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. E2018-02135-CCA-R3-CD
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 22, 2019

State of Tennessee v. Henry Nicholas Brown

The Defendant, Henry Nicholas Brown, appealed his consecutive twelve-year sentence for aggravated assault, evading arrest, and reckless endangerment from the Roane County Criminal Court. The trial court based its consecutive sentencing decision on Brown's extensive criminal history and the fact that he committed the offenses while on probation. Brown contended that the trial court erred in imposing consecutive sentences, arguing that his actions arose from a single criminal episode. The Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee at Knoxville affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding that an extensive criminal history and probationary status are sufficient grounds for consecutive sentencing under state law, regardless of whether the offenses arose from a single criminal episode.

Criminal AppealSentencingConsecutive SentencesAggravated AssaultEvading ArrestReckless EndangermentCriminal HistoryProbation ViolationOfficer InjuryTraffic Stop
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 14, 2002

People v. Fernandez

The defendant was convicted of assault in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree after a jury trial in Bionx County. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment and concurrent sentences of six years and one year, respectively. The verdict was upheld against the weight of the evidence, as the jury properly rejected the defendant's justification defense, finding his use of force unjustified despite the complainant reaching for the knife first. The court noted that the defendant inflicted severe injuries while remaining uninjured and was still advancing with a knife on the unarmed, retreating complainant when police arrived. Additionally, the court properly redacted a reference to past drug use from the complainant's medical triage sheet due to a lack of proper foundation and irrelevance to treatment. The defendant's ability to cross-examine on the complainant's drug use at the time of the incident was not precluded.

Criminal LawAssault Second DegreeCriminal Possession of a WeaponJustification DefenseSelf-DefenseWeight of EvidenceCredibility DeterminationMedical Records RedactionHearsay RuleCross-Examination
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Sessa

Defendants Michael Sessa, Victor Orena, and Pasquale Amato were convicted of racketeering, loansharking, and firearms offenses committed while conducting the affairs and warring over the leadership of the Colombo organized crime family. The court found that these mobsters thrived in and cultivated a complex, pervasive culture of crime, infesting and draining communities and industries in New York City through activities like loansharking and labor union corruption. The presiding judge emphasized that considerations of incapacitation and general deterrence overwhelmingly require harsh sentences, given the defendants' past histories as recidivists and the severe danger they pose to the community. Although the Sentencing Guidelines mandated life imprisonment, the court found them of little assistance in capturing the overall picture of the defendants' extensive criminal lives. Consequently, each defendant was sentenced to life in prison, with additional consecutive terms for firearm offenses, and substantial cumulative fines, with the court noting upward departures from the Guidelines due to the heinous nature of the offenses and the ongoing danger posed by the defendants.

RacketeeringLoansharkingFirearms OffensesOrganized CrimeColombo FamilySentencing MemorandumLife ImprisonmentCriminal EnterpriseGeneral DeterrenceIncapacitation
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Perez

This Order addresses challenges by six defendants to the constitutionality of the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 and the Sentencing Guidelines. District Judge Nowlin found that the Act violates the separation of powers doctrine and Article I, Section 7 of the U.S. Constitution, particularly concerning the composition and authority of the Sentencing Commission and the lack of presidential presentment for the Guidelines. The Court further ruled that the Sentencing Guidelines infringe upon defendants' due process rights by unduly restricting judicial discretion in sentencing and limiting the consideration of individual circumstances. While concluding the unconstitutional provisions could be severed, the Court directed that, pending appellate review, sentences for offenses committed after November 1, 1987, should be determined as if committed before that date, accounting for the absence of parole.

Sentencing Reform ActSentencing GuidelinesConstitutional LawSeparation of PowersArticle IDue ProcessJudicial DiscretionFederal Criminal JusticeJudicial IndependencePresentment Clause
References
42
Case No. E2010-01558-CCA-R3-CD
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 06, 2011

State of Tennessee v. Victor D. McMiller

Victor D. McMiller was convicted of multiple counts of sale and delivery of dihydrocodeinone, a Schedule III controlled substance, in Sullivan County and received a 24-year consecutive sentence. On direct appeal, McMiller challenged the sufficiency of the evidence regarding drug classification and identity, the admissibility of prior bad acts testimony, the facial validity of the presentment, and the consecutive sentencing. The Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee at Knoxville affirmed the convictions and sentences, finding the evidence sufficient, the prior acts issue waived, the presentment error harmless surplusage, and the consecutive sentences justified by McMiller's extensive criminal history as a professional criminal.

