Tommy Lee Tucker v The State Of Oklahoma
RE 2018-0457
Filed: Jul. 11, 2019
Not for publication
Prevailing Party: The State Of Oklahoma
Summary
Tommy Lee Tucker appealed his conviction for Domestic Assault and Battery and other related charges. Conviction and sentence were upheld, but the case was sent back to the lower court to fix some paperwork mistakes. Judge Hudson wrote the opinion, and all judges agreed, but the decision included a note about how the lower court added new rules that weren't part of Tucker's original sentence.
Decision
The revocation of Appellant's suspended sentences in Logan County District Court Case Nos. CF-2015-56 and CF-2015-131 is AFFIRMED, but the matter is REMANDED to the District Court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch.18, App. (2019), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the filing of this decision.
Issues
- was there legal authority for the trial court to impose post-imprisonment supervision at the time of revocation?
- did the Judgment and Sentence After Revocation accurately reflect the sentences imposed by the District Court?
Findings
- the court erred by imposing post-imprisonment supervision at the time of revocation
- the matter is remanded to the District Court to address inconsistencies in the Judgment and Sentence After Revocation
- the revocation of Appellant's suspended sentences is affirmed
RE 2018-0457
Jul. 11, 2019
Tommy Lee Tucker
Appellantv
The State Of Oklahoma
Appellee
v
The State Of Oklahoma
Appellee
SUMMARY OPINION
HUDSON, JUDGE: Appellant, Tommy Lee Tucker, entered a plea of guilty August 7, 2015, in the District Court of Logan County, Case No. CF-2015-56, to Domestic Assault and Battery After Prior Conviction, a felony, and in Logan County Case No. CF-2015-131 to Count 1 – Domestic Assault and Battery by Strangulation, AFCF, a felony, and Count 2 – Kidnapping, AFCF, a felony. He was given a twenty year suspended sentence and fined $1,500.00 in Case No. CF-2015-56. He was also given a twenty year suspended sentence and fined $1,500.00 for each count in Case No. CF-2015-131. The sentences were all ordered to run concurrently.
On March 23, 2016, the State filed a motion to revoke Appellant’s suspended sentences alleging Appellant was charged with two counts of Placing Bodily Fluids on Police Officer, a felony, and Public Intoxication, a misdemeanor, in Logan County District Court Case No. CF-2016-73. The State’s motions to revoke were amended on September 29, 2016, to include the new charges filed in Logan County Case No. CF-2016-296, Burglary in the First Degree (AFCFX2) and Aggravated Assault and Battery (AFCFX2) and the new charges filed in Logan County Case No. CF-2016-313, Grand Larceny (Over $500), (AFCFX2). Following a revocation hearing for both cases on April 25, 2018, before the Honorable Louis A. Duel, Associate District Judge, the State’s motions to revoke were sustained. Appellant’s suspended sentences, twenty years on each count in each case, were revoked in full, with credit for time served, and the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Judge Duel also ordered post-imprisonment supervision upon revoking Appellant’s suspended sentences.
Appellant appeals the revocation of his suspended sentences. In an Order issued May 18, 2018, Appeal No. RE 2018-457 (District Court Case No. CF-2015-56) and RE 2018-458 (District Court Case No. CF-2015-131) were consolidated for review on appeal.
On appeal, Appellant raises the following propositions of error:
1. The trial court was without legal authority to modify and extend Mr. Tucker’s sentences by adding post-imprisonment supervision at the time of revocation; and,
2. The Judgment and Sentence After Revocation filed in Logan County District Court Case No. CF-2015-56 and that filed in Logan County District Court Case Number CF-2015-131 with respect to Count 1 do not reflect accurately the sentences imposed and executed by the District Court.
Answering Appellant’s first proposition of error, the State agrees that the trial court lacked authority to impose a term of post-imprisonment supervision at the conclusion of the revocation hearing which was not part of the original Judgment and Sentence. We agree. See Friday v. State, 2016 OK CR 16, ¶ 4-6, 387 P.3d 928.
Appellant’s second proposition of error argues that the Judgment and Sentence After Revocation issued in both cases do not accurately reflect the sentences imposed and executed by the District Court. While the Judgment and Sentence After Revocation in each case is consistent with the formal Judgment and Sentence issued in each case and is consistent with the Court Minute issued in both cases, they are not consistent with the handwritten Plea of Guilty Summary of Facts. Therefore, the matter is remanded to the District Court with instructions to address the inconsistencies and Appellant’s request for issuance of an order nunc pro tunc as presented in Proposition Two of this appeal. See Sears v. State, 2019 OK CR 8, ¶ 8, P.3d.
DECISION
The revocation of Appellant’s suspended sentences in Logan County District Court Case Nos. CF-2015-56 and CF-2015-131 is AFFIRMED, but the matter is REMANDED to the District Court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch.18, App. (2019), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the filing of this decision.
Footnotes:
- Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 991a
- Friday v. State, 2016 OK CR 16, 11 4-6, 387 P.3d 928
- Sears v. State, 2019 OK CR 8, I 8, P.3d
Oklahoma Statutes citations:
No Oklahoma statutes found.
Oklahoma Administrative Rules citations:
No Oklahoma administrative rules found.
U.S. Code citations:
No US Code citations found.
Other citations:
No other rule citations found.
Case citations:
- Friday v. State, 2016 OK CR 16, ¶ 4-6, 387 P.3d 928
- Sears v. State, 2019 OK CR 8, ¶ 8, P.3d