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. 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. 06-10-00099-CR
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 03, 2011

Curtis Leo Williams v. State

Curtis Leo Williams appealed his conviction for possession of marihuana, a state jail felony. The State alleged two prior felony convictions, which elevated the punishment range to a second-degree felony. In a related case, Williams also appealed a conviction for cocaine possession. The court addressed common issues in its opinion for cause number 06-10-00098-CR. Finding no error, the court affirmed the trial court's judgment in this case.

Criminal AppealControlled SubstanceMarihuana PossessionFelony ConvictionPrior ConvictionsPunishment EnhancementAppellate ReviewTrial Court JudgmentTexas Court of AppealsPro Se Appeal
References
2
Case No. ADJ9392012
Regular
Mar 10, 2016

Hillary Schwartz vs. Ease Entertainment, Starr Indemnity and Liability Company

Here's a summary of the case for a lawyer, in four sentences: The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied a petition for reconsideration, affirming that the applicant's psychological injury claim is not barred by Labor Code Section 3600(a)(8). The defense argued the injury stemmed from a felony for which the applicant was convicted, but the Board found Georgia's First Offender Act does not constitute a conviction under the statute. Under the Georgia Act, the applicant's successful probation will lead to no adjudication of guilt, exonerating her and preventing it from being considered a criminal conviction. Therefore, the requirement of a felony "conviction" for the affirmative defense was not met.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardIndustrial InjuryPsycheLabor Code Section 3600(a)(8)Felony ConvictionGeorgia First Offender ActAdjudication of GuiltCriminal TrespassInvoluntary ManslaughterDeferred Prosecution
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Burrick

The respondent, Robert Stephen Burrick, was convicted on January 13, 2003, of federal felonies including mail fraud and interstate transport of stolen property, and sentenced on April 14, 2003. The petitioner contended that these federal felonies were essentially similar to New York felonies, warranting automatic disbarment. Citing Judiciary Law § 90 and precedent, the court found that Burrick's felony conviction resulted in automatic disbarment. Consequently, the petitioner's motion to strike his name from the roll of attorneys was granted, and Robert Stephen Burrick was immediately disbarred and prohibited from practicing law.

DisbarmentAttorney DisciplineFelony ConvictionMail FraudInterstate Transport of Stolen PropertyProfessional MisconductAutomatic DisbarmentNew York LawLegal Ethics
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Ferrandino

Respondent Anthony Ferrandino, an attorney, was convicted of offering a false instrument for filing, a class E felony, in New York County on February 2, 2005. This conviction stemmed from his involvement in bribing hospital workers to obtain personal injury lawsuit candidates and filing false retainer statements with the Office of Court Administration. The Committee on Professional Standards sought his disbarment, citing Judiciary Law § 90 (4), which mandates automatic disbarment for state felony convictions. The court granted the petition, ordering his name be stricken from the roll of attorneys, nunc pro tunc to the conviction date. The decision highlighted that sentencing is not a prerequisite for automatic disbarment.

Attorney misconductProfessional disciplineFelony convictionDisbarmentFalse instrumentBriberyPersonal injury lawsuitsRetainer statementsAutomatic disbarmentDisciplinary Committee
References
3
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. M2014-00472-CCA-R3-CD
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 12, 2016

State of Tennessee v. Lindsey Brooke Lowe

The parents of the defendant, Lindsey Brooke Lowe, discovered the body of one of her newborn twins in a laundry basket in her bedroom. A second deceased newborn was also found in the basket, and the defendant gave an incriminating statement to police. A jury convicted the defendant of two counts of first degree (felony) murder, two counts of first degree (premeditated) murder, and two counts of aggravated child abuse, a Class A felony. The trial court merged the first degree murder convictions for each victim. The defendant received a life sentence for each first degree murder conviction and a twenty-five year sentence for each aggravated child abuse conviction, all to be served concurrently. On appeal she asserts that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdicts; that the trial court erred in not suppressing her statement; that the trial court was biased; that the trial court denied her the right to testify in her defense; that the burden of proof was shifted to the defense; that her motion for a change of venue should have been granted; that the physical evidence obtained through a search warrant should have been suppressed; that the trial court erred in excluding expert testimony regarding her ability to waive her right to remain silent; that the trial court erred in various other evidentiary decisions; and that she is entitled to relief under the theory of cumulative error. After a thorough review of the record and the applicable law, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Felony MurderPremeditated MurderAggravated Child AbuseSufficiency of EvidenceCustodial InterrogationMiranda RightsWaiver VoluntarinessExpert Witness TestimonyJudicial ImpartialityRight to Testify
References
121
Case No. W2013-02562-CCA-R3-CD
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 04, 2015

State of Tennessee v. Billy Stewart

The Defendant, Billy Stewart, was convicted of four counts of aggravated cruelty to animals and one count of cruelty to animals. He appealed his convictions, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence, the admission of disciplinary records, an alleged Brady violation, and his sentencing. The Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee affirmed his convictions, ruling that the evidence sufficiently supported the finding of aggravated cruelty. However, the court noted a plain error in the judgment form, where one count was incorrectly listed as a Class D felony instead of a Class E felony, and remanded the case for correction of that specific judgment.

Animal CrueltyAggravated CrueltyCriminal AppealSufficiency of EvidenceSentencing ErrorBrady ViolationUndercover InvestigationAnimal Shelter ProtocolCatchpole MisuseEuthanasia Procedures
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 13, 1992

People v. Nieves

The appellant, in concert with two others, robbed a Getty Mart in Greenwich, Connecticut. During their escape, they were pursued by police into New York, where the getaway car, driven by a codefendant, crashed into a bus shelter in Bronx County, killing Ms. Gladys Davis. The appellant was convicted of felony murder. On appeal, the appellant challenged New York's jurisdiction, arguing the underlying felony occurred out of state and that he lacked accessorial accountability for the death. The Court affirmed the conviction, holding that New York had jurisdiction as the death, an element of felony murder, occurred within its borders, and the appellant's active participation in the planned escape made him liable for the foreseeable consequences of reckless flight.

Felony murderRobberyInterstate pursuitJurisdictionAccessorial liabilityReckless drivingCriminal intentAffirmative defenseConfession voluntarinessRosario rule
References
30
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
Showing 1-10 of 1,013 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