David Andrew Sanders v The State Of Oklahoma

F-2018-892

Filed: Sep. 5, 2019

Not for publication

Prevailing Party: The State Of Oklahoma

Summary

David Andrew Sanders appealed his conviction for committing new crimes while on probation. Conviction and sentence were affirmed. Judge Lumpkin dissented.

Decision

The order of the district court of Oklahoma County accelerating Appellant's deferred judgment and sentencing in Case Nos. CF-2012-2326 and CF-2016-1178 is AFFIRMED. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2019), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon delivery and filing of this decision.

Issues

• Was there sufficient evidence to establish that Appellant had committed new offenses in support of the acceleration of his deferred sentence?
• Did the district court err in considering the discovery of the firearm, glass pipe, and methamphetamine as part of the evidence against the Appellant due to an alleged unlawful search?
• Was the exclusionary rule applicable in the context of the acceleration proceeding, and did the district court abuse its discretion in its determination regarding the lawfulness of the officers' actions?

Findings

• the court did not err in considering the discovery of evidence for the acceleration of the sentence
• the evidence was sufficient to establish that Appellant had committed new offenses
• the order of the district court accelerating Appellant's deferred judgment and sentencing is affirmed

F-2018-892

Sep. 5, 2019

David Andrew Sanders

Appellant

v

The State Of Oklahoma

Appellee

SUMMARY OPINION

LEWIS, PRESIDING JUDGE: Appellant David Andrew Sanders appeals from the acceleration of his deferred sentencing in Oklahoma County District Court Case Nos. CF-2012-2326 and CF-2016-1178. On April 29, 2016, in Case No. CF-2012-2326, Appellant entered no contest pleas to Burglary in the First Degree (21 O.S. § 1431) (Count 1) and Pointing a Firearm at Another (21 O.S. § 1279) (Count 3). On the same date, in Case No. CF-2016-1178, Appellant entered a plea of guilty to the misdemeanor offense of Larceny of Merchandise from a Retailer (21 O.S. § 1731). Pursuant to a plea agreement, sentencing was deferred for ten (10) years on the burglary count, five (5) years on the firearms charge and 30 days on the larceny charge. The sentences were ordered to be served concurrently.

On November 28, 2017, the State filed an Application to Accelerate the Deferred Sentence alleging Appellant had committed new offenses. At the conclusion of a hearing held August 21, 2018, the Honorable Glenn M. Jones, District Judge, found the State’s evidence sufficient to establish that Appellant had committed the new offenses of possession of a firearm while on probation, possession of a controlled dangerous substance and possession of drug paraphernalia. Mr. Sanders appeals the acceleration of his sentences. We affirm.

The hearing on the State’s motion to accelerate consisted of the testimony of Oklahoma City police officer Matthew Mauldin. At approximately 11 a.m. on May 6, 2017, Officer Mauldin and his partner were called to investigate a report of a man passed out in an idling car. When the officers approached the car, they found Appellant unconscious in the driver’s seat with the motor running and a handgun in his lap. In the course of rousing and arresting Appellant, who according to the testimony was obviously intoxicated, Mauldin discovered a glass pipe. During a subsequent search of the car, methamphetamine was found in the car’s console.

On appeal, Appellant contends the discovery of the gun, pipe and methamphetamine was the result of an unlawful search. According to Appellant, it was, therefore, error for the district court to consider the discovery of these items in support of the State’s case for acceleration. We do not agree. Of note is the fact that this is an acceleration proceeding not a full-blown trial. With regard to the substantially similar hearing to determine whether a suspended sentence should be revoked, we have held the exclusionary rule would not be applied in such hearings absent egregious police misconduct. Richardson v. State, 1992 OK CR 76, I 3, 841 P.2d 603, 604. The district court found nothing of the sort and our task is to review the district court’s decision for an abuse of discretion. Whitaker v. State, 2015 OK CR 1, I 5, 341 P.3d 87, 89. An abuse of discretion is any unreasonable or arbitrary action taken without proper consideration of the facts and law pertaining to the issue; a clearly erroneous conclusion and judgment, clearly against the logic and effect of the facts. State v. Farthing, 2014 OK CR 4, I 4, 328 P.3d 1208, 1209. The district court found the officers acted reasonably and, with regard to the discovery of the methamphetamine, with probable cause. In reaching these conclusions, the district court did not abuse its discretion.

DECISION

The order of the district court of Oklahoma County accelerating Appellant’s deferred judgment and sentencing in Case Nos. CF-2012-2326 and CF-2016-1178 is AFFIRMED. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2019), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon delivery and filing of this decision.

Click Here To Download PDF

Footnotes:

1. Richardson v. State, 1992 OK CR 76, I 3, 841 P.2d 603, 604.
2. Whitaker U. State, 2015 OK CR 1, I 5, 341 P. 3d 87, 89.
3. State U. Farthing, 2014 OK 3 CR 4, I 4, 328 P.3d 1208, 1209.
4. Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2019).

Oklahoma Statutes citations:

• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 1431 - Burglary in the First Degree
• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 1279 - Pointing a Firearm at Another
• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 1731 - Larceny of Merchandise from a Retailer
• Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 780 - Sentencing Procedures

Oklahoma Administrative Rules citations:

No Oklahoma administrative rules found.

U.S. Code citations:

No US Code citations found.

Other citations:

No other rule citations found.

Case citations:

• Richardson v. State, 1992 OK CR 76, I 3, 841 P.2d 603, 604
• Whitaker v. State, 2015 OK CR 1, I 5, 341 P.3d 87, 89
• State v. Farthing, 2014 OK 3 CR 4, I 4, 328 P.3d 1208, 1209