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

• Cahill v. Rushen
  678 F.2d 791· 9th Cir.· 1982-06-02 ·cited 12×·via 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Habeas Corpus
  The dissenting judge would hold that the Massiah doctrine, rooted in the Sixth Amendment right to counsel, does not apply to post-sentencing confrontations between law enforcement and a convicted defendant.
• Eleuterio v. Louie L. Wainwright
  587 F.2d 194· 5th Cir.· 1979-01-02 ·cited 12×·via Habeas Corpus Relief Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254
  The court held that a refusal to sign a Miranda waiver form does not automatically invalidate a waiver, and that competent evidence of sanity existed to support the conviction.
• Durkin v. Davis
  538 F.2d 1037· 4th Cir.· 1976-03-23 ·cited 12×·via 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Habeas Corpus
  The court held that the petitioner had not exhausted state remedies by failing to properly present his federal claim to the state courts, and therefore the federal court should have dismissed the petition.
• Rito G. Canales v. Baker
  406 F.2d 685· 10th Cir.· 1969-02-04 ·cited 12×
  A federal court may deny a habeas petition without an evidentiary hearing if the state court has already reliably determined the facts after a full and fair hearing.
• Turner v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr.
  991 F.3d 1208· 11th Cir.· 2021-03-25 ·cited 11×·via 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition
  The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of the habeas petition, holding that the district court did not err in sua sponte determining the petition was untimely based on the petitioner's own admissions and provided dates, and that the petitioner had an opportu
• Hardwick v. Sec'y, Fla. Dep't OF Corr.
  803 F.3d 541· 11th Cir.· 2015-09-18 ·cited 11×
  John Gary Hardwick, Jr. was convicted of first-degree murder in 1986 and sentenced to death after a penalty phase in which his trial counsel presented no mitigating evidence. In Hardwick v. Crosby (Hardwick III), the Eleventh Circuit determined that Hardwick was entitled to an ev
• Holland v. Sec'y, Fla. Dep't of Corr.
  941 F.3d 1285· 11th Cir.· 2019-11-01 ·cited 10×
  The Eleventh Circuit held that the district court correctly dismissed Holland's third federal habeas petition for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because it was a successive petition that failed to obtain prior authorization from the court of appeals.
• Paez v. Sec'y, Fla. Dep't OF Corr.
  931 F.3d 1304· 11th Cir.· 2019-07-31 ·cited 10×
  A district court abuses its discretion by sua sponte dismissing a habeas petition as untimely without first ordering the State to respond, even if the court properly took judicial notice of state court dockets.
• Grooms v. Solem
  923 F.2d 88· 8th Cir.· 1991-01-08 ·cited 10×
  The court held that trial counsel's failure to investigate a potential alibi defense and seek a continuance constituted ineffective assistance of counsel, and this deficiency prejudiced the defendant.
• Jones v. Berry
  880 F.2d 670· 2d Cir.· 1989-07-24 ·cited 10×·via Habeas Corpus Review Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254
  The court held that even if the trial court erred in limiting cross-examination, the error was harmless because the defendant failed to make an offer of proof regarding the relevance of the excluded questions and his trial counsel's actions obscured the intended purpose of the in
• Graham v. Lynaugh
  854 F.2d 715· 5th Cir.· 1988-08-31 ·cited 10×·via Habeas Corpus Relief Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254
  The court held that the petitioner failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a federal right and therefore denied his petition for a certificate of probable cause.
• Zackary Rogers v. Lynaugh
  848 F.2d 606· 5th Cir.· 1988-06-30 ·cited 10×·via 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Habeas Corpus
  The court held that the prosecutor's argument to the jury, suggesting they allocate ten years for each prior conviction in addition to the current offense, constituted constitutional error under the Double Jeopardy Clause, and this error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt
• Crespo v. Armontrout
  818 F.2d 684· 8th Cir.· 1987-05-20 ·cited 10×·via 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Habeas Corpus
  The court held that the admission of the defendant's incriminating statements did not violate his constitutional rights and that a prosecutor's question on cross-examination did not render the trial fundamentally unfair.
• Wade v. Armontrout
  798 F.2d 304· 8th Cir.· 1986-08-12 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the state waived the exhaustion requirement for the alibi claim and that the denial of a continuance may have denied a fair trial, requiring remand for an evidentiary hearing on ineffective assistance of counsel.
• Matthews v. A.L. Lockhart
  726 F.2d 394· 8th Cir.· 1984-01-24 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the appellant's statutory and constitutional rights to a speedy trial were not violated, nor was he denied a fair trial due to pretrial publicity or subjected to double jeopardy.
• Billiot v. Maggio
  694 F.2d 98· 5th Cir.· 1982-12-20 ·cited 10×·via Habeas Corpus Relief Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254
  The court held that a federal court cannot review a state court's application of Fourth Amendment principles in habeas proceedings unless the petitioner was denied a full and fair opportunity to litigate the claim. Furthermore, withholding cumulative evidence from the jury does n
• Wayne v. Raines
  690 F.2d 685· 9th Cir.· 1982-10-18 ·cited 10×·via 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Habeas Corpus
  The court held that the petitioner's guilty plea was validly entered, as the trial judge thoroughly explained the sentencing terms and the petitioner, with counsel's advice, understood them.
