Tucker v. State
93 So. 3d 913
| Miss. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Tucker pled guilty to sexual battery in 1997 and received a 20-year MDOC sentence with 16 years suspended, 4 years to serve, and 5 years post-release supervision.
- In 1999 Tucker began serving his post-release supervision.
- Action in 2003 revoked Tucker’s post-release supervision, leading to a new 5-year MDOC term followed by 5 years post-release supervision.
- In 2008 Tucker pled guilty to gratification of lust, sexual battery, and failure to register as a sex offender; sentences self-contained but run concurrently for lust and sexual battery, with failure to register consecutive.
- In 2009 Tucker filed multiple PCR motions; the circuit court dismissed the fourth PCR motion challenging the 1997 sentence as untimely; Tucker appeals seeking relief on multiple grounds; the court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Tucker’s fourth PCR motion was timely under § 99-39-5(2). | Tucker argues timing barred by statute. | State contends untimely under three-year limit. | No reversible error; fourth motion time-barred. |
| Whether the circuit court erred by considering the merits of an untimely PCR. | Tucker asserts exceptions could apply. | State maintains time-bar governs. | Court treated fourth motion as time-barred and did not reach merits. |
| Whether the circuit court had authority to suspend part of Tucker’s 1997 sentence given prior felony conviction. | Tucker asserts authority to suspend violated statute for prior felony. | Circuit court did suspend; statute permits post-release supervision and does not bar leniency here. | Suspension permissible; no authority violation found. |
| Whether Tucker suffered prejudice from an allegedly illegal lenient sentence. | Lenient sentence prejudiced Tucker; would have gone to trial. | Illegally lenient sentence is harmless error if no prejudice; no prejudice shown. | Even if illegal, no prejudice; no set-aside of guilty plea. |
| Whether the guilty plea should be set aside if the sentence was illegal or the plea was involuntary. | Plea could be involuntary if misled about sentence. | No reversible error; plea supported by record. | No merit to setting aside plea. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dobbs v. State, 18 So.3d 295 (Miss.Ct.App.2009) (time-bar exceptions for PCR motions; discovery of new evidence and constitutional rights interplay)
- Luckett v. State, 582 So.2d 428 (Miss.1991) (fundamental rights can toll limitations period)
- Felton v. State, 18 So.3d 328 (Miss.Ct.App.2009) (prejudice required when sentence is illegal or lenient)
- Evans v. State, 61 So.3d 922 (Miss.Ct.App.2011) (standard of review for PCR factual findings)