Criminal lawControlled substanceDrug saleDrug deliveryDihydrocodeinoneSchedule III controlled substanceSufficiency of evidencePrior bad acts testimonyPresentment validityConsecutive sentencing
References
22
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 06622 [243 AD3d 923]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 26, 2025

People v. Jia Xi Liu

This case concerns an appeal by Jia Xi Liu from a judgment convicting him of several offenses, including criminally negligent homicide and criminal possession of a forged instrument in the third degree, following a nonjury trial. The Supreme Court, Kings County, had sentenced him, as a second felony offender, to various terms of imprisonment. The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction for criminally negligent homicide, finding the evidence legally sufficient and the verdict not against the weight of the evidence. However, the court identified an illegal sentence for criminal possession of a forged instrument in the third degree, as a class A misdemeanor received an indeterminate term of imprisonment of 1 1/2 to 3 years, exceeding the statutory maximum of one year. Consequently, the judgment was modified by vacating that specific sentence, and the matter was remitted to the Supreme Court for resentencing on that conviction.

Criminally Negligent HomicideCriminal MischiefFalse InstrumentFraudulent PracticesWorkers' Compensation FraudTax FraudForged InstrumentIllegal SentenceResentencingAppellate Review
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 03, 1978

People v. Murray

The Supreme Court, Bronx County, rendered a judgment on November 3, 1978, convicting the defendant-appellant of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, which led to an appeal. The defendant failed to appear for a scheduled court appearance during pretrial proceedings but subsequently returned and entered a guilty plea. Initial discussions regarding a plea for a one-year minimum sentence were deemed conditional and non-binding due to the defendant's abscondence. The defendant ultimately entered a plea with the understanding of a three-year minimum sentence, with a provision for withdrawal if the probation report suggested a harsher punishment. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, highlighting the defendant's prior arrests for drug-related offenses and emphasizing the importance of upholding judicial rules against flouting court directives.

Criminal LawPlea BargainAbscondingControlled SubstanceAppellate ReviewSentencingJudicial DiscretionWithdrawal of PleaProbation ReportBronx County
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 02, 1999

People v. Abdul

The defendant was convicted after a jury trial in the Supreme Court, New York County, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and sentenced to a term of 2 to 6 years. The judgment was unanimously affirmed by the Appellate Division. The court determined that the verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and there was no basis to disturb the jury's credibility determinations. The court properly denied the defendant’s preclusion motion regarding a statement made to Emergency Medical Services (EMS) personnel, finding no evidence that EMS workers acted as police agents and that the inquiry was not an interrogation. The appellate court also found no basis for a reduction of the sentence and rejected the defendant's remaining claims.

Criminal LawControlled SubstancesJury TrialEvidence SufficiencyPreclusion MotionPolice AgencyInterrogationSentence ReviewAppellate Affirmation
References
3
Case No. M2012-00304-CCA-R3-CD
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 28, 2013

State of Tennessee v. Jim George Conaser

The Defendant, Jim George Conaser, appealed his conviction for harassment and the imposition of consecutive sentencing from the Criminal Court for Davidson County. Conaser contended the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction and that the trial court's consecutive sentencing was improper. The Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee affirmed the lower court's judgment, finding ample evidence, including victim testimony and voice messages, to support the harassment conviction. The appellate court also upheld the consecutive sentences, citing Conaser's extensive criminal history as a valid basis for the trial court's decision to protect the public.

Criminal LawHarassment ConvictionSufficiency of EvidenceConsecutive SentencingAppellate ReviewTennesseeCriminal HistoryVictim TestimonySexual HarassmentTrial Court Affirmation
References
15
Case No. Nos. 00-08557, 58; No. W2002-00446-CCA-R3-CD
Regular Panel Decision
May 28, 2003

State of Tennessee v. Theron Davis

Theron Davis was convicted in Shelby County Criminal Court of especially aggravated robbery and criminal attempt to commit second-degree murder, stemming from his role in robbing and shooting a Memphis jewelry store owner. He received consecutive sentences of twenty-three and twelve years, respectively. Davis appealed, challenging the trial court's decision to overrule his motion to suppress the victim’s identification testimony, the denial of a special jury instruction, the instruction on the definition of 'knowingly,' and the imposition of consecutive sentencing. The Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee affirmed the trial court's judgments. The appellate court found that the identification procedure was not impermissibly suggestive, the jury instructions were adequate and proper, and the consecutive sentences were justified given Davis's classification as a dangerous offender and the severity of his offenses.

Especially aggravated robberyCriminal attempt to commit second degree murderIdentification testimonyMotion to suppressJury instructionsConsecutive sentencingDangerous offenderFirearm useVictim injuryCriminal intent
References
27
Showing 1-10 of 1,250 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