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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sasser v. Kelley

Petitioner Andrew Sasser, convicted of capital murder, sought federal habeas corpus relief due to ineffective assistance of counsel during his sentencing phase. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals remanded the case, requiring a determination of whether Sasser was ineligible for the death penalty due to intellectual disability (an Atkins claim) and consideration of four claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. This Court focused on three ineffective assistance claims: failure to prepare for the sentencing phase, failure to obtain a timely psychological evaluation, and failure to meaningfully consult with a mental health professional. The Court found that trial counsel's failure to conduct a thorough investigation, timely obtain a psychological evaluation, and meaningfully consult with a qualified mental health professional constituted ineffective assistance. Consequently, postconviction counsel's failure to raise these claims was also deemed ineffective, excusing procedural default. The petition for habeas corpus relief was granted.

Ineffective assistance of counselHabeas corpusDeath penaltyIntellectual disabilityProcedural defaultAtkins claimSentencing phaseMitigation evidencePsychological evaluationMental health expert
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Thompson v. Jones

Petitioner appeals an order from the Family Court of Otsego County, entered March 12, 1997, which granted respondent physical custody of their child, found petitioner in willful violation of a prior visitation order, sentenced her to 10 days in jail, and dismissed her family offense petition alleging child sexual abuse. Petitioner argued ineffective assistance of counsel, claiming her assigned attorney sent a substitute, Kelly Eckmair, without notice on the second day of the hearing, and Eckmair failed to call critical witnesses. The Appellate Division disagreed, finding Eckmair was well-prepared, conducted adequate examinations and objections, and that petitioner received reasonably competent and meaningful representation. The Appellate Division affirmed the Family Court's order.

Child CustodyVisitation RightsFamily OffenseSexual Abuse AllegationsIneffective Assistance of CounselAppellate ReviewFamily Court ActLegal RepresentationProcedural Due ProcessWitness Testimony
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Graff v. United States

Vincent Graff, convicted of bank fraud in 1996, filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 seeking to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. His claims included ineffective assistance of trial counsel, insufficient evidence, improper sentencing, and ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. District Judge Spatt denied the motion, ruling that most claims were procedurally barred as they had been previously addressed on direct appeal. The claim regarding ineffective appellate counsel was reviewed on its merits but was also denied, as Graff failed to demonstrate deficient performance or resulting prejudice. The court granted Graff's request to proceed in forma pauperis but denied his other requests for discovery materials, an evidentiary hearing, and appointed counsel, finding his claims lacked merit. A certificate of appealability was also denied.

Bank Fraud28 U.S.C. § 2255Ineffective Assistance of CounselAppellate CounselSentencing GuidelinesProcedural BarHabeas CorpusSufficiency of EvidenceSupervised ReleaseRestitution
References
25
Case No. Dkt. # 1, 41
Regular Panel Decision

Walker v. Poole

Petitioner Frederick Walker filed a habeas corpus petition challenging his 2000 conviction for robbery and assault in Monroe County. He alleged improper show-up identification procedures and ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. The court addressed four grounds: the suggestiveness of two show-up procedures, insufficient evidence for attempted robbery, and multiple claims of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. The court denied the claim regarding the second show-up on the merits, found the claims concerning the first show-up and evidentiary sufficiency to be procedurally defaulted, and dismissed the ineffective assistance claims for lack of deficient performance or prejudice. Consequently, Walker's request for a writ of habeas corpus was denied and his petitions dismissed.

Habeas CorpusIneffective Assistance of CounselShow-up IdentificationDue ProcessRobberyAssaultAttempted RobberyProcedural DefaultExhaustion of State RemediesState Conviction Challenge
References
44
Case No. S2 92 Cr. 530 (JES)
Regular Panel Decision

Riza v. United States

Shamsuddin Riza, acting pro se, filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 petition seeking to vacate or reduce his sentence, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel. Riza alleged his counsel failed to object to sentence enhancements stipulated in his plea agreement and to inaccuracies in his presentence investigation report (PSR). The District Court found Riza's petition procedurally barred because he knowingly waived his right to appeal a sentence within the Guidelines range and failed to establish cause or actual prejudice. Furthermore, the Court determined that Riza's ineffective assistance claim lacked merit as counsel was not obligated to file a frivolous appeal and the double counting argument regarding sentence enhancements was legally untenable. The Court also addressed Riza's claims regarding PSR inaccuracies and counsel's failure to object, concluding they did not rise to a constitutional level. Ultimately, the petition was dismissed, but the Court ordered the October 14, 1993 sentencing transcript to be appended to Riza's PSR to correct a ministerial error.

