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. 13-20-00135-CR
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 03, 2022

Telly James Arrambide v. the State of Texas

Telly James Arrambide appealed his conviction for repeated violation of a protective order, a third-degree felony, enhanced by two prior felony convictions. A jury found him guilty and assessed punishment at twenty-five years' imprisonment. Arrambide raised three issues on appeal: the trial court's denial of his motion for mistrial based on an allegation that a juror withheld information during voir dire, the trial court's failure to hold a hearing on his motion for new trial, and the legal sufficiency of the evidence supporting the sentencing enhancement allegations. The Thirteenth District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no abuse of discretion in denying the mistrial or the new trial hearing, and concluding that there was legally sufficient evidence for the sentencing enhancement.

Criminal AppealProtective Order ViolationFelony EnhancementJuror BiasVoir Dire ChallengeMistrial DenialNew Trial MotionSentencing SufficiencyTexas LawCourt of Appeals
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bruns v. State

The appellant, Donald Bruns, appealed his conviction for misdemeanor theft, initially charged as felony theft based on prior forgery convictions. Bruns argued that the trial court lacked jurisdiction because forgery offenses should not be used to elevate a misdemeanor theft to a felony under Texas Penal Code Ann. § 31.03(e)(4)(D). The appellate court reviewed relevant precedents, confirming that forgery, burglary, and other similar offenses are not considered 'grades of theft' for enhancement purposes. Consequently, the court found that the trial court never acquired felony jurisdiction over the case. The judgment of the trial court was therefore reversed, and the cause was remanded with instructions to transfer it to a court possessing misdemeanor jurisdiction.

TheftFelony enhancementMisdemeanor jurisdictionForgery as prior convictionStatutory interpretationJurisdictional challengeIndictment quashalAppellate reviewCriminal procedurePecuniary loss
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 16, 2016

Estes v. State

This case addresses the constitutionality of Penal Code Section 22.011(f), which enhances penalties for sexual assault if the victim is someone the offender is prohibited from marrying or living with under the appearance of marriage. Appellant Russell Estes, a married man, was convicted of sexually assaulting a 14-year-old girl, and the enhancement was applied, elevating his conviction to a first-degree felony. The Court of Appeals found the statute unconstitutional as applied, arguing it treated married and unmarried offenders differently without rational basis. However, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals reversed, concluding that the state has a legitimate interest in protecting children from sexual exploitation, and the enhancement is rationally related to deterring predators who might use the 'cloak of marriage' to gain trust.

Sexual assaultConstitutional lawEqual Protection ClauseRational basis reviewBigamy enhancementChild sexual exploitationPenal Code Section 22.011(f)Texas Court of Criminal AppealsAs-applied challengeLegislative intent
References
49
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Robles v. State

Alejandro Robles appealed his conviction for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. His appeal challenged the use of a prior felony conviction from Puerto Rico for punishment enhancement and probation eligibility, and also sought credit for time served. The appellate court affirmed the conviction, specifically ruling that Puerto Rico convictions can be utilized for both enhancement purposes and to preclude probation, as interpreted under the Texas Penal Code and the Code Construction Act. However, the court did agree with Robles on one point, modifying the judgment to grant him the mandatory credit for time served between his initial arrest and his sentencing date.

Aggravated AssaultFelony EnhancementPuerto Rico Prior ConvictionProbation EligibilitySentence CreditStatutory InterpretationTexas Criminal LawAppellate ReviewCode Construction ActCriminal Procedure
References
17
Case No. 03-03-00452-CR
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 01, 2004

Alejandro Robles v. State

Alejandro Robles was convicted of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and sentenced to six years' imprisonment. He appealed, raising three issues: whether his prior felony conviction from Puerto Rico could be used for punishment enhancement, whether it barred him from probation eligibility, and whether he was denied credit for time served. The appellate court affirmed his conviction, holding that Puerto Rico is considered a 'state' under Texas law for both enhancement and probation eligibility purposes. However, the court found that Robles was entitled to credit for time served between his arrest and sentencing, and therefore modified the district court's judgment to include this credit.

