Sanders v. State

318 So.3d 605

Antjuan Javien SANDERS, Appellant,

v.STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D19-4461

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 8, 2021

Rehearing Denied May 21, 2021

Jessica J. Yeary, Public Defender, and Justin F. Karpf, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Daren L. Shippy, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

Rowe, J.

Antjuan Javien Sanders appeals his conviction for first-degree murder and his sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole, but with an entitlement to a judicial review after twenty-five years. Sanders asserts that the trial court erred when it denied his motion to suppress, denied his motion for judgment of acquittal, and imposed sentence. Finding no error by the trial court, we affirm.

Facts

Sanders was indicted for first-degree premeditated or felony murder of a fifty-eight-year-old woman who lived in his neighborhood. He was seventeen years old at the time of the murder.

Motion to Suppress

Before trial, Sanders moved to suppress statements he made to the police a year after the victim's death. He argued that the police used improper tactics and did not give a proper Miranda warning. To refute this argument, the State presented the testimony of the two officers who questioned Sanders.

Investigator Lionil Martinez testified that Sanders was at a road prison when the police decided to bring him in for questioning. Officers transported Sanders to the sheriff's office for the interview and Sanders was chained to a table. Martinez then advised Sanders of his Miranda rights by reading to Sanders a standardized waiver of rights form. Martinez agreed that he did not expressly ask Sanders to waive his rights. He handed Sanders the waiver form and asked him to sign it. Martinez described Sanders as calm and able to answer his questions. Martinez denied that he threatened or in any way coerced Sanders. Sergeant Jayson Barnes also testified. Like Martinez, Barnes denied threatening, coercing, or intimidating Sanders.

Sanders testified that he was eighteen years old when the police interviewed him. Sanders stated that he had a tenth-grade education. Although it was not the first time Sanders had ever been read his Miranda warnings, he claimed that he did not understand that he was waiving his Miranda rights when he signed the form provided by the officers. Nor did he realize that he could consult with a court-appointed attorney before answering any questions.

The trial court reviewed the video recording of Sanders’ custodial interrogation by the police. The trial court denied the motion to suppress, finding that Sanders knowingly and voluntarily waived his rights and that the officers did not engage in coercive conduct.

Trial

Edward Juncker, the victim's boyfriend, testified at trial. On the day of the murder, Juncker planned to meet the victim at her home. The victim told Juncker she would leave a spare key for him outside. But when he arrived, the victim's car was in the driveway and the parking lights were on. Juncker saw the victim's purse and checkbook in the car. So he knocked on the house door. But she did not answer. All the doors were locked. Juncker could not find the spare key the victim said she would leave for him. He called her on the phone, but she did not answer. After several hours passed with no word from the victim, Juncker called the police.

Deputy Philip Goble responded to Juncker's call and went to the victim's home to conduct a welfare check. When he knocked on the door and no one answered, Goble peered through a bedroom window. He saw the victim naked lying half on and half off the bed. Goble opened the window and called out to her, but she was unresponsive. Goble's partner, Deputy Holyfield, then entered through the window and unlocked the front door. When the officers approached the victim, she showed no vital signs. She was unresponsive and cold to the touch. Goble observed no signs of forced entry, but the bedroom window would not latch shut.

The victim's daughters reported that someone had used the victim's credit cards in the days after her death. Investigators then ordered an autopsy. Dr. Andrea Minyard conducted the autopsy. She did not see any obvious signs of trauma. But an internal examination revealed possible injuries that could point to a violent death. And the victim showed petechial hemorrhages on her eyes and bruises on her tongue. Based on the inconclusive results from the examination, Dr. Minyard at first characterized the cause and manner of the victim's death as undetermined.

But Dr. Minyard's opinion changed after she received the DNA analysis of biological samples she collected from the victim during the autopsy. The DNA analyst found DNA profiles foreign to the victim on the vaginal and anal swabs collected during the autopsy. The analyst determined that DNA on the vaginal swabs matched Sanders’ DNA profile and that Sanders was also a contributor to the DNA found on the anal swabs.

