SANDERS v. STATE
2015 OK CR 11
| Okla. Crim. App. | 2015Background
- Sanders was convicted by jury of Possession of a Firearm After Former Conviction and Knowingly Concealing Stolen Property After Former Conviction in Payne County (CF-2013-604).
- Jury recommended 10 years for Count I and 2 years for Count II; sentences run concurrently.
- Glock 17C2, found in plain view during a protective sweep, was identified as stolen via serial number.
- The same firearm formed the basis for both convictions arising from a single act on or about September 5, 2013.
- The State sought enhanced punishments based on prior felonies; the information alleged a prior conviction for possession of a controlled substance.
- The trial court denied a motion to dismiss Count II, prompting an appeal that challenged multiple punishment, trial structure, and sufficiency issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 11 prohibiting multiple punishments was violated | Sanders asserts two convictions arose from one act with the gun. | State contends separate acts justify different punishments. | Count II must be dismissed for Section 11 violation. |
| Whether the trial proceeded with an improper three-stage process | Sanders contends a three-stage process was required. | State argues two-stage proceeding properly framed sentencing and prior-conviction considerations. | Two-stage proceeding was proper; no abuse of discretion. |
| Whether suppression and search-related rulings affected Count I | Arrest and search were unlawful or improperly conducted. | Buie protective sweep and plain-view seizure were lawful. | Protection sweep and plain-view seizure valid; no suppression error. |
| Whether evidence supports felon-in-possession and sufficiency for Count I | Evidence insufficient to prove possession beyond reasonable doubt. | Evidence showed Sanders exercised dominion and control over the gun. | Sufficient evidence to sustain felon-in-possession conviction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Barnard v. State, 290 P.3d 759 (Okla. Crim. App. 2012) (determine whether offenses arise from one act for § 11 analysis)
- Davis v. State, 993 P.2d 124 (Okla. Crim. App. 1999) (framework for double punishment analysis)
- Hancock v. State, 155 P.3d 796 (Okla. Crim. App. 2007) (felon in possession complete on possession; later acts may be separate crimes)
- Williams v. State, 22 P.3d 702 (Okla. Crim. App. 2001) (channeling jury decision-making with proper limiting instructions)
- Maryland v. Buie, 494 U.S. 325 (U.S. Supreme Court 1990) (protective sweep permissible under Fourth Amendment when lawful access exists)
- Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128 (U.S. Supreme Court 1990) (plain view exception linked to lawful access)