28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition For Writ Of Habeas Corpus

634 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 415 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• Coleman v. McCORMICK
  874 F.2d 1280· 9th Cir.· 1989-05-05 ·cited 22×·via 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Habeas Corpus
  The court held that the defendant's sentence must be reversed due to procedural issues in place at the time of trial regarding capital punishment hearings.
• Chandler v. Otie Jones & Attorney Gen. of the State of Tenn.
  813 F.2d 773· 6th Cir.· 1987-03-13 ·cited 22×
  The court affirmed the denial of the writ of habeas corpus, finding that the petitioner's sentence was not cruel and unusual punishment and that he did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel.
• Stokes v. Procunier
  744 F.2d 475· 5th Cir.· 1984-10-22 ·cited 22×·via 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Habeas Corpus
  The court held that the enhanced sentence was improper due to insufficient evidence regarding the timing of prior convictions, but affirmed the denial of relief on other grounds.
• Ardia v. McCREE
  689 F.2d 797· 8th Cir.· 1982-10-08 ·cited 22×·via Habeas Corpus Review Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254
  The court held that the petitioner's video-taped statement was admissible because he initiated further communication with the police after invoking his right to counsel and knowingly and intelligently waived that right.
• Maxwell v. Turner
  411 F.2d 805· 10th Cir.· 1969-05-26 ·cited 22×·via 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Habeas Corpus
  The court held that the federal district court did not err in denying a habeas corpus petition without an evidentiary hearing when the state court had provided an adequate hearing and the federal court properly reviewed the state proceedings.
• Michael v. Crosby
  430 F.3d 1310· 11th Cir.· 2005-11-21 ·cited 21×
  Linda Michael, a Florida prisoner serving a life sentence for second-degree murder, appealed the denial of her federal habeas petition challenging her conviction and sentence. Michael claimed her trial counsel was ineffective under the Sixth Amendment for failing to discover and
• Atkins v. People OF the State OF Mich. (William L. Cahalan
  644 F.2d 543· 6th Cir.· 1981-03-02 ·cited 21×·via 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Habeas Corpus
  The Sixth Circuit held that while a federal court can entertain a pretrial habeas petition for a speedy trial claim to enforce the state's duty to provide a prompt trial, the district court erred in dismissing the indictment prematurely. The court also held that the arbitrary rev
• Smith v. O.L. McCOTTER
  786 F.2d 697· 5th Cir.· 1986-04-07 ·cited 20×·via Habeas Corpus Review Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254
  A federal court reviewing a state conviction via habeas corpus is limited to federal constitutional claims, and a guilty plea waives most preceding claims, including alleged defects in the indictment or lack of personal service.
• Beans v. Black
  757 F.2d 933· 8th Cir.· 1985-03-08 ·cited 20×·via Habeas Corpus Relief Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254
  The court held that the appellant was not denied a full, fair, and adequate hearing on his competency to stand trial and did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel.
• Rudolph v. Blackburn
  750 F.2d 302· 5th Cir.· 1984-12-04 ·cited 20×·via Habeas Corpus Relief Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254
  A federal habeas petitioner's failure to raise an unexhausted claim in a prior petition constitutes an abuse of the writ, even if the claim was unexhausted at the time of the prior petition.
• Harris v. Housewright
  697 F.2d 202· 8th Cir.· 1982-12-28 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the cumulative effect of the appointed counsel's multiple errors demonstrated a level of performance below that of reasonably competent practitioners, and that the defendant was prejudiced by this ineffectiveness.
• Jensen v. Satran
  651 F.2d 605· 8th Cir.· 1981-06-23 ·cited 20×·via 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Habeas Corpus
  The district court erred in summarily dismissing the habeas corpus petition without an evidentiary hearing or adequate development of the record, particularly given the alleged due process violations and lack of a written decision by the prison disciplinary board.
