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. 10-92-187-CR
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 17, 1993

John Lott v. State

John Wesley Lott appealed the revocation of his probation, which stemmed from a 1988 conviction for burglary of a building. The State initiated the revocation proceedings after Lott was indicted for delivery of a controlled substance, cocaine. Following a hearing, Lott's probation was revoked, and he received a ten-year prison sentence. On appeal, Lott contended that the evidence was insufficient to revoke his probation due to a broken chain of custody for the controlled substance. However, the appellate court affirmed the judgment, noting that the exhibit containing the cocaine was admitted into evidence without objection, thereby waiving the complaint for appellate review.

Probation RevocationBurglaryControlled SubstanceCocaineChain of CustodyAppellate ReviewCriminal ProcedureEvidence AdmissibilityTexas LawPer Curium
References
23
Case No. E2019-01558-CCA-R3-CD
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 07, 2020

State of Tennessee v. Michael William Shavers

The defendant, Michael William Shavers, appealed the Hamilton County Criminal Court’s order revoking his probation and ordering him to serve the balance of a 10-year effective sentence for attempted second degree murder. Shavers had previously pleaded guilty to two counts of attempted second degree murder with the condition of supervised probation. A probation violation warrant was issued after he failed two drug screens and did not pay court costs and supervision fees. During the revocation hearing, the defendant admitted to using illegal substances. The Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no abuse of discretion in the revocation or the decision to order incarceration.

Probation RevocationDrug Screen FailureAttempted Second Degree MurderSentencingAppellate ReviewAbuse of DiscretionPreponderance of EvidenceJudicial DiscretionCriminal AppealViolation of Probation Conditions
References
5
Case No. 05-13-01535-CR
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 29, 2014

Rodney Wade Parker v. State

Rodney Wade Parker appealed the revocation of his community supervision for felony driving while intoxicated. The State filed a motion to revoke based on twelve allegations, five of which the trial court found true, including methamphetamine use and failure to complete a DWI/Drug Court Program. Parker argued the trial court erred by admitting extraneous bad acts, that his admissions to his probation officer about methamphetamine use were inadmissible under Article 38.22, and that the evidence was insufficient to prove he failed to pay a participation fee without showing his ability to pay. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, modifying only a clerical error regarding Parker's plea. It held that extraneous bad acts were admissible in unitary revocation proceedings, that statements to a probation officer not acting in tandem with law enforcement are generally not subject to Article 38.22, and that proof of any single violation is sufficient for revocation.

Felony DWICommunity Supervision RevocationMethamphetamine UseExtraneous Bad ActsCustodial InterrogationMiranda WarningsProbation Officer TestimonyDWI/Drug Court ProgramSufficiency of EvidenceCriminal Appeals
References
33
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Weitz

The defendant, Michael Weitz, moved for early termination of his 10-year probation sentence, citing rehabilitation. A hearing was held on May 10, 2012, where Rabbi Efraim Salzman testified on Weitz's behalf, and Weitz also testified. The court reviewed his history, including prior convictions for sexual abuse and unlawful imprisonment in Sullivan County (2002), and attempted sexual abuse in New York County (2004), which led to the current probation. Weitz presented evidence of religious observance and participation in a relapse prevention program, but failed to provide expert testimony on his rehabilitation or demonstrate full acceptance of responsibility. The court found that Weitz had not diligently complied with probation terms and that his claims of rehabilitation and reasons for early termination (travel, marriage) were unconvincing. Consequently, the motion for early termination of probation was denied.