• Washington v. Regan
  510 F.2d 1126· 3d Cir.· 1975-02-10 ·cited 10×·via Habeas Corpus Relief Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254
  The court held that the state court's resentencing procedure did not violate due process, and therefore, federal intervention via habeas corpus was unwarranted.
• Jennings v. Sec'y, Fla. Dep't of Corr.
  108 F.4th 1299· 11th Cir.· 2024-07-22 ·cited 9×·via 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition
  A second-in-time federal habeas petition raising Brady and Giglio claims is considered a second or successive petition subject to statutory restrictions, and the district court correctly dismissed it for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction when the petitioner failed to obtain pri
• Nance v. Comm'r, Ga. Dep't of Corr.
  981 F.3d 1201· 11th Cir.· 2020-12-02 ·cited 9×
  Michael Nance, a death row inmate challenging Georgia's lethal injection protocol as unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment, filed suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking an injunction against the only method of execution authorized by state law and proposing firing squad as an
• Bowles v. Sec'y, Fla. Dep't OF Corr., Attorney Gen., State of Fla.
  935 F.3d 1176· 11th Cir.· 2019-08-21 ·cited 9×
  The court held that the district court correctly dismissed the petitioner's second federal habeas petition for lack of jurisdiction because he failed to obtain authorization from the court of appeals before filing it, as required by AEDPA.
• Moore v. Wyrick
  766 F.2d 1253· 8th Cir.· 1985-07-10 ·cited 9×
  The majority erred in finding that the Missouri Supreme Court's retroactive application of its felony murder statute construction deprived the petitioner of due process.
• Nerison v. Solem
  715 F.2d 415· 8th Cir.· 1983-08-24 ·cited 9×·via 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Habeas Corpus
  The court held that federal habeas corpus review is barred by procedural default for claims not raised in state court, absent a showing of cause and prejudice, and that the denial of a continuance or substitution of counsel was not an abuse of discretion absent prejudice.
• Lovett v. Butterworth
  610 F.2d 1002· 1st Cir.· 1979-12-13 ·cited 9×·via 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Habeas Corpus
  The court held that a prosecutor's substitution of a more serious charge after a defendant exercises their right to appeal de novo, even if due to prosecutorial error, violates due process by creating a realistic likelihood of vindictiveness.
• Medina v. Singletary
  960 F. Supp. 275· M.D. Fla.· 1997-03-24 ·cited 8×·via 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Habeas Corpus
  The court held that a petitioner must obtain authorization from the appellate court before filing a second or successive habeas corpus application in the district court under AEDPA, and dismissed the case without prejudice to allow the petitioner to seek such authorization.
• Remeta v. Singletary
  85 F.3d 513· 11th Cir.· 1996-05-31 ·cited 8×
  Daniel Eugene Remeta appealed the denial of his federal habeas corpus petition challenging his Florida death sentence for murder committed during a 1985 multi-state crime spree. Remeta raised numerous issues, including a claim that Florida violated the Interstate Agreement on Det
• Lozada v. Deeds
  964 F.2d 956· 9th Cir.· 1992-05-20 ·cited 8×·via 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition
  Prejudice is presumed under Strickland when counsel fails to file a notice of appeal without the petitioner's consent.
• Morrison v. Duckworth
  929 F.2d 1180· 7th Cir.· 1991-04-11 ·cited 8×·via 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Habeas Corpus
  The court held that even if the state court erred by admitting a nontestifying codefendant's confession, the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt due to the appellant's own incriminating statements.
• Swindler v. A.L. Lockhart
  885 F.2d 1342· 8th Cir.· 1989-09-26 ·cited 8×·via 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Habeas Corpus
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying the petition for a writ of habeas corpus, affirming the denial of relief on all grounds.
• Russell v. Jones
  886 F.2d 149· 8th Cir.· 1989-09-19 ·cited 8×·via Habeas Corpus Relief Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254
  The court affirmed the denial of the habeas corpus petition, finding no ineffective assistance of counsel, no suppression of confession, and sufficient evidence for conviction. The court also affirmed the denial of the state's request for transcript costs.
• Sheley v. Dugger
  824 F.2d 1551· 11th Cir.· 1987-08-21 ·cited 8×·via 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Habeas Corpus
  The court held that the inmate's claims of procedural due process, Eighth Amendment, substantive due process, and equal protection violations were without merit, emphasizing deference to prison administrators' decisions.
• Archer v. Lynaugh
  821 F.2d 1094· 5th Cir.· 1987-07-16 ·cited 8×
  The court held that a pro se petitioner's belated appeal is precluded by strict appellate rules regarding timely notice of appeal and the effect of post-judgment motions.
