SANDERS v. STATE
2015 OK CR 11
| Okla. Crim. App. | 2015Background
- Michael Lee Sanders (appellant), a known convicted felon, was arrested at his girlfriend’s house during service of an arrest warrant; deputies found a Glock on the kitchen table in plain view and learned it was stolen.
- Sanders was charged and convicted by 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. Sentences: 10 years (Count I) and 2 years (Count II), to run concurrently.
- Defense moved to dismiss Count II on multiple-punishment (Section 11) grounds, arguing both convictions arose from the same act (possession of the single gun).
- Trial raised additional issues: whether the court should have used a three-stage procedure for proof of prior convictions, suppression of the gun (protective sweep/plain view), sufficiency of evidence for both counts, prosecutorial misconduct, jury instructions, and ineffective assistance of counsel.
- The Court of Criminal Appeals reversed Count II (concealing stolen property) with instructions to dismiss, affirmed Count I (felon in possession), and denied the request for an evidentiary hearing on ineffective assistance grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Multiple punishment (21 O.S. §11) — whether two convictions arose from one act | Sanders: both convictions stemmed from the same presence of the single gun; Section 11 bars multiple punishments for one act | State: felon-in-possession is a status crime complete on possession; concealing stolen property is a separate act | Court: Reversed Count II — convictions were not "separate and distinct" under Section 11; dismiss Count II |
| Trial procedure — whether a three-stage proceeding was required to prove prior convictions | Sanders: trial court should have followed strict three-stage protocol for proving priors | State: two-stage proceeding occurred and jury received clear instructions on priors and punishment | Court: No abuse of discretion; any procedural variance was harmless; two-stage acceptable given instructions |
| Suppression/plain view — whether officers lawfully seized the gun during protective sweep | Sanders: officer actions/sweep/seizure unlawful, warrant/probable cause required for serial-number check | State: Buie protective sweep permitted; plain view allowed seizure; checking serial number investigative | Court: No abuse of discretion; protective sweep and plain-view seizure lawful; serial-number check moot given dismissal of Count II |
| Sufficiency — felon-in-possession: whether evidence proved constructive possession | Sanders: insufficient proof of dominion and control over gun | State: testimony placed Sanders at door, crouched; deputies saw gun in open kitchen visible from doorway — constructive possession | Court: Evidence sufficient to support felon-in-possession conviction; Count I affirmed |
| Prosecutorial misconduct — improper closing or other comments | Sanders: multiple alleged improper comments deprived fair trial | State: comments were fair inferences from evidence; did not shift burden | Court: No reversible misconduct; contemporaneous objection overruled appropriately; other claims reviewed for plain error and denied |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel — entitlement to evidentiary hearing | Sanders: counsel failed to use available evidence; sought evidentiary hearing | State: application lacked supporting affidavits/documents showing claims could not be raised on direct appeal | Court: Denied evidentiary hearing; ineffective-assistance claims not shown under Strickland |
| Cumulative error | Sanders: combined errors deprived fair trial | State: isolated issues not prejudicial collectively | Court: No cumulative-error reversal; only remedy is dismissing Count II under Section 11 |
Key Cases Cited
- Barnard v. State, 290 P.3d 759 (Okla. Crim. App. 2012) (Section 11 multiple-punishment framework and "separate and distinct" analysis)
- Hancock v. State, 155 P.3d 796 (Okla. Crim. App. 2007) (felon-in-possession complete upon possession)
- Maryland v. Buie, 494 U.S. 325 (1990) (protective sweep doctrine during arrest)
- Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128 (1990) (plain-view seizure principles)
- Rutan v. State, 202 P.3d 839 (Okla. Crim. App. 2009) (sufficiency review standard)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (ineffective assistance standard)