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. 14-02-00289-CR
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 13, 2003

Burton, Kevin v. State

This is an appeal from a revocation of probation where Kevin Burton challenged the trial court's decision. Burton was on probation for possession of a controlled substance and faced revocation for failing to comply with terms, including paying fines and performing community service. The appellant argued insufficient evidence for the violations and improper admission of extraneous offense evidence. The appellate court reviewed the sufficiency of the evidence and the trial court's discretion in admitting evidence during the punishment phase. The court concluded that there was sufficient evidence to support the probation violations and that the extraneous offense evidence was relevant for assessing punishment.

Probation RevocationSufficiency of EvidenceCommunity Service ViolationFailure to Pay FinesExtraneous OffensesAdmissibility of EvidencePunishment HearingAppellate ReviewAbuse of DiscretionControlled Substance Possession
References
15
Case No. 06-08-00024-CR
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 03, 2008

Charles Terrell McClure v. State

Charles Terrell McClure appealed his sentence for constructive delivery of methamphetamine, challenging the admission of extraneous offense evidence during the punishment phase. He argued insufficient evidence corroborated his extrajudicial confession and that the evidence's probative value was substantially outweighed by its potential for prejudice. The Court of Appeals, Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana, affirmed the trial court's judgment. The court held that extrajudicial confessions of extraneous offenses do not require corroboration in the punishment phase and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the evidence, especially considering McClure had filed an application for community supervision.

Criminal LawExtraneous OffensesPunishment PhaseAppellate ReviewAbuse of DiscretionCorroboration of ConfessionExtrajudicial AdmissionProbative ValueUnfair PrejudiceSentencing
References
18
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. 03-96-00726-CR
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 23, 1998

Kenneth Jackson, A/K/A Frank Dixon v. State

Kenneth Jackson, convicted of manslaughter, appealed his twenty-year sentence, arguing the trial court improperly admitted evidence of unadjudicated extraneous offenses (social security fraud) during the punishment phase due to insufficient corroborating evidence. The Texas Court of Appeals, Third District, affirmed the trial court's judgment. The court found that Jackson's extrajudicial confession, coupled with California Department of Motor Vehicles records corroborating his use of a false identity, was legally sufficient to establish the extraneous offenses beyond a reasonable doubt. The jury had been properly instructed on the burden of proof for considering such evidence. The appellate court also addressed and upheld the factual sufficiency of the evidence if such a review were applicable.

Criminal LawManslaughterExtraneous OffensesPunishment PhaseSocial Security FraudExtrajudicial StatementLegal SufficiencyFactual SufficiencyCorroborationTexas Law
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Carmille A. v. David A.

In this Family Court Act article 8 family offense proceeding, the petitioner filed a supplemental petition alleging the respondent willfully violated a modified order of protection on two separate occasions in March 1994. The court found these violations and civilly committed the respondent to consecutive terms of incarceration totaling ten months. The respondent moved for reargument, citing the appellate authority of Matter of Vitti v Vitti, which held that Family Court Act article 8 prohibits consecutive commitments exceeding a total of six months. The presiding judge, Guy P. De Phillips, disagreed with the Vitti ruling, asserting that legislative history and public policy regarding domestic violence support the imposition of consecutive civil commitments for distinct violations, even if the cumulative term exceeds six months, provided they are separate offenses for Sixth Amendment purposes. Consequently, the court denied the respondent's motion for reargument, affirming its authority to impose such consecutive sentences.

Family LawDomestic ViolenceOrder of ProtectionContempt of CourtCivil CommitmentConsecutive SentencesFamily Court ActStatutory InterpretationJudicial DiscretionAppellate Review
References
11
Case No. 10-12-00073-CR
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 07, 2013

Jaime Rodriguez, Jr. v. State

Jaime Rodriguez, Jr. appealed a conviction for evading arrest with a deadly weapon finding, for which he was sentenced to ten years in prison, a $10,000 fine, and $11,170 in restitution. Rodriguez argued the trial court erred by dismissing a juror and improperly assessing restitution for unrelated offenses. The Court of Appeals found no abuse of discretion in the juror's dismissal, as the juror's fear for his family's safety constituted a disability. However, the court agreed that the restitution was improperly assessed for unconvicted extraneous offenses. Consequently, the judgment was modified to remove the restitution order, and otherwise affirmed.