Aggravated assaultDeadly weaponFelony enhancementPrior convictionPuerto RicoStatutory constructionProbation eligibilityTime creditAppellate reviewTexas Penal Code
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Dozier

The case People v. Dozier addresses whether incarceration under a subsequently vacated conviction can be used to toll the 10-year limitation for enhanced sentencing of second violent felony offenders under Penal Law § 70.04 (1) (b) (v). Defendant Robert Dozier's 1980 rape and sodomy conviction was vacated due to newly discovered evidence regarding the complainant's psychiatric history, leading to the indictment's dismissal. The People argued that "incarcerated for any reason" should be interpreted literally, applying even to invalid convictions unless deemed unconstitutional. The Court, affirming the Appellate Division, rejected this strict interpretation. It held that the tolling provision does not apply when incarceration results from a "without reason" or flawed conviction that is ultimately dismissed, compelling Dozier's resentencing as a first felony offender.

Second violent felony offenderEnhanced sentencingPenal LawTolling periodIncarcerationVacated convictionNewly discovered evidenceCPL 440.10Statutory interpretationCriminal law
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Faust v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville

This appellate opinion addresses the eligibility of civilian police and fire department employees for enhanced retirement benefits from the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County. The dispute originated from the Metropolitan Benefit Board's decision in 1995 to include civilian fire department employees in a specialized pension plan, leading civilian police employees and their association to sue for equal protection violations. The trial court initially found disparate treatment, but the Metropolitan Government later argued the Board's actions were ultra vires. The appellate court reversed the trial court's decision, holding that the Board's administrative interpretations were unauthorized and void ab initio, and that the doctrine of estoppel could not be applied against the municipal corporation in this context.

Retirement BenefitsPension PlansEqual ProtectionUltra ViresAdministrative LawStatutory ConstructionMunicipal CorporationsEstoppelCivilian EmployeesPolice Department
References
87
Case No. 03-13-00723-CR
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 09, 2015

Charles Anthony Malouff, Jr. v. State

Charlie Malouff, representing himself, seeks extraordinary relief from a felony conviction for 'Securing Document By Deception' in Travis County, Texas. He alleges extensive misconduct by police, prosecutors, his trial and appellate counsel, and the presiding judge, Karen Sage. Key allegations include falsification of time sheets, destruction of exculpatory evidence (wind energy systems), misleading a magistrate to obtain search warrants, Brady violations, and ineffective assistance of counsel due to conflicts of interest. Malouff claims Judge Sage's decisions were influenced by pecuniary and political interests related to her re-election campaign, arguing these cumulative errors resulted in a fundamental miscarriage of justice, violating his constitutional rights.

MisconductDue ProcessFair TrialBrady ViolationsIneffective Assistance of CounselJudicial BiasProsecutorial MisconductPolice MisconductFelony ConvictionHabeas Corpus
References
156
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Ryan v. DiNapoli

The petitioner, a highway maintenance worker, sought enhanced disability retirement benefits after sustaining injuries in 2007, 2010, and 2011 while performing job duties. His application, based on these three incidents, was initially denied by respondent Comptroller, who found none of the incidents qualified as accidents under the Retirement and Social Security Law. This decision overruled a Hearing Officer's ruling that the July 2011 incident was an accident. The court, in a CPLR article 78 proceeding, reviewed the Comptroller's determination. The court concluded that substantial evidence supported the Comptroller's finding that the injuries were not 'accidents,' as they occurred during regular job duties or involved reasonably anticipated risks. Consequently, the Comptroller's determination was confirmed, and the petition was dismissed.

Disability retirement benefitsEnhanced disabilityJob-related injuriesAccident definitionRetirement and Social Security LawCPLR Article 78Comptroller determinationSubstantial evidenceAnticipated risksHighway maintenance worker
References
15
Case No. 06-01-00090-CR
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 15, 2002

Nancy Renee Wright v. State of Texas

Nancy R. Wright pleaded guilty to possession of cocaine after her punishment range was enhanced by two prior felony convictions, resulting in a five-year imprisonment sentence. On appeal, Wright argued the trial court erred by interrupting her voir dire and commenting on her prior criminal record, which she contended led her to plead guilty instead of not guilty. The appellate court found that Wright failed to preserve the issue for review because she did not object to the trial court's statements during the trial. Therefore, the judgment was affirmed.

Criminal AppealDrug PossessionFelony EnhancementJury Voir DireJudicial CommentPreservation of ErrorAppellate JurisdictionDue ProcessSentencing GuidelinesTexas Law
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 245 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