• Chancery Clerk OF Chickasaw Cnty. v. Wallace
  646 F.2d 151· 5th Cir.· 1981-03-26 ·cited 20×·via 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Habeas Corpus
  The court held that individuals involuntarily confined in state mental institutions may bring a § 1983 action challenging the constitutionality of the commitment procedures, and that abstention was not appropriate. However, the court vacated the certification of the defendant cla
• Skipper v. Louie L. Wainwright
  598 F.2d 425· 5th Cir.· 1979-07-06 ·cited 19×·via 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Habeas Corpus
  The court held that a factual dispute regarding counsel's bar admission requires remand for further fact-finding, while other claims were properly denied.
• Bolius v. Louie L. Wainwright
  597 F.2d 986· 5th Cir.· 1979-06-29 ·cited 19×·via 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Habeas Corpus
  The court affirmed the district court's finding that the petitioner was competent to plead guilty, and that a nunc pro tunc hearing was permissible.
• McGUIRE v. Estelle
  902 F.2d 749· 9th Cir.· 1990-05-04 ·cited 18×·via 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Habeas Corpus
  The admission of irrelevant, highly prejudicial evidence of prior injuries, coupled with an improper jury instruction that allowed the jury to use this evidence to directly determine guilt, violated the defendant's due process rights.
• Blackburn v. Foltz
  828 F.2d 1177· 6th Cir.· 1987-09-17 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the petitioner was denied effective assistance of counsel due to counsel's failures to suppress prior convictions, investigate alibi, and obtain a trial transcript for impeachment.
• Blackwell v. Lou V. Brewer
  562 F.2d 596· 8th Cir.· 1977-10-05 ·cited 18×·via 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Habeas Corpus
  The court held that the state has not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant's absence from the courtroom during the interrogation of the jury amounted to harmless error, and that the issue of waiver was not resolved.
• Sears v. Warden GDCP
  73 F.4th 1269· 11th Cir.· 2023-07-19 ·cited 17×
  Demarcus Sears, sentenced to death in Georgia for kidnapping with bodily injury and armed robbery after the 1990 murder of Gloria Wilbur, appealed his death sentence on federal habeas review, contending that Georgia's inequitable discovery rule under *Sabel v. State* violated his
• Tapia v. Tansy
  926 F.2d 1554· 10th Cir.· 1991-03-05 ·cited 17×·via Habeas Corpus Review Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254
  The court held that the loss of preliminary hearing tapes, the sealing of an affidavit, the submission of a second-degree murder instruction on an accessory theory, the admission of allegedly perjured testimony, and ineffective assistance of counsel did not violate the defendant'
• Nixon v. Lanson Newsome
  888 F.2d 112· 11th Cir.· 1989-11-14 ·cited 17×·via Habeas Corpus Relief Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254
  The court held that the petitioner received constitutionally ineffective assistance of counsel because his trial attorney failed to impeach the key eyewitness with her prior inconsistent testimony, and this failure likely affected the outcome of the trial.
• Berry v. King
  765 F.2d 451· 5th Cir.· 1985-07-01 ·cited 17×
  The court held that the defendant failed to demonstrate prejudice from his counsel's alleged deficient performance and that the exclusion of jurors opposed to the death penalty from the guilt phase of a capital trial does not violate the Sixth Amendment, affirming the denial of h
• Cabberiza v. Moore
  217 F.3d 1329· 11th Cir.· 2000-07-11 ·cited 16×
  David Cabberiza was indicted for first-degree murder and entitled to a twelve-person jury under Florida law, but his attorney agreed to a six-person jury without an on-the-record waiver. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of habeas corpus relief, holding th
• Waterhouse v. Rodriguez
  848 F.2d 375· 2d Cir.· 1988-06-03 ·cited 16×
  The court held that while the petitioner exhausted his Sixth Amendment claim, the per se rule from Solina v. United States does not apply when counsel is disbarred during a pretrial proceeding but withdraws upon learning of the disbarment and had no incentive to fear exposure fro
• Matthews v. Butler
  833 F.2d 1165· 5th Cir.· 1987-12-15 ·cited 16×·via Habeas Corpus Relief Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254
  The court held that the petitioner's habeas petition was properly dismissed under Rule 9(b) for abuse of the writ, as he failed to provide a sufficient excuse for not raising the claims in a prior petition.
