Tucker
was indicted by a Greenville County grand jury for criminal
domestic violence of a high and aggravated nature. On
September 27, 2002, Tucker struck his live-in girlfriend
Christy Rocket (Rocket), several times with his fist. She
suffered facial fractures because of the incident and was
taken to a hospital in an ambulance where she underwent
emergency surgery.
On
July 10, 2003, Tucker appeared before the trial court and was
represented by his attorney, Mr. Paschal. The following
colloquy took place between Tucker and the court:
THE COURT: Now, that and I understand you want to tender a
plea to criminal domestic violence of a high and aggravated
nature, and that carries up to ten years in prison.
Do you understand that?
DEFENDANT TUCKER: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: All right. Understanding the nature of the charges
against you and the maximum possible punishment, how do you
wish to plead?
DEFENDANT TUCKER: Guilty.
THE COURT: Now, has anybody forced you, coerced you
threatened you, or promised you anything in any way to get
you to enter a plea of guilty?
DEFENDANT TUCKER: No, sir.
THE COURT: And are you doing it freely and voluntarily?
DEFENDANT TUCKER: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: Okay. Do you understand that you have an absolute
right to a trial by jury where you would be presumed innocent
unless and until the Government could prove you guilty beyond
any reasonable doubt of each and every element of the offense
that you're charged with?
DEFENDANT TUCKER: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: You have a right to confront and cross-examine the
witnesses and the evidence against you. You'd have a
right to compel in court all relevant and competent evidence
in your defense, or you could remain silent and your silence
cannot be held against you. You can never be compelled to
incriminate yourself in a court of law in this country.
Do you understand all of those rights?
DEFENDANT TUCKER: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: Do you want to waive and give up those rights and
plead guilty?
DEFENDANT TUCKER: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: Are you guilty?
DEFENDANT TUCKER: Uh, yes, sir.
The
State recited the facts of the case, alleging that Rocket was
Tucker's live-in girlfriend and describing the
altercation that led to Tucker's indictment. The
following exchange then took place:
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Tucker, you've heard the
recitation of the facts that the State believes they could
prove at trial.
I want to ask you if you agree or disagree with that?
DEFENDANT TUCKER: I don't fully agree, no, sir.
THE COURT: All right. If you would, tell me your version of
the facts.
DEFENDANT TUCKER: I wasn't really living with her. The
reason we had the fuss to start with is I was going home that
night. She didn't want me to leave, chased me out to the
car, and even going to the extent of getting on the hood of
the car so I couldn't leave, took my keys from me.
I went
back in the house with her trying to get my keys back. It
turned into an argument and ended up in the bedroom arguing
over trying to get the keys back still. All this, you know
to go home.
And
then the only reason I hit her is she hit me three times with
an iron that was plugged up first.
THE COURT: I'm sorry. Hit you three times with an iron? I
didn't hear that.
DEFENDANT TUCKER: Yeah, three times. It was plugged up. The
first time was in the elbow, and then once around my forearm,
I've got a scar there still, and once on the side of the
head.
And,
at that point, that's when I just actually, when I hit, I
had my eyes shut and everything. I just swung to get her off
of me. I don't recall her being unconscious at all. I
looked at her. I said, "Are you okay?" I said,
"I'm sorry."
I took
her to the bathroom and got a towel. There was no blood in
the bedroom. I actually called 911 for her. I went with her
to the hospital. I stayed there all night with her until 7:00
that morning.
The
court next addressed Tucker's claim that he was not
living with Rocket when the incident took place.
THE COURT: This is a guilty plea.
DEFENDANT TUCKER: Right.
THE COURT: And one of the and, as I told you, the State has
got to prove beyond a reasonable doubt each of the elements
of the offense that you're charged with.
DEFENDANT TUCKER: Right.
THE COURT: And that is an essential element of the charge. So
if it is your position that you are not a household member
with the alleged victim in this case, then I'm not going
to accept your guilty plea.
If you
don't feel that you were living there, then this is not
criminal domestic violence.
DEFENDANT TUCKER: Well, all I'm the whole story is she
came down from she lived in North Carolina. She came down.
She stayed at our house, my parents. I live at home still
now. She stayed with my parents until she could find a place
to live.
My dad actually helped her find that house. It was a friend
of his that rented it. And I had even told her, I was like,
you know, I said, I'll help you some with money,
whatever. And I had stayed there some, but not to the point
of living there. I lived at home. Work if I had to go to work
the next day, I would go home.
MR. PASCHAL: But you had clothes and -
DEFENDANT TUCKER: I had a few clothes there. I would change
sometimes when I went there after work. But to say I lived
there is not fully true.
. . . .
THE COURT: But you have described what might be construed as
a self-defense argument. And I want to tell you that if you
enter this guilty plea and I accept it, that whatever
defenses you may have, you waive and give up the right to
present those. That doesn't say you can't present
that information as mitigation.
But
just so you understand that if you have any question as to
the whether or not you have a defense in this matter, if you
plead and I accept it, you give up your right to use that
defense.
Do you
understand that?
DEFENDANT TUCKER: Right.
Subsequently, Tucker admitted that at times he stayed with
his parents while at other times he stayed with Rocket. After
"finding that he was, in fact, a household member,"
the court addressed the possibility of a self-defense claim:
THE COURT: How about the self-defense, Mr. Paschal?
MR. PASCHAL: Your Honor, I think you asked him about that and
I think he realizes that, but he's not saying that
he's
THE COURT: All right. Well, I'll accept the plea as being
knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily made with the
advice of a very competent attorney with whom he states
he's well satisfied, and there is a factual basis for the
plea.
On
appeal, Tucker argues (1) the trial court should not have
entered a guilty plea because Tucker maintained that he acted
in self-defense, and (2) the court failed to conduct a
sufficient inquiry under. North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S.
25 (1970).
First,
Tucker argues the trial court erred in accepting his plea
because he maintained that he acted in self-defense. We
disagree.
Initially, this allegation is not properly before this Court
on direct appeal since the alleged error was not raised
below. In the Interest of Antonio H., 324 S.C....
