CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Muniz v. State

The appellant appealed a conviction for burglary of a habitation, raising two main issues: lack of probable cause for his arrest and discrimination in the grand jury selection process in Harris County. The court affirmed the conviction, finding that Officer Spies had probable cause to arrest the appellant based on his suspicious behavior and discovered evidence, specifically a screwdriver linking him to an earlier burglary. Furthermore, the court ruled that the appellant failed to demonstrate a prima facie case of systematic exclusion of Mexican-Americans from grand juries, citing recent studies that showed no significant disparity in representation. Challenges regarding the exclusion of low-income and blue-collar workers were also dismissed. The judgment was affirmed.

Burglary of HabitationProbable CauseWarrantless ArrestGrand Jury SelectionRacial DiscriminationMexican-AmericansEqual ProtectionMotion to Quash IndictmentTexas Court of Criminal AppealsCriminal Procedure
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Moore v. State

The appellant appealed a conviction for burglary of a habitation, resulting in a life sentence. The appeal raised four contentions: improper introduction of reputation testimony, denial of a hearing to test a photographic lineup, failure to charge the jury on cruel and unusual punishment, and failure to charge the jury on serving the full sentence. The court addressed each point, noting that reputation testimony based on specific acts, while questionable, was authorized by precedent from the Court of Criminal Appeals. The court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding no merit in the appellant's contentions.

Criminal LawAppealBurglaryRapeReputation TestimonyHearsay ExceptionSpecific Acts EvidencePhotographic LineupCruel and Unusual PunishmentJury Charge
References
10
Case No. PD-0758-15
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 01, 2015

Morgan, Dewan

Regina Raglin invited her boyfriend, Dewan Morgan (Appellee), to live with her. She paid rent, and he contributed to household expenses. They had an argument, and fearing Appellee, Regina invited a male friend over. Upon Appellee's return, he saw the friend, and Regina locked a deadbolt, making his key useless. Appellee pounded on the door, rang the doorbell, yelled, shattered a kitchen window, and ultimately kicked down the door. He then assaulted Regina. A jury convicted Appellee of burglary of a habitation, and he was sentenced to 12 years. The Second Court of Appeals reversed the burglary conviction, affirmed a lesser included assault, and remanded for new punishment proceedings. The State now petitions for discretionary review, arguing that trial and appellate courts should primarily use the Penal Code's definition of 'owner' rather than property law principles. The State also seeks clarification on how much time must elapse after a victim revokes consent for a live-in partner's entry for it to be considered a burglary.

Burglary of HabitationProperty LawPenal CodeConsent to EnterCo-tenancyDomestic ViolenceAppellate ReviewSufficiency of EvidenceLesser-Included OffenseTexas Criminal Appeals
References
18
Case No. 07-05-0202-CR
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 30, 2005

Gilbert Leija, Jr. v. State

Gilbert Leija, Jr. appealed his conviction for burglary of a habitation, challenging the legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence and the trial court's refusal to permit cross-examination of the victim about a pending criminal investigation. The court found sufficient evidence to support the burglary conviction, noting that the appellant was found uninvited inside the home near unplugged appliances, was in need of money, and had a history of stealing. The court also upheld the trial court's decision to exclude evidence of the victim's pending criminal investigation, as she had not been convicted of a felony or crime of moral turpitude. The judgment of the trial court was affirmed.

BurglarySufficiency of EvidenceCriminal LawAppellate ProcedureCross-ExaminationWitness CredibilityTexas Penal CodeTexas Rules of EvidenceTheftHabitation
References
11
Case No. 01-09-00267-CR
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 30, 2010

Darrell Jones v. State

Darrell Jones was convicted of burglary of a habitation and sentenced to 25 years imprisonment after a jury trial and subsequent change of election to trial court sentencing following evidence of prior convictions. On appeal to the First District of Texas Court of Appeals, Jones raised five issues, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence for his conviction, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel, arguing the trial court erred by not instructing on lesser-included offenses (burglary of a building and theft), disputing the voluntariness of his plea to enhancement paragraphs, and claiming inadequate sentencing admonishments. The Court of Appeals upheld its jurisdiction and, after reviewing each issue, found no merit in Jones's contentions. Consequently, the judgment of the trial court was affirmed.

