Affirmed Decision Archives

F-2018-269

Post author:Staff
Post published:October 3, 2019
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-269, David Anthony Tofflemire appealed his conviction for Possession of Child Pornography. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his conviction. One member of the court dissented. Tofflemire was found guilty at a trial without a jury and received a sentence of sixteen years in prison, with eight of those years suspended. He argued that there was not enough evidence against him, that he did not understand his waiver of the jury trial, and that there was an error in taxing him with an attorney fee even though he had his own lawyer. The court reviewed the case carefully and found that the evidence presented was sufficient for a reasonable person to conclude that Tofflemire knowingly possessed child pornography on his cell phone. They stated that the prosecution provided enough proof to support the conviction. Regarding the waiver of his jury trial, Tofflemire claimed he did not fully understand what he was doing. However, the court noted that he had signed a form waiving his right to a jury trial and that his lawyer acknowledged this waiver on the record. Since there was no evidence of coercion or misunderstanding, the court decided Tofflemire's waiver was valid. Finally, concerning the attorney fee, the court recognized that Tofflemire had hired his own lawyer but also that a fee for a court-appointed lawyer was mentioned in the court documents by mistake. Therefore, the court decided to remand the case back to the district court to correct this clerical error. In conclusion, Tofflemire's conviction was upheld, but the court took action to ensure the records reflected the correct information concerning the attorney fee.

RE-2017-1287

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 6, 2019
Post category:RE

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **Darmaecia Brendette Hill, Appellant,** **vs.** **The State of Oklahoma, Appellee.** **No. RE-2017-1287** **Summary Opinion** **Filed June 6, 2019** **Judge Lewis, Presiding** **ORDER** This appeal arises from the revocation of three and one-half years of suspended sentences in Case Nos. CF-2014-506 and CF-2015-773 in the District Court of Payne County, presided over by Honorable Stephen R. Kistler. **BACKGROUND** In Case No. CF-2014-506, Appellant was convicted of Child Neglect (felony) and Unlawful Possession of Marijuana (misdemeanor), receiving a seven-year sentence with all but the first 120 days suspended. Case No. CF-2015-773 involved a conviction for Unlawful Possession of Controlled Dangerous Substance (Methamphetamine) (felony), also sentenced to seven years with similar suspension conditions. Multiple motions to revoke were filed due to alleged probation violations, including positive drug tests and failure to comply with GPS monitoring. The final revocation hearing on July 25, 2017, resulted in the court revoking three and one-half years of Appellant's suspended sentences. **PROPOSITIONS OF ERROR** 1. **Jurisdictional Issue**: Appellant argues that the District Court unlawfully extended her original sentence by imposing a twelve-month post-confinement supervision after the suspended sentence was revoked. 2. **Excessive Revocation**: Appellant contends that the revocation of three and one-half years of her suspended sentences is excessive considering the circumstances of her case. **ANALYSIS** **Proposition I**: The court finds Appellant’s argument unpersuasive due to the twelve-month post-confinement supervision being within the balance of her original sentences. The initial seven-year sentence, with revocations, allows for this additional supervision under Title 22, § 991a. **Proposition II**: The court concludes that Judge Kistler acted within his discretion in revoking three and one-half years of Appellant's suspended sentences based on the repeated violations of her probation terms. The evidence presented supported the court’s decision as Appellant was granted multiple opportunities for compliance. **DECISION** The order of the District Court of Payne County revoking three and one-half years of Appellant's suspended sentences in Case Nos. CF-2014-506 and CF-2015-773 is ***AFFIRMED.*** **MANDATE**: Pursuant to Rule 3.15, the mandate is ordered issued upon the filing of this decision. **APPEARANCES** - **For Appellant**: Sarah J. Kennedy (Appellate Defense Counsel), Danny Joseph (Appellate Defense Counsel) - **For Appellee**: Karen Dixon (Attorney General of OK), Mike Hunter (Assistant District Attorney), Cierra Saltan (Assistant Attorney General) **OPINION BY**: LEWIS, P.J. **KUEHN, V.P.J.**: Concur **LUMPKIN, J.**: Concur **HUDSON, J.**: Concur **ROWLAND, J.**: Concur **Download PDF**: [Click Here To Download PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/RE-2017-1287_1734707641.pdf)