The DNA results led the police to interview Sanders. The interview took place a year after the murder, and the police recorded the interrogation. At trial, the State played the video for the jury. The video depicts Investigator Martinez informing Sanders of his rights. After Sanders signed a waiver of rights form, the officers told Sanders that they were investigating a homicide. They showed him a picture of the victim. Sanders denied that he knew the victim. But he said he had seen her jogging in the neighborhood.

Martinez then revealed to Sanders that his DNA was found on the victim. Martinez told Sanders this was his chance to tell his side of the story. Sanders confessed, "It started off as a theft." He claimed that he wanted to find items, such as smart phones, that he could sell. He entered the victim's house, but then he heard footsteps and realized he was not alone. As the victim was coming through the doorway of her bedroom, Sanders seized her and choked her to the point of unconsciousness. Sanders stated that he then dragged the victim back into her bedroom, and "jack[ed] off and ejaculat[ed] onto her crotch." After he denied penetrating the victim, the police told him that his semen was found inside the victim's vagina. Sanders confessed that he had vaginal and anal sex with the victim. Afterwards, Sanders took the victim's two cell phones and her credit cards.

When Dr. Minyard learned about the DNA results and Sanders’ confession, she amended the autopsy report. She explained that the new information confirmed that strangulation was the cause of the petechial hemorrhages and bruises she observed on the victim. Dr. Minyard determined that the victim died from strangulation and the manner of death was homicide.

After Dr. Minyard testified, the State played a video of a jail visitation between Sanders and two unidentified men. One of them asked Sanders what happened. Sanders said that "it was supposed to be a burglary" and that he "wasn't supposed to kill nobody." When one of the men said, "they say you killed her and then you raped her," Sanders denied that he raped the victim. He claimed that he slept with the victim the day before her death.

The State then rested. Sanders’ counsel moved for a judgment of acquittal. He conceded that the State presented sufficient evidence for a prima facie case of felony murder. But he argued that the State did not present a prima facie case of premeditated murder. The trial court denied the motion.

The defense then presented its case. Sanders took the stand and denied killing the victim. He claimed that he went to the victim's home the day before she died and the two had consensual vaginal intercourse. When he left the house, the victim was alive. Sanders denied returning to her house the next day. And he claimed that he did not hear of the victim's death until his interview with the police. As for that interview, Sanders contended that when he signed the waiver form, he did not understand that he was waiving his right to have an attorney present during the interrogation. Sanders admitted that he confessed to choking and having sex with the victim. But he did so because he was going along with what the officers told him. And even though he admitted to stealing the victim's phones, he insisted that the victim gave him her credit cards.

The defense then rested. The jury found Sanders guilty of first-degree murder. The trial court sentenced Sanders to life in prison without the possibility for parole, but with an entitlement to a judicial review after twenty-five years. This timely appeal follows.

Analysis

Sanders raises three arguments for reversal of his judgment and sentence. First, he argues that the trial court should have suppressed his confession. Second, he asserts he was entitled to a judgment of acquittal. And third, he argues that the trial court erred in imposing a life sentence. We address each argument in turn.

Suppression

A trial court's ruling on a motion to suppress presents a mixed question of fact and law. Smith v. State , 95 So. 3d 966, 967 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012). We review the court's factual findings for competent, substantial evidence; and we review the court's legal conclusions de novo. Id.

Sanders first argues that the trial court should have granted his motion to suppress his confession because the officers did not adequately inform him of his right to have an attorney present during questioning. But the record refutes this argument. The transcript and video recording of the confession shows that Sanders’ interview began with the officers reading him a standardized waiver form. The form informed Sanders of the following rights:

1. You have the right to remain silent.

2. Anything you say can be used as evidence against you in court.

3. You have the right to have a lawyer present while being questioned.

4. If you cannot afford to hire a lawyer, a lawyer will be appointed for you, without costs before questioning.

5. If you wish

...