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. ADJ9105445
Regular
Dec 01, 2009

CHARLES STUMPH vs. COUNTY OF ORANGE, SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT

This case concerns a clerical error in a prior Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) opinion. The error involved misidentifying a defendant in the initial sentence of a paragraph. The WCAB has issued an order correcting this clerical error to accurately reflect that the applicant, Charles Stumph, entered into a compromise and release agreement with the County of Orange Sheriff's Department. This correction was made without granting further reconsideration, as such errors can be amended at any time. The Board's original decision rescinded the administrative law judge's findings and approved the compromise and release agreement.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardClerical ErrorReconsiderationLabor Code Section 132aFindings of Fact and OrderCompromise and ReleaseWCJWCAB Rule 10882Labor Code Section 5001Labor Code Section 5002
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Perez

This Order addresses challenges by six defendants to the constitutionality of the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 and the Sentencing Guidelines. District Judge Nowlin found that the Act violates the separation of powers doctrine and Article I, Section 7 of the U.S. Constitution, particularly concerning the composition and authority of the Sentencing Commission and the lack of presidential presentment for the Guidelines. The Court further ruled that the Sentencing Guidelines infringe upon defendants' due process rights by unduly restricting judicial discretion in sentencing and limiting the consideration of individual circumstances. While concluding the unconstitutional provisions could be severed, the Court directed that, pending appellate review, sentences for offenses committed after November 1, 1987, should be determined as if committed before that date, accounting for the absence of parole.

Sentencing Reform ActSentencing GuidelinesConstitutional LawSeparation of PowersArticle IDue ProcessJudicial DiscretionFederal Criminal JusticeJudicial IndependencePresentment Clause
References
42
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Gonzalez

The appellate court reversed a judgment from the Supreme Court, Bronx County, convicting the defendant of manslaughter in the second degree and sentencing him to an indeterminate term of imprisonment not to exceed five years. The reversal was based on an error during the sentencing process where the probation department interviewed the wrong individual, leading to inaccurate information being presented to and relied upon by the sentencing court. Despite counsel's attempts to highlight the error, the court proceeded with sentencing, influenced by the flawed report. The appellate court vacated the sentence and remanded the case for resentencing only, contingent on a proper probation investigation. A dissenting opinion argued for modifying the sentence to time served, citing the defendant's background, mitigating circumstances, and the two years already served.

Probation Report ErrorSentencing ErrorManslaughter Second DegreeAppellate ReviewSentence VacatedRemand for ResentencingJudicial DiscretionMisidentificationCriminal AppealMitigating Circumstances
References
0
Case No. M2012-02263-CCA-R3-CD
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 25, 2014

State of Tennessee v. Ronald W. Damon

Ronald W. Damon was convicted in Rutherford County Circuit Court of two counts of especially aggravated kidnapping, aggravated robbery, aggravated burglary, and conspiracy to commit aggravated burglary. He was subsequently sentenced to an effective seventy-three years. On appeal, Damon raised multiple issues, including the sufficiency of the evidence, the trial court's denial of his motion for acquittal or a new trial, alleged errors in trial procedure (like an eight-day break), exclusion of 9-1-1 operator testimony, admission of an incriminating letter, admission of prior bad acts evidence, playing portions of his pretrial video statement, limitations on cross-examination, and various sentencing errors. The Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee affirmed the judgments of the trial court, finding that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions, there were no reversible errors in trial procedure or evidence admission, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing.

KidnappingRobberyBurglaryConspiracySufficiency of EvidenceSentencing ReviewConsecutive SentencesDangerous OffenderAlibi DefenseHearsay Exception
References
47
Case No. W1999-00844-CCA-R3-DD
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 26, 2002

State v. McKinney

Timothy McKinney was convicted of premeditated first-degree murder and attempted second-degree murder. The jury imposed a death sentence for the first-degree murder, citing a prior violent felony as an aggravating circumstance, and a consecutive twelve-year sentence for attempted second-degree murder. The Tennessee Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and sentences, addressing various legal challenges. The Court found no error in denying expert testimony on eyewitness identification, upheld the clarity of the jury's verdict form on aggravating circumstances, and confirmed the sufficiency of evidence for the prior violent felony. It also ruled that the trial court's limitation on defense counsel's closing argument during the sentencing phase was harmless error and that victim impact evidence was properly admitted. Finally, the Court concluded that the death sentence was neither arbitrary nor disproportionate through a comparative proportionality analysis, aligning it with similar cases where capital punishment was upheld.