• Roach v. Warden Joseph Martin
  757 F.2d 1463· 4th Cir.· 1985-03-20 ·cited 16×·via Habeas Corpus Relief Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254
  The court affirmed the denial of the habeas corpus petition, finding that the petitioner's claims were without merit and that the state court's factfinding procedures were adequate.
• United States ex rel. Rueben Palmer v. DeROBERTIS
  738 F.2d 168· 7th Cir.· 1984-05-14 ·cited 16×·via Habeas Corpus Relief Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254
  The court held that the district court correctly dismissed the habeas corpus petition because the petitioner failed to demonstrate a constitutional violation regarding the admission of flight evidence or the prosecution's use of peremptory challenges, and procedural defaults barr
• Schlang v. Heard
  691 F.2d 796· 5th Cir.· 1982-11-18 ·cited 16×·via 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Habeas Corpus
  The court held that the petitioner's claims did not raise disputed issues of material fact and affirmed the district court's dismissal, treating it as a grant of summary judgment.
• Thompson v. White
  661 F.2d 103· 8th Cir.· 1981-10-14 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the sheriff's personal selection of the entire jury panel, especially in a case where the victim was a law enforcement officer, created a sufficient risk of prejudice to violate due process.
• Zombro v. Baltimore City Police Dep't
  868 F.2d 1364· 4th Cir.· 1989-03-03 ·cited 15×·via 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Habeas Corpus
  The court held that the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) provides the exclusive remedy for age discrimination claims, precluding a separate action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, even when the claim is framed as a Fourteenth Amendment violation.
• Sturgis v. Goldsmith
  796 F.2d 1103· 9th Cir.· 1986-08-11 ·cited 15×·via 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Habeas Corpus
  A defendant does not have a constitutional right to be present at a competency hearing, as it is a preliminary proceeding and not a critical stage of trial.
• Loftis v. Estelle
  515 F.2d 872· 5th Cir.· 1975-07-09 ·cited 15×
  The court should remand for an evidentiary hearing on the issue of effective assistance of counsel.
• Hernando Williams v. Chrans
  945 F.2d 926· 7th Cir.· 1991-10-01 ·cited 14×·via Habeas Corpus Relief Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254
  The court affirmed the district court's denial of the habeas petition, finding no constitutional infirmities in the guilty plea or the Illinois death penalty statute as applied.
• Redding v. State OF Minn.
  881 F.2d 575· 8th Cir.· 1989-08-08 ·cited 14×·via Habeas Corpus Review Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254
  The court held that the admission of accomplice testimony, sufficiency of evidence, and admission of autopsy photos and hearsay did not violate due process or constitutional rights, thus denying habeas relief.
• Santos v. Kolb
  880 F.2d 941· 7th Cir.· 1989-07-26 ·cited 14×
  Failure of trial counsel to advise a defendant of the collateral immigration consequences of a guilty plea, including potential deportation, does not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment.
• Seymore v. State OF Ala.
  846 F.2d 1355· 11th Cir.· 1988-06-14 ·cited 14×·via 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Habeas Corpus
  A violation of Article III(a) of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers (IAD) does not support post-conviction relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 unless the petitioner alleges facts casting substantial doubt on the trial's reliability regarding guilt.
• Freels v. Norm F. Hills
  843 F.2d 958· 6th Cir.· 1988-04-06 ·cited 14×
  Failure by appellate counsel to strictly conform to Anders v. California requirements for filing a brief is not excused by the Strickland v. Washington prejudice standard, as such failure presumptively denies effective assistance of counsel.
• Vern Leslie Herd v. Kincheloe
  800 F.2d 1526· 9th Cir.· 1986-09-30 ·cited 14×·via 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Habeas Corpus
  The court held that both the Sandstrom jury instruction error and the Bruton error were harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, given the overwhelming eyewitness evidence of guilt.
