TUCKER v. STATE
395 P.3d 1
| Okla. Crim. App. | 2016Background
- Appellant Charlie Tucker was convicted by jury of assault and battery with a deadly weapon (Count I) and misdemeanor obstructing an officer (Count III); jury recommended ten years on Count I and 30 days on Count III, concurrent.
- The State charged enhancement based on a prior Mississippi felony conviction (accessory after the fact to armed robbery) that the record suggests was discharged January 29, 2002—more than ten years before the 2012 offense.
- Oklahoma law allows enhancement if the current offense occurs within ten years after completion of the prior sentence, or if the defendant had an intervening conviction for a misdemeanor involving moral turpitude that tolls the period (21 O.S. §§ 51.1, 51.2).
- The State relied on a 2010 misdemeanor domestic abuse conviction to argue the ten‑year limit was tolled; the court held domestic assault and battery is not a crime of moral turpitude and thus does not prolong the ten‑year period.
- Trial counsel failed to obtain or present Mississippi discharge documents; an evidentiary hearing found counsel did not follow through on obtaining records and would have used them if available.
- The Court concluded counsel was ineffective under Strickland for failing to investigate the prior conviction, that there is a strong possibility the prior was stale and improperly used to enhance sentence, and remanded Count I for resentencing. Instructional challenge (intent to kill) was rejected.
Issues
| Issue | Tucker's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Use of prior conviction to enhance sentence | Mississippi prior was discharged Jan 29, 2002; >10 years had elapsed so it was stale and cannot enhance | Ten‑year period tolled by 2010 misdemeanor domestic abuse conviction (crime of moral turpitude) | Court: Prior likely stale; domestic assault is not moral turpitude; unresolved ambiguity requires remand for resentencing |
| Effective assistance of counsel re: prior conviction | Counsel failed to discover Mississippi discharge documents and thus was ineffective and prejudiced Tucker | Counsel investigated; no evidence they were aware of discharge documents or that omission was strategic | Court: Counsel deficient for failing to obtain/verify records; prejudice likely; remand granted for resentencing |
| Burden of proof on staleness | Tucker: defendant bears initial burden to show stale; but State must prove not stale beyond a reasonable doubt | State: must prove prior valid and within ten years to enhance | Court: Defendant must produce some evidence of staleness; State bears burden to prove prior not stale; ambiguity favored remand |
| Jury instruction on intent for ABDW | Tucker: jury should have been instructed that assault and battery with a deadly weapon requires intent to kill or use deadly force | State: statute and precedent do not require intent to kill; standard instruction proper | Court: Intent to kill is not element; no error in instructions; claim denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (established two‑part ineffective assistance test)
- Rompilla v. Beard, 545 U.S. 374 (counsel must reasonably investigate priors/mitigation)
- Goodwin v. State, 730 P.2d 1202 (Okla. Crim. App. 1986) (defendant bears burden to show prior sentence satisfied >10 years)
- Saulmon v. State, 614 P.2d 83 (Okla. Crim. App. 1980) (discussing definition of moral turpitude)
- Price v. State, 546 P.2d 632 (Okla. Crim. App. 1976) (definition of moral turpitude as gravest offenses)
- Goree v. State, 163 P.3d 583 (Okla. Crim. App. 2007) (intent to kill is not an element of assault and battery with a deadly weapon)