RE-2018-342

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 9, 2019
Post category:RE

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **JOSHUA ERIC ARMSTRONG,** Appellant, v. **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** Appellee. No. RE-2018-342 **FILED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS** **STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **MAY - 9 2019** **SUMMARY OPINION** **JOHN D. HADDEN, CLERK** **HUDSON, JUDGE:** Appellant Joshua Eric Armstrong appeals from the revocation of his suspended sentence from the Woodward County District Court Case No. CF-2017-5, overseen by the Honorable David A. Work, Associate District Judge. ### Background On March 31, 2017, Appellant pled no contest to the charge of Possession/Concealing Stolen Property, leading to a five-year sentence, with all but the first two months suspended. On March 8, 2018, the State sought to revoke Appellant's suspended sentence on various grounds: failure to report, providing a false address, testing positive for methamphetamine, failing to pay court costs, prosecution reimbursement fees, restitution, and committing Grand Larceny (Case No. CF-2018-11). At the March 27, 2018, hearing, Judge Work revoked four years of Armstrong's suspended sentence. ### Appellant's Claims 1. **Proposition I**: Judge Work’s pronouncements were insufficient regarding the alleged probation violations. - **Finding**: No statutory requirement exists for detailed findings at revocation. The petition sufficiently informed Appellant of the grounds. 2. **Propositions II, III, and V**: The State did not prove certain alleged violations. - **Finding**: The State proved other violations; only one is necessary for revocation. 3. **Proposition IV**: Insufficient evidence to prove a false address. - **Finding**: Evidence indicated Appellant likely provided a false address. 4. **Proposition VI**: Improper revocation for unemployment not alleged in the petition. - **Finding**: Appellant failed to object during the hearing, waiving the issue for all but plain error review, which he did not establish. 5. **Proposition VII**: The trial court abused discretion in revoking part of the suspended sentence instead of requiring treatment. - **Finding**: Evidence supported the violations alleged in the petition, and there was no abuse of discretion. ### Decision The revocation of Appellant's suspended sentence in Woodward County District Court Case No. CF-2017-5 is **AFFIRMED**. Mandate to be issued upon filing of this decision. **Appearances**: **Counsel for Defendant**: Ryan D. Recker **Counsel for Appellant**: Sarah MacNiven **Counsel for the State**: Kate Loughlin, Mike Hunter, Keeley L. Miller **OPINION BY**: HUDSON, J. **LEWIS, P.J.**: CONCUR **KUEHN, V.P.J.**: CONCUR **LUMPKIN, J.**: CONCUR **ROWLAND, J.**: CONCUR [Download PDF of Opinion](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/RE-2018-342_1734697264.pdf)

F-2018-104

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 9, 2019
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-104, Dameon Tyrese Lundy appealed his conviction for Possession of a Controlled Drug with Intent to Distribute. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his conviction. One judge dissented. Dameon Tyrese Lundy was found guilty by a jury in Tulsa County for having drugs and cash that suggested he intended to sell drugs. He was sentenced to sixty years in prison and had to pay a fine. He was acquitted of another charge related to money from drug sales. Lundy had two main arguments in his appeal. First, he said the trial court made a mistake by not allowing his lawyer to suppress evidence found by the police. He argued that the police did not have the right to approach him outside a bar. However, the court found that the police were allowed to speak to him in a public place and had a good reason to suspect him because they could smell marijuana and he acted suspiciously. So, they decided there was no mistake by the trial court. Secondly, Lundy claimed there wasn't enough evidence to prove that he intended to sell drugs. His defense was that the drugs were for personal use, but the court said that a reasonable jury could think that Lundy was selling drugs due to the large amount of different drugs and cash he had. This means that the evidence was enough to support his conviction. Lundy then argued that his sentence was too harsh. He pointed out that the laws changed after his crime, meaning someone charged now would face a lower maximum sentence. However, the court stated that the new laws couldn’t be applied to Lundy's case because his crime was committed before the law changed. They concluded that the sentence was proper because of his past convictions. In the end, the court upheld the original decision from the district court, meaning Lundy will have to serve his sentence.

RE 2016-0784

Post author:Staff
Post published:February 15, 2017
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE 2016-0784, James Wilbur Allen appealed his conviction for the revocation of his suspended sentences related to six counts of Child Sexual Abuse. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of his suspended sentences. One judge dissented.

