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

Muniz v. State

The appellant appealed a conviction for burglary of a habitation, raising two main issues: lack of probable cause for his arrest and discrimination in the grand jury selection process in Harris County. The court affirmed the conviction, finding that Officer Spies had probable cause to arrest the appellant based on his suspicious behavior and discovered evidence, specifically a screwdriver linking him to an earlier burglary. Furthermore, the court ruled that the appellant failed to demonstrate a prima facie case of systematic exclusion of Mexican-Americans from grand juries, citing recent studies that showed no significant disparity in representation. Challenges regarding the exclusion of low-income and blue-collar workers were also dismissed. The judgment was affirmed.

Burglary of HabitationProbable CauseWarrantless ArrestGrand Jury SelectionRacial DiscriminationMexican-AmericansEqual ProtectionMotion to Quash IndictmentTexas Court of Criminal AppealsCriminal Procedure
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Moore v. State

The appellant appealed a conviction for burglary of a habitation, resulting in a life sentence. The appeal raised four contentions: improper introduction of reputation testimony, denial of a hearing to test a photographic lineup, failure to charge the jury on cruel and unusual punishment, and failure to charge the jury on serving the full sentence. The court addressed each point, noting that reputation testimony based on specific acts, while questionable, was authorized by precedent from the Court of Criminal Appeals. The court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding no merit in the appellant's contentions.

Criminal LawAppealBurglaryRapeReputation TestimonyHearsay ExceptionSpecific Acts EvidencePhotographic LineupCruel and Unusual PunishmentJury Charge
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Brown

The defendant appealed a judgment convicting them of three counts of burglary in the second degree and three counts of petit larceny. The appellate court found the jury's verdict was supported by legally sufficient and corroborated evidence, including accomplice testimony and other physical and testimonial evidence. The court rejected the defendant's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, error in denying a request for different assigned counsel, and two suppression issues related to a search warrant and a photographic array. Additionally, the court found the Sandoval ruling appropriate and the imposed sentence was not an abuse of discretion, noting a statutory reduction in the aggregate maximum term of the sentence.

Criminal LawAppealBurglaryPetit LarcenyAccomplice TestimonyCorroborative EvidenceEvidentiary SufficiencyIneffective Assistance of CounselSuppression HearingSandoval Ruling
References
45
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Joseph

Justice Manzanet-Daniels dissents in part regarding a conviction for second-degree burglary. The dissent argues that the basement, which was entirely sealed off and inaccessible from the residences above, should not qualify as a 'dwelling' under the burglary statute, referencing legal precedents set in Quinn v People and People v McCray. The core argument is that the increased penalty for dwelling burglary is meant to prevent 'midnight terror' and 'danger to human life,' which do not apply when the burglarized area is remote and inaccessible from living quarters. The dissent emphasizes that the critical factor for determining a 'dwelling' is the close contiguity and accessibility between residential and nonresidential elements, not necessarily the building's size. Therefore, the conviction for second-degree burglary should be reversed.

BurglarySecond Degree BurglaryDwellingAccessibilityInaccessibilityLiving QuartersStatutory InterpretationCriminal LawProperty CrimeDissenting Opinion
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Chapman

The People charged the defendant with burglary in the third degree after he allegedly unlawfully entered two railway boxcars and stole property. The central legal issue is whether a railway boxcar constitutes a "building" under Penal Law § 140.00 (2). The court reviewed the extensive legislative history of the "building" definition, noting that "railway cars" were previously explicitly included but intentionally removed in the 1965 Penal Law revision and not reinserted in subsequent amendments. Despite arguments that boxcars could be considered "structures" or used for "carrying on business therein," the court found that such an interpretation would contradict clear legislative intent. Consequently, the court dismissed the burglary charges, concluding that the unlawful entry into the boxcars did not meet the statutory definition of burglary.

BurglaryStatutory InterpretationLegislative IntentPenal LawRailway CarBoxcarDefinition of BuildingCriminal LawGrand Jury MinutesDismissal of Charges
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ramirez v. State

Rosendo Guzman Ramirez was convicted of burglary of a vehicle after being found on a freight train in El Paso, Texas, along with other individuals. Railroad security officers discovered a broken seal on a trailer where Ramirez and others were apprehended. The State argued that Ramirez's attempt to obtain a free ride constituted theft of service, thereby demonstrating intent to commit theft for the burglary charge. However, the court reversed the conviction, clarifying that a freight train does not provide service for compensation. Therefore, "riding-the-rails" does not fulfill the criteria for theft of service under Texas Penal Code Section 31.04(a), and the intent to commit theft, a necessary element for burglary of a vehicle under Section 30.04, was not proven. The case was remanded for entry of a judgment of not guilty.

Texas Penal CodeBurglary of VehicleTheft of ServiceFreight TrainRosendo Guzman RamirezCriminal TrespassIntent to Commit TheftUndocumented WorkersEl PasoConviction Reversed
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Bess

The case involves an appeal from a judgment convicting the defendant of third-degree burglary. The defendant was found in the New York State Building Annex cafeteria in Binghamton after a security guard heard breaking glass. He was apprehended after smashing a window and attempting to flee, with a 'cold chisel' found nearby. The defendant claimed he entered the building to avoid muggers, but police testimony contradicted this explanation. On appeal, the defendant argued that the trial court erred by not instructing the jury that justification was a defense to the burglary charge and by failing to advise on the elements of larceny. The court affirmed the judgment, holding that justification is not a defense to burglary and that the prosecution was not required to establish the specific underlying crime or that it had in fact been committed. The court also found no error in providing the jury with written instructions.

BurglaryThird DegreeCriminal TrespassJustification DefenseJury InstructionsIntent to Commit CrimeLarcenyCriminal Procedure LawAppellate ReviewEvidence Sufficiency
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Khan

The defendant appealed a judgment of conviction for burglary in the third degree in Queens County, with the original verdict rendered on June 2, 1982. The case involved the defendant unlawfully entering the Chaudry apartment, where he allegedly threatened Lucia Chaudry with a knife and stole money from Abdul Chaudry, though the defendant claimed he was attempting to recover a loan. The central issue on appeal was the trial court's failure to instruct the jury on criminal trespass in the third degree as a lesser included offense of burglary. The appellate court determined this omission was erroneous, as a reasonable view of the evidence could support a finding that the defendant committed trespass without the requisite intent for burglary. Consequently, the judgment was reversed on the law, and a new trial was ordered, also noting improper prosecutorial remarks during summation.

Burglary in the third degreeCriminal trespassLesser included offenseJury instructionIntentProsecutorial misconductSummationAppellate reviewReversalNew trial
References
4
Case No. 08-24-00146-CR
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 23, 2025

Eduardo Santillana Garza v. the State of Texas

Eduardo Santillana Garza was convicted of capital murder and aggravated robbery following a jury trial in El Paso County, Texas. He received a life sentence without parole for capital murder and 40 years for aggravated robbery, to run concurrently. The capital murder conviction stemmed from the shooting death of Miguel Rivera, Sr. during the course of a burglary or aggravated robbery, and the aggravated robbery conviction from shooting Abelardo Moreno during a theft. On appeal, Garza argued the trial court erred by denying his request for a lesser-included instruction on burglary offenses. The Court of Appeals found no error, concluding that any separate burglary Garza may have committed on a different date was not an "included" offense of the capital murder charge as alleged in the indictment. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment.

Criminal LawCapital MurderAggravated RobberyLesser-Included OffenseAppellate ReviewJury TrialEvidence SufficiencyTexas Penal CodeBurglary of HabitationBurglary of Building
References
13
Case No. PD-0758-15
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 01, 2015

Morgan, Dewan

Regina Raglin invited her boyfriend, Dewan Morgan (Appellee), to live with her. She paid rent, and he contributed to household expenses. They had an argument, and fearing Appellee, Regina invited a male friend over. Upon Appellee's return, he saw the friend, and Regina locked a deadbolt, making his key useless. Appellee pounded on the door, rang the doorbell, yelled, shattered a kitchen window, and ultimately kicked down the door. He then assaulted Regina. A jury convicted Appellee of burglary of a habitation, and he was sentenced to 12 years. The Second Court of Appeals reversed the burglary conviction, affirmed a lesser included assault, and remanded for new punishment proceedings. The State now petitions for discretionary review, arguing that trial and appellate courts should primarily use the Penal Code's definition of 'owner' rather than property law principles. The State also seeks clarification on how much time must elapse after a victim revokes consent for a live-in partner's entry for it to be considered a burglary.

Burglary of HabitationProperty LawPenal CodeConsent to EnterCo-tenancyDomestic ViolenceAppellate ReviewSufficiency of EvidenceLesser-Included OffenseTexas Criminal Appeals
References
18
Showing 1-10 of 60 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