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

• Cranford v. A.L. Lockhart
  975 F.2d 1347· 8th Cir.· 1992-07-22
  The court held that a defendant may voluntarily plead guilty even if unwilling to admit guilt, provided the plea is knowing and intelligent and there is a strong factual basis for the plea.
• Williams v. Dahm
  963 F.2d 216· 8th Cir.· 1992-05-01 ·via 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction and that the petitioner failed to establish prejudice from counsel's alleged errors.
• Porter v. A.L. Lockhart
  961 F.2d 782· 8th Cir.· 1992-04-13
  The court affirmed the dismissal of the habeas petition, finding that the state courts did not err in their conclusions regarding the identification procedures, arrest, and sufficiency of evidence.
• Duffie S. Clark v. Thompson
  960 F.2d 663· 7th Cir.· 1992-04-03 ·via 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Habeas Corpus
  A prisoner challenging the procedures used to consider his parole application, rather than the legality of his confinement, does not need to exhaust state remedies before filing a federal suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
• Huston v. Denis Dowd
  960 F.2d 718· 8th Cir.· 1992-03-16 ·via 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Habeas Corpus
  The court held that the prisoner's habeas corpus petition was properly denied as moot because he had received all the relief he requested, including a hearing and release on parole.
• Wood v. State OF Alaska
  957 F.2d 1544· 9th Cir.· 1992-02-28 ·via 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Habeas Corpus
  Excluding evidence of M.G.'s prior sexual conduct did not violate Wood's Sixth Amendment rights because the evidence was not relevant or its probative value was outweighed by prejudicial effect and other legitimate interests.
• Stano v. Singletary
  952 F.2d 1273· 11th Cir.· 1992-01-22
  The Eleventh Circuit granted Stano's motion to remand his habeas corpus petition to allow him to amend it with a newly discovered conflict of interest claim regarding his trial counsel, following the Florida Supreme Court's ruling in Herring v. State that such defendants are enti
• Derric Morrison v. State OF Mo.
  946 F.2d 1340· 8th Cir.· 1991-10-09
  The court held that the prosecutor's conduct, while reprehensible, was not intended to provoke the defendant into moving for a mistrial, thus double jeopardy does not bar retrial.
• Melgoza v. Peters
  932 F.2d 676· 7th Cir.· 1991-05-16 ·via Habeas Corpus Review Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254
  A trial court's decision to instruct the jury not to draw adverse inferences from a defendant's failure to testify, even over the defendant's objection, does not violate the Fifth Amendment or the Due Process Clause.
• Penn v. Attorney Gen. OF THE State OF Ala.
  930 F.2d 838· 11th Cir.· 1991-05-06 ·via 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Habeas Corpus
  The court held that even if the Jefferson County juvenile statute was unconstitutional, the appellant suffered no prejudice and his prior convictions were validly used for sentence enhancement.
• Bainter v. Trickey
  932 F.2d 713· 8th Cir.· 1991-05-03 ·via 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Habeas Corpus
  The court held that a defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to timely file a motion for a new trial fails if the defendant initially did not wish to appeal, and that a claim of attorney's failure to investigate competency is rejected if the state cour
• Willhoite v. Vasquez
  921 F.2d 247· 9th Cir.· 1990-12-27 ·via 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Habeas Corpus
  The court affirmed the conviction, finding that while the prosecutor's secret deal was objectionable, there was no reasonable probability that its disclosure would have changed the trial's outcome.
• Rael v. Sullivan
  918 F.2d 874· 10th Cir.· 1990-10-29
  The court held that the jury instructions on extortion did not violate due process because they accurately reflected New Mexico law regarding the essential elements of the crime.
• Fate McMILLER v. A.L. Lockhart
  915 F.2d 368· 8th Cir.· 1990-09-27 ·via 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Habeas Corpus
  The court held that the petitioner did not receive constitutionally ineffective assistance of counsel and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a continuance.
• Abdul-Hakeem v. Koehler
  910 F.2d 66· 2d Cir.· 1990-08-01 ·via 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Habeas Corpus
  The court held that a prisoner's petition seeking a transfer of custody, even if framed as a challenge to conditions of confinement, must be treated as a petition for a writ of habeas corpus if the requested relief would require prison officials to cede custody.
• Roderick v. Trickey
  902 F.2d 9· 8th Cir.· 1990-04-26 ·via 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Habeas Corpus
  The court held that a state court's factual findings regarding a guilty plea are presumed correct and that a habeas petitioner's claims contradicting his statements at the plea hearing are insufficient to warrant relief.
