). The jury easily could have concluded that the trailer was no longer worth the’. $1,400 paid for it three years earlier and yet still found that it was worth more than $500. It is within “the jury’s province to make independent determinations on such matters, which may be based upon its ‘common experience,’ ‘reason,’ and ‘common sense.’ ” Id, at 638 n.‘ 7. ' Indeed,' it is unlikely that the jury assigned any particular value to the trailer because it was only required" to find that it was worth more than $500.
¶ 35. Thus, in order to apply the amended version of the statute, the dissent engages in appellate fact-finding on an essential element of the crime for which it would re-sentence Wilson. Though the question was never presented to the jury, the dissent finds that “the weight of the evidence shows that the value of the property was more than $1,000.” Post at (¶ 48). But see Harrell v. State, 134 So.3d 266, 273 (¶ 25) (Miss.2014) (“[A]ppellate courts may use harmléss error to preserve, but not supplement, a jury’s findings.”). Having done so, the dissent would then impose a five-year sentence — even though, under the amended statute, the jury’s verdict would authorize no more, than six months in the county jail. See Miss.Code Ann. § 97-17-70(7). But see Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000) (“Other than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that [419]*419increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt.”).5 .
¶36. The dissent dismisses this problem of appellate fact-finding by asserting that the valué of the trailer is not really a “core element[] of the offense of receiving stolen property.” Post at (¶ 45). According to the dissent, it is just an “element[ ] for sentencing purposes only.” Post at (1145). The distinction lacks substance— the U.S. Supreme Court has referred to it as “the constitutionally novel and elusive distinction between ‘elements’ and ‘sentencing factors.’ ” Apprendi, 530 U.S. at 494, 120 S.Ct. 2348. “[T]he relevant inquiry is one not of form, but - of effect — does the required finding expose the defendant to a greater punishment than that authorized by the jury’s guilty verdict?” Id.; see also Patton v. State, 34 So.3d 563, 573 (¶ 33) (Miss.2010) (“Because the false pretense statute provides different levels of punishment depending on the value of the property obtained by means of the false representation, value is an essential element of the, crime of felonious false pretense.” (emphasis added) (citing Henley v. State, 729 So.2d 232, 238 (Miss.1998))). Obviously, if the dissent, were correct that the amended statute applied in this case, then the dissent’s finding regarding the trailer’s value would expose Wilson to a greater punishment than, that authorized by the jury’s verdict — in fact, it would increase his sentence tenfold. .
¶ 37. At other poiñts, the dissent seems to say that the amended version of section 97-17-70 must- be applied because — regardless of the nature or extent of the amendments — “receiving stolen property” was “an offense” before and it still is today. Post at (¶¶ 50, 52). This argument also elevates form over substance. An “offense” is not defined by its location or heading in the Mississippi Code. An offense is defined' by its elements — it is- simply the “sum of its elements.” 6 The “offense” - defined in ■ the amended version of subsection 97-17-70(4) is not the same offense defined in the prior version simply because 4t is set out in. the same place under the same, heading. As the comparison set out in the table above shows, there is no longer one felony offense of receiving stolen property — there are now three different- and new felony offenses, each of which requires proof that the defendant received property within á different range of dollar values. Section 99-19-33 applies and permits sentencing [420]*420under the amended version of* the statute “for an offense which was a chime under pre-existing law.” Miss.Code 'Ann. § 99-19-33. In this case, however, the offenses now codified in section 97-17-70 have different elements and are not the same offenses as contained in the statute prior to duly 1,2014.
¶ 38.- ■ Ultimately, the dissent seems to misapprehend the point of' much of the foregoing discussion. The dissent believes that we decline to apply the amended version" of the statute only “because we do not know the precise value that the jury placed on the , stolen property.” Post at (¶49). However, the reason that we decline to apply retroactively the punishments set out in.the amended version of the statute is that it is impossible to do so without also applying retroactively the new elements of the amended version of the statute. Such a retroactive application of the amended statute is not permitted under section 99-19-1 or Wilson, 967 So.2d at 41-42 (¶¶ 21-22). We have discussed the dissent’s need to supplement the jury’s verdict with appellate fact-finding because it raises constitutional concerns — but, more important, because it illustrates the interrelationship of the various amendments.
¶ 39. The dissent also asserts that we “fail[ ] to give effect to the will of the law-making body of this State” because “our Legislature has spoken with great clarity that the punishment should not be more than five years in prison.” Post at (¶ 49). With respect, this assertion simply begs the question. To be sure, there is “great clarity” that the Legislature intended to reduce sentences in some prospective prosecutions under section 97-17-70, but no one contends that the Legislature intended the amendments -to apply in all cases, past and pending. For example, no one argues that a defendant sentenced pri- or to July 1, 2014, is entitled to a new sentence based on a new determination of the value of the property he received. Nor is there any “great clarity” that the Legislature intended for the amendments to apply retroactively to pending prosecutions, such as this one. The Legislature could have “specially provided in” House Bill 585 for such retroactive application of the amendments at issue (Miss.Code Ann. § 99-19-1), but it did not do so. In the absence of such specific guidance from the Legislature, the Court’s task is to determine whether the amendment applies retroactively — to determine “intent” — based on the default rules discussed above.7 Having done so, we conclude that, pursuant to section 99-19-1 and Wilson, retroactive application of these amendments was not intended.
¶ 40. In summary, under section 99-19-1 and Wilson, 967 So.2d at 41-42 (¶¶ 21-22), we do not retroactively apply amendments to the elements of a criminal statute. Here, House Bill 585’s amendments to section 97-17-70’s elements and punishments are inextricably interrelated. Consequently, there is no viable approach to applying those amendments to defendants whose offenses:, were committed and charged prior to. House Bill 585’s effective date. To re-sentence such defendants based solely on the jury’s findings would run afoul of the Supreme Court’s holding in Wilson. And to re-sentence such defendants based on our own appellate fact-finding would raise serious constitutional concerns. This is a significant issue because House Bill 585 amended a variety of [421]*421criminal statutes in a similar manner. We decline to adopt an approach to such amendments that inevitably will lead to such difficulties. We conclude that the circuit judge correctly avoided these problems by applying the version of the'statute in effect when Wilson committed his offense.
¶ 41. THE JUDGMENT OF THE WARREN COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT OF CONVICTION OF RECEIVING STOLEN PROPERTY AND SENTENCE, AS A HABITUAL OFFENDER, OF TEN YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, AND TO PAY A $10,000 FINE, IS AFFIRMED. ALL COSTS OF THIS APPEAL ARE ASSESSED TO WARREN COUNTY.
GRIFFIS, P.J., CARLTON, FAIR and GREENLEE, JJ., CONCUR. JAMES, J., CONCURS IN PART WITHOUT SEPARATE WRITTEN OPINION. IRVING, P.J., CONCURS IN PART AND DISSENTS IN PART WITH SEPARATE WRITTEN OPINION, JOINED BY LEE, C.J., BARNES, ISHEE AND JAMES, JJ.