Evading ArrestDeadly WeaponJuror DismissalJuror DisabilityRestitutionExtraneous OffensesAbuse of DiscretionAppellate ReviewCriminal ProcedureTrial Court Error
References
10
Case No. 03-14-00734-CR
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 12, 2015

Bruce Wayne Harkey v. State

This criminal appeal, Bruce Wayne Harkey v. The State of Texas, addresses the sufficiency of corroborating evidence linking Appellant to the murders of Karen Johnson and Bonnie Harkey. Appellant, motivated by control over the Harkey Estate and resentment towards his stepmother, Bonnie Harkey, was accused of conspiring with Carl Pressley to commit the murders. The State argued for the admissibility of extraneous bad acts to demonstrate Appellant's scheme, motive, and intent, and to rebut his defense, and also addressed a notice dispute regarding extraneous offense evidence. The Appellee requests that the Court deny the appeal and affirm the judgment.

MurderConspiracyAccomplice TestimonyCorroborating EvidenceExtraneous OffensesMotiveIntentAlibiSuffocationDrowning
References
39
Case No. E2019-01864-CCA-R3-CD
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 31, 2021

State of Tennesse v. Ronnie Lucas Wilson

The defendant, Ronnie Lucas Wilson, was convicted of multiple offenses, including felon in possession of a firearm and attempted first-degree murder, stemming from a high-speed chase and shooting incident involving a police officer. The jury also found that the offenses qualified as Criminal Gang Offenses due to his affiliation with the Aryan Nation gang, leading to enhanced sentences. On appeal, the court affirmed his convictions but vacated the jury's findings regarding the Criminal Gang Offenses Statute, citing insufficient evidence to establish a direct nexus between his actions and the gang's benefit. Consequently, the case was remanded for resentencing related to the attempted first-degree murder and firearm possession convictions, and judgments were modified to remove the gang offense designation. The effective fifty-eight-year sentence was upheld due to the defendant's extensive criminal history and the severity of the offenses, with individual sentences adjusted for the removed enhancement.

Criminal Gang OffensesFelon in Possession of FirearmAttempted First Degree MurderPolice Officer ShootingHigh-Speed ChaseEvading ArrestFalse ReportCriminal Gang EnhancementSentencing AppealSufficiency of Evidence
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 01, 2009

People v. Nunn

This case addresses whether a court's discretion to deem a misdemeanor complaint charging a drug offense as an information, without a field test or laboratory analysis, violates a defendant's due process rights. The court distinguishes People v Kalin and Matter of Jahron S., applying the three-factor test from Mathews v Eldridge. It concludes that the substantial private interest in physical liberty and the risk of erroneous deprivation necessitate a laboratory report or field test in most drug-related cases, imposing minimal burden on the prosecution. Specifically, for defendant Mr. Nunn, the misdemeanor complaint was deemed an information on June 1, 2009, after the certified laboratory analysis was filed.

Due ProcessCriminal ProcedureMisdemeanorControlled SubstanceDrug PossessionMisdemeanor InformationMisdemeanor ComplaintPrima Facie CaseLaboratory AnalysisField Test
References
21
Case No. 14-10-00254-CR
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 17, 2011

Craig Ronald Harrison v. State

Craig Ronald Harrison was convicted of third-degree felony theft after being identified from surveillance video and other witness testimony at a Sears store. He was sentenced to 99 years' imprisonment. On appeal to the Fourteenth Court of Appeals, Harrison raised eight points of error, including challenges to a Batson ruling, the admission of video evidence, the sufficiency of evidence for the value of stolen goods, in-court identifications, the denial of a directed verdict, and jury instructions related to extraneous offenses and disregarded testimony. The Court of Appeals reviewed each point and ultimately affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no reversible error.

theftfelonyappealBatson challengeevidence sufficiencyidentificationjury instructionsextraneous offensesdue processTexas law
References
64
Showing 1-10 of 350 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