• Manning v. Crispus NIX
  901 F.2d 671· 8th Cir.· 1990-04-19 ·via 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition
  The court held that the denial of funds for an investigator was not reversible error absent evidence of prejudice, and that having a married couple serve on a jury does not per se violate constitutional rights.
• McVEIGH v. Smith
  872 F.2d 725· 6th Cir.· 1989-04-11
  The Sixth Amendment right to counsel does not attach prior to a decision to submit to a blood-alcohol test, and refusal to take such a test is not protected by the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.
• Smith v. A.L. Lockhart
  868 F.2d 265· 8th Cir.· 1989-02-10
  The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the habeas corpus petition, finding competency claims without merit and other claims barred by procedural default.
• Cambridge v. Duckworth
  859 F.2d 526· 7th Cir.· 1988-10-07 ·via 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Habeas Corpus
  The court held that the inadvertent mention of a withdrawn guilty plea, followed by a curative instruction, did not violate the defendant's due process rights or Fifth Amendment privilege, and any error was harmless.
• Laurence Hurd v. Eloy Mondragon
  851 F.2d 324· 10th Cir.· 1988-07-07 ·via 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Habeas Corpus
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying the motion to withdraw the habeas petition and in dismissing the petition with prejudice, as the withdrawal motion was untimely and addressed to the court's discretion.
• Hasan Tashin Agtas v. Hard Whitley
  836 F.2d 1233· 9th Cir.· 1988-01-14
  The court held that the district court correctly dismissed the habeas corpus petition, finding no denial of effective assistance of counsel, a knowing and voluntary guilty plea, and no entitlement to an evidentiary hearing.
• Williams v. A.L. Lockhart
  797 F.2d 344· 8th Cir.· 1986-08-05 ·via Habeas Corpus Relief Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254
  The court held that a juror's voir dire statements did not demonstrate bias and a prosecutor's rebuttal argument did not improperly comment on the defendant's failure to testify.
• William v. Nabozny
  781 F.2d 83· 6th Cir.· 1986-01-15 ·via Habeas Corpus Relief Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254
  The court held that the reasonable doubt instruction was adequate, Fourth Amendment claims were properly litigated, emergency wiretaps were justified under statute, and ineffective assistance of counsel claims failed to meet the required prejudice standard.
• Johnson v. A.L. Lockhart
  746 F.2d 1367· 8th Cir.· 1984-10-30 ·via 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Habeas Corpus
  The court held that a guilty plea is not rendered involuntary by the failure of a trial judge to explain parole eligibility, absent evidence of attorney misrepresentation.
• Irons v. A.L. Lockhart
  741 F.2d 207· 8th Cir.· 1984-08-23
  The court held that the appellant failed to demonstrate prejudice from his trial counsel's alleged errors regarding jury selection, prosecutorial comments, prejudicial testimony, and the use of his prior confession, thus affirming the denial of his habeas corpus petition.
• Hickey v. Solem
  728 F.2d 1149· 8th Cir.· 1984-03-06 ·via 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Habeas Corpus
  The court held that the undisclosed witness statement was not material to guilt or punishment, and therefore its suppression did not violate due process. The court also affirmed the lower court's finding that there was no prejudicial contact between the victim's relatives and the
• Terry v. Housewright
  659 F.2d 879· 8th Cir.· 1981-09-30 ·via Habeas Corpus Relief Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support the petitioner's felony conviction for theft of property.
• Jones v. Petrovsky
  631 F.2d 595· 8th Cir.· 1980-10-21 ·via 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition
  A federal court petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 alleging a sentencing judge ignored plea agreement terms fails to state a cause of action, as Santobello v. New York only binds prosecutors, not courts. Furthermore, a successive petition lacking new grounds may be dismissed.
• Davis v. State OF Ala.
  545 F.2d 460· 5th Cir.· 1977-01-14 ·via 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Habeas Corpus
  The court held that the denial of the motion for a continuance raised a substantial claim of ineffective assistance of counsel requiring an evidentiary hearing, but the denial of the motion for a mental examination did not violate federal constitutional rights regarding competenc
• Tyler v. Wyrick
  540 F.2d 921· 8th Cir.· 1976-08-09 ·via 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Habeas Corpus
  The court held that the petitioner's claims are frivolous, thus denying his request for appointed counsel and dismissing the appeal.
• United States ex rel. Robert F. Burke v. Erickson
  438 F.2d 326· 8th Cir.· 1971-02-25 ·via 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Habeas Corpus
  The court held that the South Dakota statute limiting defenses for embezzlement does not unconstitutionally deprive an accused of a jury trial on the issue of intent to convert property.