Ineffective Assistance of Counsel28 U.S.C. § 2255 PetitionHabeas CorpusSentencing EnhancementsPlea Agreement WaiverProcedural BarActual PrejudiceCause and PrejudicePresentence Investigation Report (PSR)Double Counting (Sentencing)
References
38
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Martin v. Martin

The father appealed two Family Court orders concerning child support modification and counsel fees. The father sought to modify his child support obligation due to business collapse, illness, and an alleged agreement with the mother to provide childcare in lieu of payments. The mother sought a finding of willful violation. The Support Magistrate dismissed the father's petitions and found willful violation, which the Family Court affirmed. On appeal, the Court found the father received ineffective assistance of counsel due to his attorney's failure to introduce crucial medical evidence and ensure a key witness's presence, which prejudiced his case. Therefore, the appellate court modified the December 29, 2005 order, reversed the October 26, 2006 order, remitted for a new trial on the modification and violation petitions, and denied counsel fees.

Ineffective Assistance of CounselChild SupportModification of Support OrderWillful ViolationAdjournment DenialEvidence AdmissibilityMedical RecordsTherapist TestimonyIncarcerationFamily Law
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Robert U.

This case involves an appeal from a Family Court order that adjudicated the respondent's children and stepchildren as abused and/or neglected. The respondent argued that his due process rights were violated due to his exclusion from the courtroom during the testimony of the child victims and that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. The appellate court found that while the Family Court did not explicitly balance the respondent's due process rights against the children's well-being, this error did not necessitate reversal because a prima facie case of abuse was established by other evidence, making the child victims' testimony non-essential for that purpose. Additionally, the court dismissed the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, noting counsel's presence during testimony and a provided adjournment. Consequently, the original Family Court order was affirmed.

Child abuseChild neglectDue processRight to counselEffective assistance of counselExclusion of partyWitness traumaFamily Court ActAppellate reviewPrima facie case
References
9
Case No. KA 13-00457
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 21, 2014

WOOLSON, SKIPPY B., PEOPLE v

The Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department, affirmed the judgment of the Oswego County Court, convicting Skippy B. Woolson of four counts of criminal sexual act in the second degree and endangering the welfare of a child. The defendant appealed, arguing that the trial court abused its discretion in denying an initial adjournment request due to defense counsel's illness, and that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. The Appellate Division found no prejudice from the denial of the adjournment and rejected the ineffective assistance claim, stating the defendant failed to demonstrate a lack of strategic explanations for counsel's actions or that motions would have succeeded. The court also concluded that the evidence was legally sufficient and the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. A dissenting opinion argued that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence, citing the victim's mental illness, past false accusation, potential motivation to lie, and inconsistencies regarding the timeline and disclosure of abuse.

Criminal Sexual ActEndangering Welfare of a ChildAdjournment RequestAbuse of DiscretionIneffective Assistance of CounselLegal Sufficiency of EvidenceWeight of EvidenceJury VerdictAppellate ReviewSexual Abuse Accommodation Syndrome
References
23
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 05441 [174 AD3d 1295]
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 05, 2019

People v. Hymes

Defendant Justin Hymes appealed his conviction from Onondaga County Court for predatory sexual assault against a child and endangering the welfare of a child. His appeal raised several contentions, including the denial of his Antommarchi right during sidebar conferences, improper admission of uncharged crime evidence, failure to suppress his statements, and challenges to the sufficiency and weight of the evidence. Hymes also argued improper bolstering testimony regarding victim disclosures and ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to object to the lack of a limiting instruction. The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, affirmed the judgment, finding the Antommarchi right waived, the victim's testimony not Molineux evidence, his statements voluntary, and the evidence sufficient. The court further ruled that the victim's disclosures were admissible under prompt outcry or to explain the investigative process, and defense counsel provided meaningful representation, despite a dissenting opinion that argued for a new trial due to the lack of a limiting instruction and ineffective assistance of counsel.

Appellate ReviewCriminal LawSexual AssaultChild EndangermentJury SelectionAntommarchi RightMolineux EvidenceSuppression of StatementsEvidentiary IssuesIneffective Assistance of Counsel
References
41
Case No. No. 115
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 20, 2017

The People v. Mario Arjune

The case concerns Mario Arjune's writ of error coram nobis, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. Arjune, an immigrant with cognitive limitations, was convicted of tampering with evidence and weapon possession. His trial counsel filed a notice of appeal but took no further action, leading to its dismissal. Arjune claimed he was unaware of his appellate rights and entitlement to poor person relief. The Court of Appeals affirmed the denial, finding Arjune failed to demonstrate ineffective assistance or due diligence, and declined to broaden exceptions to appeal deadlines.

Ineffective Assistance of CounselRight to AppealCoram NobisAppellate ProcedurePoor Person ReliefCognitive LimitationsDeportation ConsequencesTrial Counsel DutiesNotice of AppealDue Diligence
References
20
Showing 1-10 of 1,890 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