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

Youngblood v. Brown

Pro se petitioner Eugene Youngblood seeks a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his 1997 New York conviction for two counts of Robbery in the First Degree. Youngblood raises eight claims, including a defective indictment, Batson violations during jury selection, improper exclusion of evidence, Sixth Amendment confrontation clause violations, erroneous admission of uncharged criminal conduct, prosecutorial misconduct, insufficient evidence, and ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. The District Court, applying AEDPA standards, finds each of Youngblood's claims to be without merit or not warranting habeas relief. Consequently, the petition for habeas corpus is denied, and a certificate of appealability is declined.

habeas corpusRobbery First DegreeBatson challengeineffective assistance of counselprosecutorial misconductsufficiency of evidenceSixth Amendmentdue processjury selectionfelony conviction
References
37
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 04, 2007

Osorio v. Conway

Carlos Osorio, a pro se petitioner, sought a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his 1999 New York state conviction for various crimes, including burglary and robbery. He argued insufficient evidence, improper jury instructions on identification, erroneous admission of evidence, prosecutorial misconduct, and ineffective assistance of trial counsel. The District Court, presided over by Judge Chin, denied the petition. The court found that sufficient evidence supported the conviction, the jury charge was proper, and the evidence was admissible. Furthermore, the court determined that the prosecutor's comments did not violate due process and Osorio's counsel provided effective assistance, having conveyed plea offers and made a reasonable strategic decision regarding an alibi defense. Consequently, the petition for a writ of habeas corpus was denied.

Habeas CorpusIneffective Assistance of CounselProsecutorial MisconductJury InstructionsSufficiency of EvidencePretrial IdentificationDue ProcessCriminal ProcedureState ConvictionFederal Review
References
51
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Parson v. Portuondo

Petitioner Jerry E. Parson sought a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his conviction. He objected to a Magistrate Judge's recommendation to deny his petition, arguing his reply brief was overlooked. The District Court conducted a full review, addressing Parson's claims of alibi defense preclusion and ineffective assistance of counsel. The Court found the alibi claim procedurally barred and lacking actual prejudice, and determined that the Appellate Division's rejection of the ineffective assistance claim was not contrary to established federal law. Consequently, the petition for writ of habeas corpus was denied, and a certificate of appealability was withheld.

habeas corpusineffective assistance of counselalibi defenseprocedural defaultactual prejudiceconstitutional rightsfederal reviewcriminal procedurejudicial reviewconviction
References
16
Case No. 02 Civ. 8362
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 13, 2003

Paramore v. Filion

Petitioner Robert Paramore, convicted of child sexual misconduct, sought a writ of habeas corpus challenging the sufficiency of evidence regarding the duration of the abuse as required by New York Penal Law § 130.75. He argued that the child victim's testimony was too vague to prove the sexual conduct occurred for at least three months. The District Court, agreeing with the Appellate Division, found the evidence sufficient, emphasizing that reasonable inferences could be drawn from child testimony despite inconsistencies, especially considering the developmental challenges children face in recalling traumatic events chronologically. Consequently, the Court denied Paramore's habeas corpus petition. A subsequent motion for reconsideration was granted only to retract a statement about the bad faith nature of a potential appeal, without altering the denial of the petition.

Habeas CorpusSufficiency of EvidenceChild Sexual AbuseChild WitnessDue ProcessAppellate ReviewPenal LawFederal Habeas ReliefCredibility AssessmentChild Development
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lewis v. Zon

Thomas Lewis, convicted of second-degree robbery, petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus, challenging the state trial court's ad hoc competency procedure. The trial court heavily relied on a social worker's report, commissioned after the competency hearing, without affording Lewis an opportunity to contest it or cross-examine the social worker. This District Court found that this procedure violated Lewis's Due Process rights, as it constituted an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law requiring a reasonable opportunity to demonstrate incompetence. Given the impossibility of conducting a meaningful retrospective competency hearing due to the lapse of time and limitations of the original record, the court granted the habeas corpus petition. Lewis is to be discharged unless the State elects to retry him within 90 days.

habeas corpusdue processcompetency hearingpsychiatric examinationSixth AmendmentConfrontation Clausestate proceduresfederal lawcriminal prosecutionsecond-degree robbery
References
40
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People ex rel. Sandnes v. Sheriff of Kings County

The relator was found guilty of contempt of court and sentenced to imprisonment for violating a temporary injunction. A writ of habeas corpus was obtained, challenging the legality of the commitment. The court, presided over by Pecora, J. in Engs county, sustained the writ. It found that the original injunction was void because it was issued without the requisite notice under Civil Practice Act § 882, and failed to comply with Civil Practice Act § 876-a, which governs injunctions in labor disputes. The court had exceeded its jurisdiction by proceeding without proper findings, notice, and proof of efforts to settle the dispute. Additionally, the relator was unlawfully denied a jury trial in the contempt proceeding as mandated by Judiciary Law § 753-a, and the commitment order itself was defective for not detailing the circumstances of the contempt. Therefore, the relator was discharged.

