People v. Tukes CA1/4

Filed 10/22/25 P. v. Tukes CA1/4

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A170341 v. (San Francisco County KABARI TUKES, Super. Ct. No. SCN234668)

Defendant and Appellant.

Kabari Tukes was charged by information with four counts: Felon in possession of a firearm (Pen. Code,1 § 29800, subd. (a)(1)), carrying a loaded firearm (§ 25850, subd. (a)), carrying a concealed firearm (§ 25400, subd. (a)(2)), and misdemeanor exhibiting a concealable firearm in public (§ 417, subd. (a)(2)(A)). The jury found Tukes guilty of felon in possession of a firearm. The jury found Tukes not guilty of exhibiting a firearm and it was deadlocked as to the remaining two counts—carrying a concealed firearm and carrying a loaded firearm. On appeal, Tukes argues that the prosecutor’s remarks during closing argument when discussing the knowledge element for felon in possession of a firearm amount to prosecutorial misconduct. Tukes also argues his counsel

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless stated

otherwise.

1

was constitutionally ineffective for failing to object to the prosecutor’s remarks. We affirm. BACKGROUND On November 4, 2021, Tukes drove into the drive-thru lane at a McDonald’s and ordered a hamburger. Tukes became upset with the preparation of his hamburger and started getting aggressive towards the store employees who were attempting to help resolve his complaint. According to T.R., the store’s general manager, she was just returning from another store when the manager asked her for assistance in dealing with Tukes. The manager explained that they had already changed the hamburger three times, but Tukes was still upset. T.R. approached the drive-thru window and saw Tukes standing in front of the drive-thru window, outside of his car because his car door window was not working. T.R. offered to replace the hamburger again, but Tukes refused and wanted his money back. T.R. got the money for the refund and returned to the drive-thru window. From there, she saw Tukes on the passenger side of his car moving some clothes, as if he was looking for something. He then pulled out a small black gun from among the clothes. Tukes walked around his car towards the drive-thru window, pulled back the top portion of the gun, put it in his pants and covered it with his shirt. T.R. handed Tukes his money and Tukes walked back towards his vehicle then stopped and started walking back towards the drive-thru window. T.R. yelled at her employees that Tukes had a gun and instructed them to hide and call 911. Tukes left the drive-thru and later returned on foot. The store had surveillance cameras that recorded the interaction at the drive-thru window, which was played for the jury.