SANDERS v. STATE
358 P.3d 280
| Okla. Crim. App. | 2015Background
- Michael Lee Sanders, a known convicted felon, was arrested at his girlfriend's house where deputies observed him crouched behind the front door and handcuffed him.
- During a protective sweep incident to an arrest warrant, deputies saw a Glock on the kitchen table in plain view; the gun was magazine loaded and later found to be stolen.
- Sanders was charged and convicted by a jury of: Count I — Possession of a Firearm After Former Conviction of a Felony; Count II — Knowingly Concealing Stolen Property After Former Conviction of a Felony. Jury recommended 10 years (Count I) and 2 years (Count II); sentences ordered concurrent.
- Sanders raised numerous appellate issues including double jeopardy/multiple punishment under 21 O.S. § 11, suppression of the gun, sufficiency of the evidence, prosecutorial misconduct, jury instruction errors, and ineffective assistance of counsel.
- The Court reversed and instructed dismissal of Count II (concealing stolen property) based on Oklahoma statutory multiple-punishment prohibition (Section 11) because both convictions arose from a single act (possession/visibility of the same gun); Count I (felon in possession) was affirmed. Other claims were either rendered moot or rejected on the merits.
Issues
| Issue | Sanders' Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Multiple punishment under 21 O.S. § 11: whether charging both felon-in-possession and concealing the same stolen gun violates Section 11 | Two convictions were carved from the same single act (presence/possession of the gun) and thus impermissible | The offenses are separate and distinct (status of felon-in-possession completed when possession began; concealing/stolen-gun offense is a separate act) | Reversed Count II and instructed dismissal — convictions violated Section 11 because not shown to be separate and distinct under the case facts |
| Validity of protective sweep / plain view seizure | Suppression required because deputies’ entry or observation exceeded warrant scope or needed separate probable cause | Protective sweep under Maryland v. Buie and plain view doctrine permitted observation and seizure of the gun | Denial of suppression affirmed — sweep and plain view seizure lawful |
| Sufficiency of evidence for felon-in-possession | Evidence insufficient to show possession (constructive or actual) | Constructive possession established by dominion and control; gun visible in common area and defendant located at front door | Conviction for felon-in-possession affirmed — evidence sufficient |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel / request for evidentiary hearing | Trial counsel failed in multiple respects; sought evidentiary hearing to develop claims | Application lacked supporting affidavits/documents; claims insufficient under Strickland standard on direct appeal | Application for evidentiary hearing denied; ineffective-assistance claims not proven on record |
Key Cases Cited
- Maryland v. Buie, 494 U.S. 325 (1990) (authorizes limited protective sweeps incident to arrest to ensure officer safety)
- Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128 (1990) (plain view seizure valid when initial intrusion is lawful)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (2011) (standard for prejudice review in habeas/ineffective assistance contexts)
- Hancock v. State, 155 P.3d 796 (Okla. Crim. App. 2007) (felon-in-possession offense complete upon possession)
- Rutan v. State, 202 P.3d 839 (Okla. Crim. App. 2009) (standard for sufficiency of the evidence review)
- Williams v. State, 22 P.3d 702 (Okla. Crim. App. 2001) (presumption that juries follow clear instructions)