S-2009-1176

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 1, 2010
Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2009-1176, Don Wayne Townsend Jr. appealed his conviction for Omission to Provide for Minor Child. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the trial court's dismissal of the case. No one dissented. In this case, Townsend was initially charged with not providing for his child, which was a violation of the law. However, after the state presented its evidence, the trial judge decided that the evidence was not strong enough to continue the trial. The state then sought to appeal this decision, asking if the judge made a mistake in dismissing the case. The court looked carefully at the situation and found that the state's question was not really about the law, but rather about whether the evidence was enough to prove Townsend's guilt. The court explained that proving someone is guilty requires showing they willfully did not support their child for a long time. They also stated that it must be shown that the person had a legal obligation to pay child support. Ultimately, the court agreed with the trial judge's decision and found no error in dismissing the case against Townsend. This means that the matter was closed and he could not be tried again for this charge. The court's decision was recorded, and they indicated that the dismissal order would stand.

S-2007-31

Post author:Staff
Post published:March 7, 2008
Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2007-31, Riccardo Gino Ferrante appealed his conviction for violating Oklahoma's Peeping Tom statute. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the district court's order that granted the defendant's motion to quash the charges. One judge dissented. The facts of the case began when Mr. Ferrante was charged with taking inappropriate photographs of a woman in a store without her permission. The law he was charged under says that it is not allowed to use cameras to secretly take pictures of someone in places where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy, like dressing rooms or restrooms. The key issue in this case was whether the woman had a reasonable expectation of privacy when she was in the store. The district court decided that the law did not apply in this situation because the store was not a place where the woman could expect privacy. The State of Oklahoma disagreed and appealed the decision. However, the court agreed with the lower court's analysis, saying that the law is clear and does not include what the defendant did. They explained that they cannot expand the law beyond its clear meaning. Ultimately, the higher court upheld the lower court's decision to dismiss the case against Ferrante, saying the action he took was not against the law as written. One judge felt strongly that this decision was wrong and pointed out that when someone dresses modestly, they expect their covered body to remain private. This dissent illustrates the concern about privacy rights for individuals in public spaces.

S-2005-890

Post author:Staff
Post published:December 19, 2006
Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2005-890, Ryan Layne Short and Victor Suarez Ortuno appealed their conviction for drug-related charges. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the District Court's dismissal of the case against both defendants. One judge dissented. Ryan Layne Short and Victor Suarez Ortuno were charged with several crimes, including trafficking illegal drugs and other drug-related offenses. On September 1, 2005, the District Court decided to dismiss the charges after finding that the traffic stop that led to the arrests was illegal. This decision went through different hearings, with judges initially disagreeing before ultimately siding with the defendants. The main reason for upholding the dismissal was that the officer lacked sufficient evidence to justify the traffic stop. The court reviewed whether the District Court had made any mistakes in handling the case. They concluded that the court had acted correctly by recognizing that there was no valid reason to stop the vehicle. In summary, the court supported the District Court’s decision to dismiss the case against Short and Ortuno because the initial traffic stop was not lawful. This meant that evidence gathered during that stop could not be used against them. One judge disagreed with this outcome, believing that the case should have been handled differently.

S-2004-1009

Post author:Staff
Post published:July 7, 2005
Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2004-1009, the State of Oklahoma appealed the conviction of Donald Isaiah Phares for negligent homicide. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the dismissal of the prosecution. One judge dissented. To summarize, this case started from a car accident on September 15, 2003, where Phares was involved in a collision that resulted in another driver's death. Phares was first charged with a traffic offense for failing to stop at a stop sign and paid a fine for that. Later, in January 2004, the State filed a charge of negligent homicide against him, claiming his action of not stopping at the stop sign was reckless. Phares argued that being prosecuted for negligent homicide after already being punished for the traffic violation was unfair and violated his rights to not be punished twice for the same act. The court agreed with him, stating that both charges came from the same action, and therefore, he could not be punished for both. They found that the traffic offense was part of the negligent homicide claim and ruling that prosecuting Phares again for negligent homicide would lead to double punishment. The court decided the district court's dismissal was correct as the two charges stemmed from the same event, adhering to the law that prevents someone from facing multiple punishments for the same act. Thus, the court upheld the dismissal of the negligent homicide case against Phares.