Habeas CorpusContempt of CourtTemporary InjunctionLabor DisputeJudicial JurisdictionCivil Practice Act ViolationsJudiciary Law ApplicationLack of NoticeDenial of Jury TrialVoid Orders
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 20, 1974

People ex rel. Price v. Warden of New York City Correctional Institution

The relator, an inmate at the New York City Correctional Institution for Men on Riker's Island, was segregated after an anonymous note indicated a threat to homosexual prisoners. Following an interview and investigation confirming his homosexuality, and his refusal to transfer to segregated housing, he was placed in punitive then administrative segregation. A three-man board hearing preceded his administrative segregation. The court, acknowledging the prison's exigent situation and existing problems within correctional facilities, determined that due process was substantially afforded. Consequently, the Supreme Court, Bronx County's judgment dismissing the relator's petition for a writ of habeas corpus was affirmed.

HomosexualityInmate SegregationPunitive SegregationAdministrative SegregationDue ProcessHabeas CorpusCorrectional FacilitiesRiker's IslandInmate RightsPrison Administration
References
2
Case No. Dkt. No. 286
Regular Panel Decision

Rosemond v. United States

James Rosemond filed a habeas corpus petition, alleging four grounds for relief: the government's unconstitutional refusal to offer a cooperation agreement, failure to disclose impeachment material regarding a cooperating witness, ineffective assistance of counsel during proffer sessions and trial, and juror misconduct. The court denied his request for an evidentiary hearing and dismissed the petition, finding no constitutional violations or demonstrable prejudice. The court determined the government's discretion in cooperation agreements was not arbitrary, alleged non-disclosures were either truthful responses or not material, and counsel's strategic decisions, though unsuccessful, did not constitute ineffective assistance. Furthermore, the court found no showing of prejudice from alleged juror misconduct based on double hearsay.

Habeas CorpusIneffective Assistance of CounselJuror MisconductCooperation AgreementProffer StatementsBrady ViolationDue ProcessSixth AmendmentCriminal ProcedureEvidentiary Hearing
References
36
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 19, 2004

Crowley v. Federal Bureau of Prisons

William Crowley, after pleading guilty to four counts, was sentenced to twenty-nine months incarceration in 2002. The sentencing judge recommended he serve the final eighteen months in a halfway house (Community Confinement Center - CCC), consistent with the Bureau of Prisons' (BOP) longstanding practice. However, in December 2002, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) adopted a new legal interpretation, significantly restricting CCC placements to the final two months of a sentence. Crowley filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, challenging this retroactive application. The court granted Crowley's petition, ruling that the new BOP policy was invalid as it was not promulgated in compliance with the Administrative Procedure Act and was based on an incorrect statutory interpretation. Furthermore, the court held that the retroactive application of the new policy to Crowley's sentence violated the Ex Post Facto Clause, as the original sentencing relied on the prior BOP policy.

Habeas CorpusBureau of Prisons PolicyCommunity Confinement CentersAdministrative Procedure ActStatutory InterpretationEx Post Facto ClauseSentencing GuidelinesRetroactive ApplicationJudicial DiscretionPrisoner Rights
References
54
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 18, 2009

Kimble v. McGinnis

Joseph Kimble, a pro se petitioner, filed for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his 1997 Erie County conviction for murder, robbery, and weapon possession. Kimble argued he was deprived of a fair trial due to the jury's inadvertent viewing of a brief autopsy videotape of the naked victim during trial. Magistrate Judge Victor E. Bianchini recommended denying the petition, finding that although the incident was careless, it did not amount to a due process violation given its brevity, lack of gruesomeness, and the curative instructions provided to the jury. Chief Judge Richard J. Arcara adopted this recommendation, denying the petition and declining to issue a certificate of appealability.

habeas corpusdue processfair trialevidentiary errorautopsy videojury instructionprosecutorial misconductcircumstantial evidencemurder conviction challengerobbery conviction challenge
References
17
Showing 1-10 of 61 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