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. 2016-1509 OR CR
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 16, 2018

People v. Nagler (Sandra)

Sandra Nagler appealed six judgments from the Justice Court of the Town of Wallkill, Orange County, primarily challenging her conviction for common-law driving while intoxicated (DWI). Following a nonjury trial, she was found guilty based on testimony from Trooper Brad Natalizio, who responded to an accident where Nagler admitted to falling asleep after consuming alcohol. The Justice Court initially sentenced Nagler to 45 days incarceration and three years' probation for the DWI conviction. On appeal, the Appellate Term, Second Department, dismissed the appeals for other traffic infractions as abandoned. While upholding the legal sufficiency of the evidence for the DWI conviction, the Appellate Term found the 45-day jail sentence excessive, considering Nagler's community involvement and lack of prior criminal history. Consequently, the court modified the sentence, reducing the term of incarceration to time served while affirming the conviction.

Driving While IntoxicatedDUIDWIVehicle and Traffic LawAppellate ReviewSentence ModificationExcessive SentenceCommon-law DWIOrange CountyTown of Wallkill
References
23
Case No. No. 06-03-00204-CR
Regular Panel Decision
May 20, 2004

James Glenn Jacobs v. State

James Glenn Jacobs appealed his felony driving while intoxicated (DWI) conviction. He was found intoxicated and unconscious near a wrecked vehicle, which was running and damaged. Jacobs challenged the trial court's admission of medical records as containing double hearsay, arguing the objection was improperly overruled. He also contended that the evidence was legally and factually insufficient to prove he operated the vehicle. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding Jacobs failed to preserve his objection to the medical records due to lack of specificity. Furthermore, his prior guilty plea to driving without insurance, an offense requiring operation of a vehicle, was deemed sufficient evidence to support the DWI conviction.

DWIFelonyCriminal LawTexas Court of AppealsEvidence AdmissibilityHearsayBusiness Records ExceptionSufficiency of EvidenceVehicle OperationIntoxication
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Brennan v. State

Randy Ray Brennan appealed his felony driving while intoxicated (DWI) conviction, arguing that the Kaufman County Court at Law lacked subject matter jurisdiction because felony cases require a twelve-person jury, while county courts constitutionally seat only six. The appellate court clarified that statutory county courts, unlike constitutional county courts, can lawfully empanel twelve jurors for felony DWI cases, affirming the trial court's jurisdiction. Brennan also raised multiple claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, including failures to object to evidence, ensure a complete voir dire record, and present mitigation evidence. The court reviewed each claim, finding no deficiency in counsel's performance or no resulting prejudice, and consequently overruled all of Brennan's ineffective assistance arguments. The trial court's judgment was affirmed.

Driving While IntoxicatedFelony DWISubject Matter JurisdictionStatutory County CourtJury CompositionIneffective Assistance of CounselAppellate ReviewTrial StrategyVoir DireEvidence Admissibility
References
41
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Miller v. O'BRYAN

Plaintiff Donahue Miller filed a Section 1983 action against the Town of Ulster Police Department and several officers, alleging illegal search and seizure, denial of due process, forced medical treatment under New York Public Health Law, and denial of the right to counsel. Miller's claims stemmed from his arrest for Driving While Intoxicated (DWI) in June 2003, during which he was taken for medical treatment against his will and denied counsel before a chemical test. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing Miller waived his claims by pleading guilty to the DWI charge. The court denied the waiver argument but sua sponte reviewed the merits of Miller's claims. It found that the officers had reasonable suspicion and probable cause for the stop, Miller's extreme intoxication justified the involuntary medical treatment under state interests, and he had no right to condition a chemical test on legal counsel. Consequently, the court granted summary judgment to the defendants and dismissed the complaint.

Section 1983Illegal Search and SeizureDue ProcessForced Medical TreatmentRight to CounselDriving While Intoxicated (DWI)Summary JudgmentFourth AmendmentFourteenth AmendmentNew York Public Health Law
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Rodriguez

The defendant, indicted for resisting arrest and DWI, filed a motion to prevent the District Attorney from using evidence of his refusal to take a chemical test at trial. The defendant argued that admitting such evidence violates his Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination, despite a 1973 amendment to Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1194 that permitted it. The court analyzed precedents, distinguishing between the non-testimonial nature of the test itself and the communicative nature of a refusal. It concluded that a refusal constitutes a communication, thus falling under Fifth Amendment protection. Consequently, the court granted the defendant's motion, ruling that such evidence is inadmissible.