• Lewis v. Cardwell
  609 F.2d 926· 9th Cir.· 1979-09-18 ·cited 14×·via Habeas Corpus Review Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254
  The court affirmed the district court's denial of the petition for post-conviction relief, finding that the claims were barred by adequate and independent state procedural grounds or lacked merit.
• Smith v. Mabry
  564 F.2d 249· 8th Cir.· 1977-10-21 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the ten-month delay between the appellant's demand for a speedy trial and his trial did not violate his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial.
• Askari Abdullah Muhammad v. Sec'y, Dep't OF Corr., Fla. Attorney Gen.
  554 F.3d 949· 11th Cir.· 2009-01-09 ·cited 13×
  Askari Abdullah Muhammad, a Florida death row inmate formerly known as Thomas Knight, sought a certificate of appealability to challenge the denial of his federal habeas corpus petition. Muhammad raised five grounds for relief: competency to stand trial, violation of his Faretta
• Davis v. Lansing
  851 F.2d 72· 2d Cir.· 1988-06-30 ·cited 13×·via 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Habeas Corpus
  The court held that federal courts should abstain from interfering with pending state criminal prosecutions absent a showing of great and immediate irreparable harm or prosecutorial bad faith.
• Lewis v. Lane
  832 F.2d 1446· 7th Cir.· 1987-11-04 ·cited 13×·via 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Habeas Corpus
  The court affirmed the district court's grant of habeas corpus vacating the death sentence due to ineffective assistance of counsel during the sentencing phase, but affirmed the denial of relief regarding the conviction.
• Helfant v. Kugler
  500 F.2d 1188· 3d Cir.· 1974-07-08 ·cited 13×·via 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Habeas Corpus
  The dissenting judge argues that federal courts should not interfere in ongoing state criminal proceedings absent bad faith, harassment, or truly extraordinary circumstances, which are not present here.
• Holland v. State
  775 F.3d 1294· 11th Cir.· 2014-12-29 ·cited 12×
  Albert Holland was convicted of murdering police officer Scott Winters and sentenced to death. Holland, who suffered serious mental illness including schizophrenia and a prior brain injury, repeatedly requested to represent himself before trial, but the trial court denied these r
• United States v. Lane
  926 F.2d 694· 7th Cir.· 1991-03-08 ·cited 12×·via Habeas Corpus Relief Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254
  The court held that defense counsel's failure to ensure an alibi witness's appearance at trial, despite diligent efforts to locate her, did not constitute constitutionally ineffective assistance of counsel.
• Nunnemaker v. Ylst
  904 F.2d 473· 9th Cir.· 1990-02-21 ·cited 12×·via 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Habeas Corpus
  A state court's summary denial of a habeas petition without clearly stating reliance on a procedural default does not bar federal habeas review of the federal claims. However, a defendant's trial counsel's failure to object to testimony on Fifth and Sixth Amendment grounds, when
• Enriquez v. Procunier
  752 F.2d 111· 5th Cir.· 1984-12-26 ·cited 12×·via 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Habeas Corpus
  The court affirmed the denial of habeas relief, finding no merit in the petitioner's claims of incompetency, ineffective assistance of counsel, improper admission of extraneous offenses, or unconstitutional jury exclusion.
• Ward v. Huron Cnty. Cir. Judge Knoblock
  738 F.2d 134· 6th Cir.· 1984-06-28 ·cited 12×
  A prisoner who has fully served a state sentence is not 'in custody' for purposes of federal habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, even if the conviction has collateral consequences. However, a prisoner can attack a federal sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 even if it has not yet b
• United States v. Dovalina
  711 F.2d 737· 5th Cir.· 1983-08-12 ·cited 12×
  The court held that a federal sentence does not commence until the defendant is received at a federal facility for service, and there is no constitutional right to concurrent sentences or credit for time served in state custody for unrelated offenses.