Com. v. Tucker, L.
1308 WDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Dec 19, 2017Background
- In 1992 Tucker pled nolo contendere to rape and IDSI and received a sentence that included probation; his probation was later revoked and he served additional incarceration.
- Megan’s Law I (1996) created a 10‑year registration duty for certain sex offenses; Megan’s Law II (2000) expanded registration to lifetime for rape and IDSI.
- Tucker first completed sex‑offender registration upon release in 2011 but failed to register thereafter; in 2013 he was charged and pled guilty to failure to register under Megan’s Law II and was sentenced to five years probation.
- Tucker later was charged twice more for failing to register and was acquitted in those later prosecutions because the trial court concluded he was not required to register.
- Tucker filed a timely PCRA petition alleging plea counsel was ineffective for failing to research whether he had a legal duty to register; the PCRA court granted relief, allowing withdrawal of the 2013 plea and a new trial.
- The Commonwealth appealed; the Superior Court affirmed, holding counsel was ineffective because she failed to investigate the defense established by controlling precedent (Rivera) and that Tucker would have gone to trial if properly advised.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Tucker) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the PCRA court erred in finding plea counsel ineffective for failing to research Tucker’s registration duty | Counsel’s performance was adequate; record shows Tucker in fact was required to register and plea was valid | Counsel failed to investigate controlling law and discovery; omission caused an involuntary, unknowing plea | PCRA court affirmed: counsel ineffective, plea vacated because counsel did not research Rivera defense and Tucker would have proceeded to trial |
| Whether Rivera controls Tucker’s duty to register under Megan’s Law II | Rivera is distinguishable and does not preclude registration here | Rivera held Megan’s Law II did not apply to incarceration for probation revocations; same rationale applies to Tucker | Rivera applies; because Tucker was incarcerated on a probation violation rather than original sentence, he had no Megan’s Law II duty to register |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Rivera, 10 A.3d 1276 (Pa. Super. 2010) (holding Megan’s Law II did not apply to periods of incarceration imposed for probation violations on pre‑Megan’s Law sex offenses)
- Commonwealth v. Muniz, 164 A.3d 1189 (Pa. 2017) (holding retroactive application of SORNA unconstitutional as punitive; noted but inapplicable to Tucker’s Megan’s Law II conviction)
- Commonwealth v. Williams, 832 A.2d 962 (Pa. 2003) (upholding retroactive application of earlier Megan’s Law registration provisions as regulatory)
- Commonwealth v. Lassiter, 722 A.2d 657 (Pa. 1998) (illustrating that an ineffective‑assistance claim has arguable merit where counsel failed to advise on a dispositive legal issue)