Fifth AmendmentSelf-incriminationChemical Test RefusalDWIAdmissibility of EvidenceConstitutional RightsTestimonial EvidenceImplied Consent LawPreclusion MotionCriminal Procedure
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 24, 1986

Shannon v. State of New York Department of Correctional Services

Petitioner, a correction officer, faced disciplinary charges for misconduct including assault, intoxication, and absenteeism. A settlement agreement with the Department of Correctional Services allowed him to retain his job but subjected him to termination without appeal for similar future misconduct. Subsequently, the petitioner was arrested for driving while intoxicated off duty, which the Department deemed a violation of the settlement. His employment was terminated, leading him to file a CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking reinstatement. The Supreme Court dismissed his petition, a decision which the appellate court affirmed, ruling that the DWI arrest constituted a violation of the settlement agreement, providing a valid basis for termination and demonstrating no bad faith on the Department's part.

Correction OfficerDisciplinary ActionSettlement AgreementDriving While IntoxicatedTermination of EmploymentCPLR Article 78Appellate ReviewEmployee MisconductBad FaithCollective Bargaining Agreement
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Amoco Chemicals Corp. v. Stafford

In this appellate opinion, the court affirmed a lower court's judgment that awarded $75,029 to an appellee for injuries sustained when struck by a truck. The appellants, John Baker and Amoco Chemicals, had appealed the trial court's exclusion of evidence concerning the appellee's alleged alcoholism and alcohol withdrawal. They argued this evidence was relevant to the appellee's claims for lost wages and diminished earning capacity. The appellate court found the evidence, including DWI convictions, public intoxication arrests, and an equivocal admission of alcoholism treatment, was properly excluded due to lack of medical expertise, equivocal nature, and high prejudicial effect without sufficient probative value.

exclusion of evidencealcoholismpersonal injurydamagesappellate reviewprobative valueprejudicial effectmedical testimonyexpert witnesscourt ruling
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kirkland v. State

The appellant, Kirkland, appealed his conviction for driving while intoxicated, arguing significant errors related to interim jury service. He contended that jurors selected for his case were biased due to prior service on similar DWI cases before his trial began, requesting they be struck or a mistrial be declared. Additionally, Kirkland challenged the admission of extraneous offenses, specifically concerning unpaid traffic citations, and an allegedly improper question from the prosecutor during cross-examination. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, concluding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion regarding the jury selection issues, and any errors concerning extraneous offenses or the prosecutor's question were cured by proper instructions to the jury.

Interim Jury ServiceDWI ConvictionJury Selection ChallengesJury BiasVoir Dire ExaminationExtraneous OffensesTraffic ViolationsAppellate ProcedureCriminal LawTexas
References
47
Case No. 07-99-0508-CR; 07-99-0509-CR
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 30, 2001

Becerra, Alfonso, Sr. v. State

Alfonso Becerra, Sr. appealed the revocation of his community supervision for two felony DWI charges. He argued that his supervision terms were suspended during the alleged violations and that the State's motions to revoke lacked sufficient notice. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, finding that the probationary period remained in effect and was not suspended, and that the State's motions provided adequate notice of the alleged violations, which included public intoxication and alcohol consumption. The court emphasized that probation revocation proceedings are administrative, and the burden of proof lies with the State to show a violation by a preponderance of the evidence. The court concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in revoking Becerra's probation.

Revocation of Community SupervisionFelony DWIProbation ViolationSufficiency of NoticeAbuse of DiscretionRetroactive OrdersAppellate ReviewCriminal ProcedureTexas LawPublic Intoxication
References
24
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 05837 [142 AD3d 463]
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 18, 2016

Matter of Rivera v. New York City Dept. of Sanitation

Carlos Rivera's probationary employment as a sanitation worker was terminated by the New York City Department of Sanitation. Rivera petitioned to annul this determination, and the Supreme Court granted his petition due to the Department's purported default, denying the Department's motion to vacate. The Appellate Division, First Department, reversed this judgment, finding that the Department's 'law office failure' was a reasonable excuse for default. The Court also determined that the Department demonstrated a meritorious defense, as Rivera, a probationary employee, was terminated for legitimate reasons, including his arrest for DWI and subsequent license suspension/revocation. Consequently, the Appellate Division vacated the default judgment, denied Rivera's petition, and dismissed the proceeding.

Probationary EmploymentTermination of EmploymentDefault JudgmentMotion to VacateLaw Office FailureMeritorious DefenseCPLR Article 78Appellate ReviewDWI ArrestDriver's License Revocation
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 20 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