Probation TerminationSex OffenderRehabilitation AssessmentCriminal Procedure Law 410.90Penal LawCorrection LawWitness CredibilityPsychiatric EvaluationRisk AssessmentSentencing Discretion
References
10
Case No. 24 Misc 3d 1217(A), 2009 NY Slip Op 51508(U) (2009)
Regular Panel Decision

Liguori v. Beloten

Petitioner Eugene P. Devine, a medical care provider, commenced a CPLR article 78 proceeding to annul the Workers’ Compensation Board’s determination to remove him from the list of eligible providers. This removal stemmed from a prior misconduct charge regarding inaccurate record-keeping, for which Devine was censured, reprimanded, placed on probation, and fined by the OPMC. Despite Devine's remedial actions, including purchasing new equipment, the Board opted for permanent revocation, a decision the court previously remitted for detailed explanation. Upon review of the Board's subsequent explanation, the court found the permanent revocation to be arbitrary and capricious, and disproportionate to the offense, especially given the lack of patient harm and Devine's efforts to rectify the issue. The court granted the petition, annulled the revocation, and ordered Devine's immediate restoration to the list of eligible workers’ compensation physicians, finding the term of revocation already served to be excessive.

Workers' CompensationMedical ProviderRevocation of EligibilityCPLR Article 78Administrative ReviewAbuse of DiscretionArbitrary and CapriciousRecord Keeping ViolationPhysician SanctionDue Process
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lopez v. Evans

The case involves a petitioner, previously convicted of murder and paroled, who was later found mentally incompetent to stand trial for misdemeanor assault charges incurred while residing in an OMH psychiatric facility. Following the dismissal of criminal charges due to incompetency, the Division of Parole initiated revocation proceedings based on the same conduct. An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) sustained the parole violation and recommended re-incarceration. The Supreme Court denied the petitioner's subsequent CPLR Article 78 petition, affirming the revocation. This higher court, in a concurring opinion, reverses the Supreme Court's order, grants the petition, annuls the respondent's determination, and reinstates the petitioner to parole. The core holding is that a prior finding of mental incompetency to stand trial for misdemeanor charges precludes a parole revocation hearing based on the same conduct, emphasizing due process rights and the inability of an incompetent parolee to assist in their own defense. The opinion also highlights legislative deficiencies regarding the Parole Board's authority to determine mental competency.

Competency to stand trialParole revocationDue processMental incompetencyCPLR Article 78 proceedingOffice of Mental Health (OMH)Criminal charges dismissalAdministrative appealStatutory interpretationJudicial remedies
References
39
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Whitney Z.

Respondent, a juvenile delinquent, was placed on probation but later admitted to violating its terms, leading to her placement in the custody of the Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe. She appealed the order, and the appellate court first rejected the petitioner's claim of abandonment. On the merits, the court agreed with the respondent that the probation violation petition was jurisdictionally defective. The petition, filed by a probation officer based on hearsay, lacked nonhearsay allegations and supporting affidavits. The court ruled that the absence of nonhearsay affidavits constitutes a nonwaivable jurisdictional defect, even if the respondent admitted to the violation, and therefore reversed the lower court's order and dismissed the petition.

Juvenile DelinquencyProbation ViolationJurisdictional DefectNonhearsay AllegationsAffidavitFamily Court ActAppealCustodyDue ProcessReversed
References
1
Case No. 06-07-00084-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 09, 2008

in Re: Estate of Leslie Wayne Wilson

Brett Lee Wilson filed a restricted appeal challenging the trial court's order admitting his father's will to probate. Wilson raised three issues, primarily contending that Shelli Kay Wilson, the applicant, failed to overcome the presumption that the lost will had been revoked and failed to serve him with an amended application. The Court of Appeals found that notice of the amended application was not required under the Texas Probate Code. However, the court concluded that the evidence provided by Shelli Kay Wilson was legally insufficient to rebut the presumption of revocation of the missing original will. Due to the legal insufficiency of the evidence and in the interest of justice, the court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings, noting that the facts may not have been fully developed in the uncontested probate hearing.

Probate LawLost WillPresumption of RevocationLegal Sufficiency of EvidenceRestricted AppealTexas Rules of Civil ProcedureTexas Probate CodeNotice RequirementsAppellate ProcedureReversal and Remand
References
33
Showing 1-10 of 414 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