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. 04-09-00017-CR
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 17, 2010

Mary S. Roberts v. State

Mary S. Roberts, the appellant, was found guilty on five counts of theft by coercion or deception, receiving a suspended sentence and ten years of community supervision. She appealed, citing insufficient evidence, mistake of law, jury instruction errors, indictment flaws, and the unconstitutionality of the theft statute. The core of the case involved Roberts and her husband, Ted Roberts, extorting money from four men with whom Mary had affairs. They used Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 202 petitions, threatening exposure and financial repercussions if the men failed to pay. The $115,000 obtained was diverted to personal and law firm expenses, rather than the purported children’s foundation. The court upheld the conviction, finding sufficient evidence for theft by deception or coercion under the law of parties. It also dismissed her affirmative defense, objections to jury instructions and indictment, and constitutional challenges to the theft statute. The trial court's judgment was affirmed.

Theft by CoercionTheft by DeceptionCriminal ResponsibilityLaw of PartiesAppellate ReviewSufficiency of EvidenceMistake of Law DefenseJury Charge ErrorIndictment ValidityConstitutional Challenge
References
17
Case No. 278 S.W.3d 778
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 05, 2008

Roberts v. State

Mary Roberts appealed her conviction on five counts of theft by coercion or deception. Between April and October 2001, Roberts engaged in sexual relations with multiple men. Her husband, Ted Roberts, subsequently initiated pre-suit discovery petitions (Rule 202 Petitions) against these men, alleging adultery and other potential claims, and demanding monetary settlements. Mary Roberts actively assisted Ted by typing revisions to the petitions, delivering one petition, and arranging meetings. The complainants paid significant sums, portions of which were used for the Roberts' personal expenses, including the purchase of a new home. On appeal, Roberts challenged the sufficiency of the evidence, arguing a lack of causation and intent, and asserted an affirmative defense of mistake of law. She also raised issues regarding jury instructions, the indictment's sufficiency, and the constitutionality of the theft statute. The Court of Appeals affirmed her conviction, finding sufficient evidence of her intent and criminal responsibility as a party to the offense, upholding the trial court's jury instructions, and rejecting her challenges to the indictment and the theft statute's constitutionality. The court clarified that the State was not required to establish "but for" causation but rather that Roberts acted with intent to assist Ted in committing theft by deception or coercion.

TheftCoercionDeceptionCriminal ResponsibilityParty to OffenseAffirmative DefenseMistake of LawJury InstructionIndictment SufficiencyConstitutional Law
References
34
Case No. 06-10-00109-CR
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 25, 2011

in Re: Jadon Marque Ballard

James Ehrhardt was convicted by a jury of theft from Paula Painter for over $1,500.00 but less than $20,000.00. He was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment, suspended, with three years’ community supervision and assessed restitution of $10,000.00. The State argued theft by providing a fraudulent accounting and by misapplication of funds in a bank account. The Court of Appeals found that no rational juror could have concluded, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Ehrhardt was guilty of theft. The court determined that the evidence did not establish the contract was a ruse, nor did the deception in the accounting induce Painter's consent for the final payment. Furthermore, it was not proven that the funds in the bank account belonged to Painter or that deception induced her consent for additional payments. Therefore, the court reversed Ehrhardt's conviction and rendered a judgment of acquittal.

TheftContract DisputeFraudulent AccountingMisapplication of FundsLegal SufficiencyCriminal IntentConsentConviction ReversedJudgment of AcquittalTexas Court of Appeals
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Woods v. Littleton

Jackie and Cheryl Woods sued B. L. Littleton and Joe S. Thomson, doing business as Superior Construction Company, for defective sewer systems and faulty repairs, alleging violations of the Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer Protection Act. The trial court found the Act applicable and actions deceptive but declined to treble damages. The court of civil appeals reversed and remanded, questioning the Act's applicability. This court affirmed the remand, ruling that the Act applies to deceptive practices occurring after its effective date (May 21, 1973), even if the initial sale was earlier, and that treble damages are mandatory once liability is established. The case was remanded for a retrial to determine actual damages solely attributable to post-effective date deceptive practices, which must then be trebled.

Deceptive Trade Practices ActConsumer ProtectionMandatory Treble DamagesStatutory InterpretationRemand for RetrialSewer System DefectsFaulty Repair ServiceReal Estate TransactionPost-Effective Date ApplicabilityMental Anguish Damages
References
18
Case No. 06-11-00135-CR
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 31, 2012

Zakee Kaleem Abdullah A/K/A Robert White v. State

Zakee Kaleem Abdullah, also known as Robert White, was convicted of theft for taking money from Rosie L. Duckett under false pretenses. Abdullah, a convicted felon on parole, misrepresented himself as an attorney and promised to assist Duckett with workers' compensation and medical malpractice claims. He failed to pursue the claims and did not return the money, falsely claiming it was confiscated during a drug bust. The court affirmed Abdullah's conviction, finding the evidence legally sufficient to prove that Duckett's consent was obtained through deception. The court also ruled that Abdullah was not harmed by the denial of his motion to quash the indictment, as he had adequate notice of the State's theft-by-deception theory.