Burglary of HabitationSufficiency of EvidenceIneffective Assistance of CounselLesser-Included OffenseVoluntary PleaSentencing AdmonishmentsCriminal AppealTexas LawPrior ConvictionsHabitual Offender
References
37
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Brown

The defendant appealed a judgment convicting them of three counts of burglary in the second degree and three counts of petit larceny. The appellate court found the jury's verdict was supported by legally sufficient and corroborated evidence, including accomplice testimony and other physical and testimonial evidence. The court rejected the defendant's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, error in denying a request for different assigned counsel, and two suppression issues related to a search warrant and a photographic array. Additionally, the court found the Sandoval ruling appropriate and the imposed sentence was not an abuse of discretion, noting a statutory reduction in the aggregate maximum term of the sentence.

Criminal LawAppealBurglaryPetit LarcenyAccomplice TestimonyCorroborative EvidenceEvidentiary SufficiencyIneffective Assistance of CounselSuppression HearingSandoval Ruling
References
45
Case No. 03-07-00014-CR
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 29, 2007

Quintin Joseph Carruthers v. State

Appellant Quintin Joseph Carruthers pleaded guilty to burglary of a habitation and was sentenced to twenty years in prison, along with a $4,000 restitution order. Appellant appealed, arguing there was no factual basis in the record for the restitution amount. The court reviewed the victim's testimony which identified stolen items and confirmed a total loss of $4,000. The appellate court concluded that the victim's testimony provided an adequate factual basis for the restitution order. The judgment of conviction was affirmed.

BurglaryRestitutionFactual BasisCriminal ProcedureSentencingAppellate ReviewWitness TestimonyProperty LossTexas Penal CodeTexas Code of Criminal Procedure
References
6
Case No. 07-08-0270-CR
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 08, 2009

Michael Lynn Skaggs v. State

Michael Lynn Skaggs was convicted of burglary of a habitation and sentenced to ten years probation. The State later filed a motion to revoke his probation, which the trial court granted, leading to a ten-year imprisonment sentence. Skaggs appealed this revocation and judgment. His appointed counsel filed an Anders brief, concluding that the appeal was without merit after diligent review of the record. The appellate court conducted its own independent review and concurred with counsel's conclusion, finding no reversible error and affirming the trial court's judgment.

Criminal AppealProbation RevocationBurglary of a HabitationAnders BriefAppellate ProcedureFrivolous AppealSufficiency of EvidenceDue ProcessTexas LawMemorandum Opinion
References
1
Case No. 03-18-00185-CR
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 31, 2019

Charles Edward Smith v. State

Appellant Charles Edward Smith was convicted by a jury of burglary of a habitation and sentenced to twenty-five years' confinement as a habitual offender. On appeal, Smith challenged the sufficiency of the evidence, the admission of evidence of prior bad acts, and the alleged lack of proper notice for habitual offender sentencing. The Court of Appeals found the evidence sufficient to support the conviction, noting that circumstantial evidence, motive, and opportunity linked Smith to the crime. The court also determined that Smith failed to preserve his complaints regarding the prior bad acts and the habitual offender sentencing for appellate review. The judgment of conviction was affirmed, with a modification to correct a clerical error in the 'Statute for Offense' designation.

Burglary of HabitationHabitual Offender SentencingSufficiency of EvidencePrior Bad Acts EvidenceAppellate ProcedureCriminal Due ProcessTexas Criminal LawEvidentiary ReviewCircumstantial EvidenceFelony Conviction
References
47
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Joseph

Justice Manzanet-Daniels dissents in part regarding a conviction for second-degree burglary. The dissent argues that the basement, which was entirely sealed off and inaccessible from the residences above, should not qualify as a 'dwelling' under the burglary statute, referencing legal precedents set in Quinn v People and People v McCray. The core argument is that the increased penalty for dwelling burglary is meant to prevent 'midnight terror' and 'danger to human life,' which do not apply when the burglarized area is remote and inaccessible from living quarters. The dissent emphasizes that the critical factor for determining a 'dwelling' is the close contiguity and accessibility between residential and nonresidential elements, not necessarily the building's size. Therefore, the conviction for second-degree burglary should be reversed.

BurglarySecond Degree BurglaryDwellingAccessibilityInaccessibilityLiving QuartersStatutory InterpretationCriminal LawProperty CrimeDissenting Opinion
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 83 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational