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. 03-13-00723-CR
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 09, 2015

Charles Anthony Malouff, Jr. v. State

Charlie Malouff, representing himself, seeks extraordinary relief from a felony conviction for 'Securing Document By Deception' in Travis County, Texas. He alleges extensive misconduct by police, prosecutors, his trial and appellate counsel, and the presiding judge, Karen Sage. Key allegations include falsification of time sheets, destruction of exculpatory evidence (wind energy systems), misleading a magistrate to obtain search warrants, Brady violations, and ineffective assistance of counsel due to conflicts of interest. Malouff claims Judge Sage's decisions were influenced by pecuniary and political interests related to her re-election campaign, arguing these cumulative errors resulted in a fundamental miscarriage of justice, violating his constitutional rights.

MisconductDue ProcessFair TrialBrady ViolationsIneffective Assistance of CounselJudicial BiasProsecutorial MisconductPolice MisconductFelony ConvictionHabeas Corpus
References
156
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Burrick

The respondent, Robert Stephen Burrick, was convicted on January 13, 2003, of federal felonies including mail fraud and interstate transport of stolen property, and sentenced on April 14, 2003. The petitioner contended that these federal felonies were essentially similar to New York felonies, warranting automatic disbarment. Citing Judiciary Law § 90 and precedent, the court found that Burrick's felony conviction resulted in automatic disbarment. Consequently, the petitioner's motion to strike his name from the roll of attorneys was granted, and Robert Stephen Burrick was immediately disbarred and prohibited from practicing law.

DisbarmentAttorney DisciplineFelony ConvictionMail FraudInterstate Transport of Stolen PropertyProfessional MisconductAutomatic DisbarmentNew York LawLegal Ethics
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Brooks

This case involves a defendant, Steven Brooks, seeking dismissal of two felony counts (burglary and criminal mischief) from his indictment in the interest of justice, pursuant to CPL 210.40. Brooks, a persistent felony offender with significant mental and physical disabilities, was arrested in 1986 for taking beer and a television from a distributorship. The court, presided over by Harold Fertig, J., held a People v Clayton hearing with testimonies from multiple psychiatrists and a social worker, who highlighted Brooks's limited intelligence, brain damage, chronic depression, and inability to cope with society or prison life. Despite the prosecution's opposition, the court found that further incarceration would not rehabilitate Brooks and that the Department of Correctional Services inadequately addresses the needs of inmates like him. Concluding that a dismissal of the felony charges would allow for a sentence of probation with placement in a residential treatment program, thereby strengthening public confidence and promoting community welfare, the court granted the dismissal of the felony counts.

Criminal Procedure LawCPL 210.40Dismissal in interest of justicePersistent felony offenderMental health issuesCognitive impairmentRecidivismRehabilitationResidential treatment programProbation
References
9
Case No. 06-10-00099-CR
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 03, 2011

Curtis Leo Williams v. State

Curtis Leo Williams appealed his conviction for possession of marihuana, a state jail felony. The State alleged two prior felony convictions, which elevated the punishment range to a second-degree felony. In a related case, Williams also appealed a conviction for cocaine possession. The court addressed common issues in its opinion for cause number 06-10-00098-CR. Finding no error, the court affirmed the trial court's judgment in this case.

Criminal AppealControlled SubstanceMarihuana PossessionFelony ConvictionPrior ConvictionsPunishment EnhancementAppellate ReviewTrial Court JudgmentTexas Court of AppealsPro Se Appeal
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 13, 1992

People v. Nieves

The appellant, in concert with two others, robbed a Getty Mart in Greenwich, Connecticut. During their escape, they were pursued by police into New York, where the getaway car, driven by a codefendant, crashed into a bus shelter in Bronx County, killing Ms. Gladys Davis. The appellant was convicted of felony murder. On appeal, the appellant challenged New York's jurisdiction, arguing the underlying felony occurred out of state and that he lacked accessorial accountability for the death. The Court affirmed the conviction, holding that New York had jurisdiction as the death, an element of felony murder, occurred within its borders, and the appellant's active participation in the planned escape made him liable for the foreseeable consequences of reckless flight.

Felony murderRobberyInterstate pursuitJurisdictionAccessorial liabilityReckless drivingCriminal intentAffirmative defenseConfession voluntarinessRosario rule
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bruns v. State

The appellant, Donald Bruns, appealed his conviction for misdemeanor theft, initially charged as felony theft based on prior forgery convictions. Bruns argued that the trial court lacked jurisdiction because forgery offenses should not be used to elevate a misdemeanor theft to a felony under Texas Penal Code Ann. § 31.03(e)(4)(D). The appellate court reviewed relevant precedents, confirming that forgery, burglary, and other similar offenses are not considered 'grades of theft' for enhancement purposes. Consequently, the court found that the trial court never acquired felony jurisdiction over the case. The judgment of the trial court was therefore reversed, and the cause was remanded with instructions to transfer it to a court possessing misdemeanor jurisdiction.

TheftFelony enhancementMisdemeanor jurisdictionForgery as prior convictionStatutory interpretationJurisdictional challengeIndictment quashalAppellate reviewCriminal procedurePecuniary loss
References
11
Case No. Ind. No. 1246/21; Appeal No. 5676; Case No. 2022-00851
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 27, 2026

Rodriguez v. CB Devs.

The defendant, Benjamin Lowman, appealed a judgment from the Supreme Court, New York County, rendered on February 22, 2022, convicting him, upon his plea of guilty, of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol or drugs. He was sentenced to a five-day jail term and a three-year conditional discharge. Defendant argued his plea was invalid because the court did not allocute him on his prior conviction, which elevated the charge to a felony, and did not arraign him on the special information. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the judgment, finding the contention unpreserved and rejecting it on the merits as an alternative holding. The court concluded that the plea was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary, noting that the special information sufficiently apprised the defendant of the elevated felony charge and he was informed of the felony at multiple junctures.

Guilty PleaVehicle and Traffic LawDUIDWIFelony ChargePrior ConvictionPlea ValiditySpecial InformationArraignmentAppellate Review
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Brennan v. State

Randy Ray Brennan appealed his felony driving while intoxicated (DWI) conviction, arguing that the Kaufman County Court at Law lacked subject matter jurisdiction because felony cases require a twelve-person jury, while county courts constitutionally seat only six. The appellate court clarified that statutory county courts, unlike constitutional county courts, can lawfully empanel twelve jurors for felony DWI cases, affirming the trial court's jurisdiction. Brennan also raised multiple claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, including failures to object to evidence, ensure a complete voir dire record, and present mitigation evidence. The court reviewed each claim, finding no deficiency in counsel's performance or no resulting prejudice, and consequently overruled all of Brennan's ineffective assistance arguments. The trial court's judgment was affirmed.

Driving While IntoxicatedFelony DWISubject Matter JurisdictionStatutory County CourtJury CompositionIneffective Assistance of CounselAppellate ReviewTrial StrategyVoir DireEvidence Admissibility
References
41
Case No. ADJ9392012
Regular
Mar 10, 2016

Hillary Schwartz vs. Ease Entertainment, Starr Indemnity and Liability Company

Here's a summary of the case for a lawyer, in four sentences: The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied a petition for reconsideration, affirming that the applicant's psychological injury claim is not barred by Labor Code Section 3600(a)(8). The defense argued the injury stemmed from a felony for which the applicant was convicted, but the Board found Georgia's First Offender Act does not constitute a conviction under the statute. Under the Georgia Act, the applicant's successful probation will lead to no adjudication of guilt, exonerating her and preventing it from being considered a criminal conviction. Therefore, the requirement of a felony "conviction" for the affirmative defense was not met.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardIndustrial InjuryPsycheLabor Code Section 3600(a)(8)Felony ConvictionGeorgia First Offender ActAdjudication of GuiltCriminal TrespassInvoluntary ManslaughterDeferred Prosecution
References
2
Case No. W2013-02562-CCA-R3-CD
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 04, 2015

State of Tennessee v. Billy Stewart

The Defendant, Billy Stewart, was convicted of four counts of aggravated cruelty to animals and one count of cruelty to animals. He appealed his convictions, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence, the admission of disciplinary records, an alleged Brady violation, and his sentencing. The Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee affirmed his convictions, ruling that the evidence sufficiently supported the finding of aggravated cruelty. However, the court noted a plain error in the judgment form, where one count was incorrectly listed as a Class D felony instead of a Class E felony, and remanded the case for correction of that specific judgment.

Animal CrueltyAggravated CrueltyCriminal AppealSufficiency of EvidenceSentencing ErrorBrady ViolationUndercover InvestigationAnimal Shelter ProtocolCatchpole MisuseEuthanasia Procedures
References
18
Showing 1-10 of 162 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