Theft by DeceptionCriminal AppealLegal Sufficiency of EvidenceMotion to Quash IndictmentUnauthorized Practice of LawDue ProcessAppellate ReviewTexas Court of AppealsBench TrialFalse Pretenses
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ehrhardt v. State

James Ehrhardt was convicted of theft from Paula Painter and sentenced to two years' imprisonment, suspended for community supervision and restitution. The case involved a disputed oral contract for house repairs, where Painter alleged Ehrhardt failed to complete work and provided a fraudulent accounting. On appeal, Ehrhardt challenged the sufficiency of the evidence for theft. The court examined whether the contract was a ruse, if Painter's consent was induced by deception, or if funds in a dedicated account were misappropriated. The appellate court found insufficient evidence to prove that Ehrhardt's deception induced Painter's final payment or that the funds in the account were Painter's property. Consequently, Ehrhardt's conviction was reversed, and a judgment of acquittal was rendered.

Theft by DeceptionContractual DisputeSufficiency of EvidenceCriminal IntentFraudulent AccountingMisappropriation of FundsOral ContractConstruction FraudAppellate ReviewJudgment of Acquittal
References
21
Case No. 08-19-00020-CR
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 11, 2020

Desiree Boltos v. State

Desiree Boltos was convicted on six counts related to the exploitation and theft of significant sums of money from six elderly individuals through a scheme involving romantic deception, false claims of illness, and purported business investments. The jury found her guilty of aggregated theft of over $300,000, individual theft counts from Paul Wilbur, Douglas Wingo, James Olmstead, and Richard Lima, and exploitation of an elderly person (Paul Wilbur). She received concurrent sentences ranging from 10 to 85 years, along with $10,000 fines. On appeal, Boltos challenged the legal sufficiency of the evidence for aggregation of offenses and individual theft counts, argued that multiple punishments violated double jeopardy, sought to suppress email evidence obtained via a search warrant, and contested the legality of subpoenas used for third-party bank and casino records. The Eighth District Court of Appeals of Texas affirmed the conviction and sentence, rejecting all claims, finding sufficient evidence, no double jeopardy violation, the search warrant properly issued, and upholding the use of subpoenas under existing precedent.

TheftExploitation of ElderlyFraudFinancial CrimesAggregated OffensesSufficiency of EvidenceDouble JeopardySearch WarrantEmail EvidenceSubpoena
References
45
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lopez v. State

Thomas Jacinto Lopez, III was convicted of theft over $100,000 but less than $200,000 and sentenced to forty-five years imprisonment, along with an order to pay $108,344 in restitution. The conviction stemmed from his deceptive practices as a contractor hired by Kay Stephenson Hill and Thomas Leroy Hill for various home repairs. Lopez engaged in multiple acts of deception, including fraudulently collecting money for non-existent city permit fees, charging for unnecessary repairs on the Hills' home (such as issues with the chimney, foundation, attic trusses, and alleged termite damage), and obtaining personal loans from them under false pretenses about his financial difficulties. Furthermore, he accepted payments for construction work and materials, like Pella windows and a credenza, that he never delivered or completed. The appellate court reviewed the legal sufficiency of the evidence and the admissibility of testimony from other customers who experienced similar deceptive practices from Lopez, ultimately affirming the conviction.

Theft by DeceptionContractor FraudUnnecessary RepairsFalse PretensesCriminal ConvictionAppellate ReviewSufficiency of EvidenceOther Acts EvidenceJuror DisabilityTexas Law
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rodriguez v. Texas Employers' Insurance Ass'n

This case concerns an appeal from a summary judgment granted in favor of a workers' compensation carrier. The appellant's husband died at work, and the carrier denied death benefits, leading the appellant to sue for benefits under the Workers' Compensation Act and for treble damages under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA). While the appellant successfully recovered workers' compensation benefits, the trial court granted summary judgment on the DTPA claim, ruling that the decedent was not a "consumer" as defined by the Act. The appellate court affirmed this decision, concluding that the relationship between the decedent and the compensation carrier was statutory, not contractual, meaning there was no "purchase" of goods or services to establish consumer status under the DTPA. Therefore, the denial of workers' compensation liability alone did not give rise to a cause of action under the Deceptive Trade Practices Act.

Workers' CompensationDeceptive Trade PracticesSummary Judgment AppealConsumer StatusInsurance LiabilityStatutory RelationshipContractual RelationshipDeath Benefits ClaimTreble DamagesAppellate Court Decision
References
2
Case No. 10-23-00025-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 12, 2023

Vincin Campise v. Hector Davila, Victor Mireles, Alonzo Robles, & Roberto Rico

Vincin Campise appealed a summary judgment granted in favor of Hector Davila, Victor Mireles, Alonzo Robles, and Roberto Rico. Campise, acting pro se, had initially filed a petition alleging identity theft, fraud, credit-reporting violations, deceptive trade practices, and civil conspiracy related to his bank accounts. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that Campise failed to present sufficient summary-judgment evidence for any of his claims. Furthermore, the court noted that Campise's identity theft and credit-reporting claims, as pleaded, did not constitute viable civil causes of action under Texas law.

Summary JudgmentPro Se LitigantAppellate ReviewTexas LawCivil ProcedureNo-Evidence MotionFraud ClaimIdentity Theft ClaimDeceptive Trade PracticesCivil Conspiracy
References
36
Showing 1-10 of 413 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