First Degree MurderAttempted Second Degree MurderDeath SentenceAggravating CircumstancePrior Violent FelonyEyewitness IdentificationVictim Impact EvidenceProportionality ReviewDue ProcessConstitutional Rights
References
46
Case No. M2016-01980-CCA-R3-CD
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 16, 2018

State of Tennessee v. Timothy A. Crowell

Timothy A. Crowell appealed his conviction for aggravated robbery and an eighteen-year sentence from Davidson County Criminal Court. His appeal contended errors by the trial court regarding the admission of partial surveillance video, hearsay evidence, and a photograph lineup during jury deliberations, as well as questioning the sufficiency of the evidence and the excessiveness of his sentence. The Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no reversible error in the evidence's admission or its sufficiency, and upholding the trial court's sentencing discretion. The court determined the state had no duty to acquire a complete surveillance video and that any hearsay admission was harmless. Additionally, the positive identification by the victim and the application of various enhancement factors justified the conviction and sentence.

Aggravated RobberyEyewitness IdentificationSufficiency of EvidenceHearsay EvidenceSurveillance VideoDue ProcessSentencing ReviewEnhancement FactorsCriminal ProcedureAppellate Review
References
44
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 11, 2001

State v. Carruthers

The Tennessee Supreme Court reviewed the convictions and death sentences of Tony Carruthers and James Montgomery for three counts of first-degree premeditated murder, especially aggravated kidnapping, and aggravated robbery. The Court affirmed Carruthers' convictions and death sentences, finding no reversible errors and sufficient evidence. However, the Court reversed Montgomery's convictions and sentences, remanding for a new trial due to prejudicial error in denying his motion for severance, exacerbated by Carruthers' self-representation. The opinion also discussed the admissibility of co-conspirator statements and the constitutionality of gag orders on trial participants.

First-degree MurderDeath Penalty AffirmationConviction ReversalSeverance ErrorPro Se RepresentationForfeiture of CounselGag Order ConstitutionalityCo-conspirator HearsayPremeditated KillingAggravated Kidnapping
References
129
Case No. S1 99 CR 338
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Birkett

The Second Circuit remanded the cases of Brent Birkett and Franklin Sanchez to the District Court to address a Crawford error regarding the admission of co-conspirator plea allocutions, reconsider Rule 33 motions, and re-sentence the defendants under United States v. Fagans. The District Court, presided over by Judge Sweet, found that the Crawford error did not constitute plain error and did not affect substantial rights due to overwhelming other evidence of the conspiracy. The court also determined that reconsideration of the Rule 33 motions was not warranted. Consequently, no new trial was awarded, and the defendants were instructed to proceed to re-sentencing.

Crawford ErrorPlain Error AnalysisConfrontation ClauseRule 33 MotionNew Trial DenialRe-sentencingPlea AllocutionsCo-conspirator TestimonyDrug ConspiracyCocaine Base
References
18
Case No. AP-76,345
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 23, 2011

Gobert, Milton Dwayne

Milton Dwayne Gobert was convicted of the 2003 capital murder of Mel Cotton, whom he stabbed 107 times during a kidnapping or robbery attempt, and for injuring her five-year-old son, Demetrius. The jury sentenced him to death. On direct appeal, Gobert raised seven points of error, challenging the admission of expert testimony on future dangerousness, the constitutionality of Texas's capital-murder sentencing procedure (Article 37.071), and the denial of a mid-trial continuance. He also argued ineffective assistance of counsel and sought to suppress evidence from search warrants. The Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas affirmed the judgment and sentence, finding no reversible error, including that the erroneous admission of Dr. Coons's opinion was harmless given overwhelming evidence of Gobert's violence.

Capital murderDeath penaltyCriminal appealFuture dangerousnessExpert testimonyIneffective assistance of counselSearch warrantProbable causeMiranda rightsWitness testimony
References
40
Case No. M2000-01429-CCA-R3-CD
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 07, 2001

State of Tennessee v. Richard L. Thompson

Richard L. Thompson pleaded guilty to one count of incest of his stepdaughter and received a six-year sentence. He requested an alternative sentence and probation, which the trial court denied, leading to his appeal. Thompson raised five issues, challenging the trial court's consideration of a prior Pennsylvania conviction, the applicability of enhancement factors, the necessity of confinement to avoid depreciating the offense's seriousness, and the failure to consider less restrictive measures or his special needs for community corrections. The appellate court reviewed the record, arguments, and applicable law, finding no error and affirming the trial court's judgment. The court specifically found error in applying one enhancement factor (victim vulnerability) but upheld the applicability of two others (gratification and abuse of trust) and the denial of alternative sentencing based on the seriousness of the multiple incestuous acts.

IncestSentencing HearingAlternative SentencingProbationEnhancement FactorsMitigating FactorsSexual OffenseAbuse of TrustPsychosexual EvaluationBipolar Disorder
References
28
Showing 1-10 of 2,979 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