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

People v. Comfort

The defendant, convicted in 1982 of murder, attempted murder, and drug charges, had some of his murder convictions later reversed on appeal. He subsequently filed multiple CPL article 440 motions to set aside his sentence, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel due to a conflict of interest and a failure to pursue defenses, and arguing that he was incompetent to stand trial. The court denied his motions to vacate the judgment, finding no sufficient evidence of incompetency and that prior arguments regarding counsel were procedurally barred or refuted by court records. However, the appellate court reversed the portion of the order that resentenced the defendant, noting he was resentenced in his absence and the People conceded the need for resentencing. The case was remitted to the Steuben County Court for resentencing, with discretion to order an updated presentence investigation report.

ResentencingCriminal Procedure LawIneffective Assistance of CounselCompetency to Stand TrialConflict of InterestAppellate ReviewDrug ChargesMurderAttempted MurderPrior Convictions
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Quarles v. State

Appellant, Morrison, a lawyer from Houston, was convicted of barratry and sentenced to 90 days in jail and a $500 fine. The conviction stemmed from his actions in October 1963, following a refinery explosion in Corpus Christi. Morrison, accompanied by a co-indictee, traveled to Corpus Christi and visited the families of victims, falsely identifying themselves as attorneys from Houston and offering legal representation on a contingent fee basis, while criticizing local lawyers. He also displayed newspaper clippings of past successes. Despite not securing any contracts, he was indicted by a grand jury in Nueces County for the misdemeanor offense of barratry. Morrison represented himself in the trial and appeal, challenging the constitutionality of the barratry statute and the grand jury indictment for a misdemeanor. The court affirmed the conviction, finding ample evidence and no reversible error.

barratrysolicitationcontingent feeattorney misconductcriminal misdemeanorgrand jury indictmentconstitutional challengeappellate reviewevidence admissibilityTexas law
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wilcoxson v. State

Bobby R. Wilcoxson, convicted of first-degree murder in 1986, appealed the denial of his post-conviction relief from conviction after his death sentence was reversed due to ineffective assistance of counsel. The core of his appeal alleged ineffective assistance of counsel during the guilt/innocence phase, primarily for failing to investigate his mental competency and the feasibility of an insanity or diminished capacity defense. Evidence presented included his extensive history of mental illness diagnoses (schizophrenia, bipolar disorder) and disruptive prison behavior, but his trial attorneys argued he was competent and actively involved in his defense. The appellate court affirmed the post-conviction court's judgment, finding counsel deficient for not requesting a psychological examination given the evidence, but ultimately concluded Wilcoxson failed to prove he was actually incompetent or prejudiced by counsel's decisions.

Ineffective Assistance of CounselPost-Conviction ReliefMental CompetencyInsanity DefenseDiminished CapacityPsychiatric EvaluationAppellate ReviewFirst Degree MurderDeath Sentence ReversalProcedural Due Process
References
116
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 24, 1985

People v. Gamble

Defendant was convicted of first and second-degree robbery following a jury trial for an incident on April 8, 1984, involving a subway token booth robbery in Manhattan. After his arrest, and despite invoking his right to remain silent, Detective Clinton engaged the defendant, leading to oral and written admissions. The trial court denied the defendant's motion to suppress these statements, deeming them spontaneous. On appeal, even the prosecution conceded some admissions were unlawfully obtained. This dissenting opinion argues that all of defendant's oral and written statements should have been suppressed as they were obtained in violation of his constitutional rights and were not spontaneous. The dissent concludes that the judgment of conviction should be reversed, the statements suppressed, the conviction vacated, and the matter remanded for a new trial.

RobberyFirst Degree RobberySecond Degree RobberyMiranda WarningsRight to Remain SilentRight to CounselSuppression of StatementsSpontaneous StatementsInterrogation EnvironmentHarmless Error
References
16
Case No. E1999-00438-CCA-R3-CD
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 28, 2002

State of Tennessee v. Thomas Dee Huskey

Thomas Dee Huskey appealed convictions for aggravated rape, rape, aggravated robbery, robbery, and kidnapping across four victims. The Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee affirmed convictions in part and reversed in part. The court reversed judgments for three aggravated rape convictions and one especially aggravated kidnapping conviction related to victim D.C. due to improper consolidation, finding the offenses against D.C. were committed differently than the others. The remaining convictions for victims A.D. and G.T. were affirmed, resulting in an adjusted effective sentence of forty-four years in the Department of Correction. The court addressed numerous other issues including speedy trial, unlawful arrest, discovery, and prosecutorial misconduct, generally finding no reversible error.

