Tucker hearing in Michigan

1979In an order dated April 7, 1978, we granted defendant’s motion to remand for a Tucker hearing pursuant to United States v Tucker, 404 US 443 ; 92 S Ct 589 ; 30 L Ed 2d 592 (1972), and People v Moore, 391 Mich 426 ; 216 NW2d 770 (1974).

1979In an order dated April 7, 1978, we granted defendant’s motion to remand for a Tucker hearing pursuant to United States v Tucker, 404 US 443 ; 92 S Ct 589 ; 30 L Ed 2d 592 (1972), and People v Moore, 391 Mich 426 ; 216 NW2d 770 (1974).

1980In People v Moore, supra, 440-441, the Michigan Supreme Court ruled that: "To invoke a Tucker hearing, the defendant must (1) present prima facie proof that a previous conviction was violative of Gideon [Gideon v Wainwright, 372 US 335 ; 83 S Ct 792 ; 9 L Ed 2d 799 ; 93 ALR2d 733 (1963)], such as a docket entry showing the absence of counsel or a transcript evidencing the same; or (2) present evidence that he has requested such records from the sentencing court and it has failed to reply or has refused to furnish copies of records within a reasonable period of time, say four weeks.

1980In People v Moore, supra, 440-441, the Michigan Supreme Court ruled that: "To invoke a Tucker hearing, the defendant must (1) present prima facie proof that a previous conviction was violative of Gideon [Gideon v Wainwright, 372 US 335 ; 83 S Ct 792 ; 9 L Ed 2d 799 ; 93 ALR2d 733 (1963)], such as a docket entry showing the absence of counsel or a transcript evidencing the same; or (2) present evidence that he has requested such records from the sentencing court and it has failed to reply or has refused to furnish copies of records within a reasonable period of time, say four weeks.

1998See People v Justice, 216 Mich App 633, 645 ; 550 NW2d 562 (1996); People v Richert (After Remand), 216 Mich App 186, 195 ; 548 NW2d 924 (1996).

1998See People v Justice, 216 Mich App 633, 645 ; 550 NW2d 562 (1996); People v Richert (After Remand), 216 Mich App 186, 195 ; 548 NW2d 924 (1996).

2022If the defendant satisfies their burden, then the trial court holds a Tucker hearing, and the burden shifts to the prosecution “to establish the constitutional validity of the prior conviction.” Id.

2022If the defendant satisfies their burden, then the trial court holds a Tucker hearing, and the burden shifts to the prosecution “to establish the constitutional validity of the prior conviction.” Id.

2019The PLRA “sets forth certain requirements that apply when a prisoner brings a civil action concerning prison conditions.” Anderson v Myers, 268 Mich App 713, 715 ; 709 NW2d 171 (2005) (quotation marks and citation omitted).

2019The PLRA “sets forth certain requirements that apply when a prisoner brings a civil action concerning prison conditions.” Anderson v Myers, 268 Mich App 713, 715 ; 709 NW2d 171 (2005) (quotation marks and citation omitted).

2018Id. at 650 .

1988In People v Watroba, 89 Mich App 718, 723 ; 282 NW2d 196 (1979), this Court stated the threshold prerequisites which must be met by a defendant seeking a Tucker hearing, namely, prima facie proof (1) that his prior conviction was constitutionally infirm, and (2) that such conviction was considered by the court in imposing sentence.

1988In People v Watroba, 89 Mich App 718, 723 ; 282 NW2d 196 (1979), this Court stated the threshold prerequisites which must be met by a defendant seeking a Tucker hearing, namely, prima facie proof (1) that his prior conviction was constitutionally infirm, and (2) that such conviction was considered by the court in imposing sentence.

1982People v Schram, 98 Mich App 292 ; 296 NW2d 840 (1980); People v Moore, supra. Defendant failed to make a factual record at the trial level regarding the invalidity of his prior convictions and up to the time of this appeal has failed to invoke a Tucker hearing by offering the above required evidence.

1982People v Schram, 98 Mich App 292 ; 296 NW2d 840 (1980); People v Moore, supra. Defendant failed to make a factual record at the trial level regarding the invalidity of his prior convictions and up to the time of this appeal has failed to invoke a Tucker hearing by offering the above required evidence.