Criminal LawAppellate ReviewConviction ReversalJudicial DiscretionPretrial PublicityJury SelectionWitness CredibilityEvidentiary RulesSentencing EnhancementConstitutional Rights
References
152
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

State of Tennessee v. Dale Keith Larkin

This opinion addresses the appeal of Dale Keith Larkin, who was convicted of first degree premeditated murder and insurance fraud. The court reversed the convictions, finding that the trial court failed to adequately perform its duty as the thirteenth juror and erred by allowing a key expert witness, Dr. Mileusnic, to testify for the State after initially being retained by the defense. The appellate court further concluded that the State presented insufficient evidence to prove premeditation for the murder charge and insufficient proof for the insurance fraud conviction. Consequently, the first degree murder conviction was reversed and remanded for a new trial on second degree murder, and the insurance fraud conviction was reversed and dismissed. The opinion also addressed other issues raised by the defendant regarding jury sequestration and admission of evidence, finding no error in those aspects.

MurderInsurance FraudAppellate ReviewExpert Witness DisqualificationThirteenth Juror RulePremeditationSufficiency of EvidenceAutopsy PhotographsProsecutorial MisconductMedical Testimony
References
93
Case No. 06-19-00063-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 05, 2020

Reverse Mortgage Funding, LLC v. Carla Nagle Blevins Robertson

Reverse Mortgage Funding, LLC (RMF) appealed a default judgment entered against it after failing to timely answer a lawsuit filed by Carla Nagle Blevins Robertson. Robertson sought to quiet title, asserting that Katie Nagle, who entered a reverse mortgage with RMF's predecessor, only possessed a life estate that terminated upon her death, rendering the mortgage void. RMF moved for a new trial, claiming a meritorious defense as a bona fide mortgagee without actual or constructive notice of Robertson's claim. The Court of Appeals initially affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding RMF failed to factually support its claims of lacking notice. Subsequently, the parties settled, leading to the appeal's dismissal, though the court denied the request to withdraw its earlier opinion, citing its public importance.

Default JudgmentMeritorious DefenseBona Fide MortgageeQuiet Title ActionLife EstateReverse MortgageActual NoticeConstructive NoticeAppellate ProcedureMotion for New Trial
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rodriguez v. State

This is an appeal from jury convictions for two counts of engaging in organized criminal activity, specifically bribery and aggravated theft. The Appellant, Albert Rodriguez, owner of Lamco, was found guilty of orchestrating a kickback scheme involving fraudulent invoices with the El Paso Independent School District (EPISD) and bribing EPISD employees. The appellate court affirmed the conviction, addressing numerous legal issues raised by Rodriguez, including the sufficiency of accomplice witness testimony, the denial of severance for the criminal counts, issues with subpoenas, indictment defects, jury charge instructions, and the admissibility of evidence summaries. The court found no reversible error in the trial court's proceedings.

Criminal appealOrganized crimeBriberyAggravated theftFraudKickbacksAccomplice testimonySufficiency of evidenceJury chargeTrial procedure
References
91
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Dean

The defendant appealed his conviction for rape in the second degree and endangering the welfare of a mentally incompetent person, stemming from sexual intercourse with a mentally impaired victim. Both the defendant and the victim had significant mental impairments, with the defendant functioning at a slightly higher level. The primary issue on appeal was whether the prosecution met its high burden of proving the victim's lack of mental capacity to consent. The appellate court reviewed the evidence, including the long-standing relationship between the defendant and victim, their families' awareness, and evidence of mutual affection. Ultimately, the court found the prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the victim lacked the mental capacity to consent under the specific circumstances. Consequently, the judgment of conviction was reversed, and the indictment dismissed.

Criminal LawSexual OffensesRape Second DegreeEndangering WelfareMentally Incompetent PersonCapacity to ConsentAppellate ReviewWeight of EvidenceParens PatriaeSexual Assault
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 10, 1985

People v. Patten

Defendant was convicted of sodomy in the first degree. The victim, a four-year-old child, reported to his mother that he had been anally sodomized by the defendant, his mother's live-in boyfriend. A medical examination confirmed the presence of seminal fluid in the victim's rectal area, and the defendant subsequently confessed after receiving Miranda warnings. On appeal, the defendant contended that the admission of the infant victim's hearsay statement as an excited utterance was reversible error, that the evidence was legally insufficient, and that the prosecutor's summation comments were improper. The court affirmed the judgment of conviction, finding no error in admitting the excited utterance, overwhelming proof of guilt rendering any error harmless, and the prosecutor's remarks not unduly prejudicial.

SodomyFirst DegreeExcited UtteranceHearsayChild VictimSufficiency of EvidenceProsecutorial MisconductHarmless ErrorUnsworn TestimonyCriminal Appeal
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 9,850 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