• Harker v. State OF Md.
  800 F.2d 437· 4th Cir.· 1986-09-16 ·cited 8×·via Habeas Corpus Review Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254
  The court held that while the police procedures in administering hypnosis were flawed, the identification of the defendant was sufficiently reliable apart from the hypnosis, rendering the error harmless.
• Milliman v. State OF Minn.
  774 F.2d 247· 8th Cir.· 1985-09-26 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the search warrant was not unconstitutionally overbroad and the use of grand jury subpoenas for evidence gathering, even without presenting to a grand jury, did not violate the appellant's constitutional rights.
• Noggle v. Marshall
  706 F.2d 1408· 6th Cir.· 1983-05-05 ·cited 8×·via 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Habeas Corpus
  The Sixth Amendment's guarantee of effective counsel does not constitutionally mandate a broad attorney-client privilege for psychiatric experts retained by the defense, which is waived only by calling that expert as a witness.
• Isaac v. Perrin
  659 F.2d 279· 1st Cir.· 1981-09-25 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the appellant's Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial was not violated, and therefore, the district court did not err in denying his petition for habeas corpus relief.
• Franklin v. Webb
  653 F.2d 362· 8th Cir.· 1981-07-16 ·cited 8×·via 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Habeas Corpus
  The court held that while a prisoner must exhaust state remedies for claims challenging the fact or duration of confinement, a claim for damages under section 1983 is not subject to the same exhaustion requirement and may be subject to a statute of limitations issue.
• Pope v. Turner
  426 F.2d 783· 10th Cir.· 1970-05-26 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the habeas corpus petition without a hearing, as the petition raised substantial factual issues requiring resolution.
• Edwards v. Butler
  882 F.2d 160· 5th Cir.· 1989-09-01 ·cited 7×·via 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Habeas Corpus
  The court affirmed the denial of the habeas petition, finding no constitutional violations in the state court proceedings.
• Dombrowski v. Mingo
  543 F.3d 1270· 11th Cir.· 2008-10-03 ·cited 6×
  Paul Dombrowski sought federal habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging a Florida sentencing court's failure to advise him of his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination before soliciting his admission to prior convictions for habitual offender enhancement. The
• Pharr v. Gudmanson
  951 F.2d 117· 7th Cir.· 1991-12-16 ·cited 6×
  A confession is not rendered involuntary by a misunderstanding of collateral consequences or the silence of an officer regarding charges outside the scope of a non-prosecution agreement.
• Bedford v. Attorney Gen. OF the State OF Ala. & Charlie E. Jones
  934 F.2d 295· 11th Cir.· 1991-06-24 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the petitioner's claim was not procedurally barred because the state court did not clearly and expressly state that its judgment rested on a state procedural bar, and the state failed to demonstrate prejudice from the delay in filing the petition.
• Johnson v. Puckett
  930 F.2d 445· 5th Cir.· 1991-05-07 ·cited 6×·via Habeas Corpus Relief Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254
  A guilty plea to habitual criminal status waives subsequent collateral attacks on prior convictions, and claims not raised in the district court are not considered on appeal.
• Webb v. Lane
  922 F.2d 390· 7th Cir.· 1991-01-08 ·cited 6×·via 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Habeas Corpus
  The admission of the victim's statements, identified as 'Little Gage,' did not violate the Confrontation Clause because they qualified as excited utterances and a dying declaration, which are firmly rooted hearsay exceptions.
• Buie v. Sullivan
  923 F.2d 10· 2d Cir.· 1990-12-28 ·cited 6×·via 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Habeas Corpus
  The court held that the timing of a witness's arrest, even if potentially impacting exculpatory testimony, does not violate a defendant's Sixth Amendment right to present a defense unless bad faith by the prosecution is shown and the absence of the testimony fundamentally undermi
• Mahorney v. Wallman
  917 F.2d 469· 10th Cir.· 1990-10-24 ·cited 6×·via 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition
  The dissenting judge would affirm the district court's decision, arguing that the prosecutor's remarks, when viewed in the totality of the circumstances, did not deny the defendant due process.
• United States v. O'Grady
  908 F.2d 170· 7th Cir.· 1990-07-19 ·cited 6×·via Habeas Corpus Relief Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254
  The court held that the district court erred in granting habeas relief without an evidentiary hearing, as the petitioner failed to make a sufficiently precise showing of what impeachment evidence would have produced or why counsel's actions were not strategic.
• O'Bremski v. Manfred Maass
  915 F.2d 418· 9th Cir.· 1990-06-06 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the prisoner's claims were not colorable under federal law and that the Board's action in vacating an invalid release date was proper under Oregon law, thus affirming the dismissal of his habeas petition.
• Ferguson v. Jones
  905 F.2d 211· 8th Cir.· 1990-06-05 ·cited 6×·via 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Habeas Corpus
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying the petition for a writ of habeas corpus because the claims were either procedurally barred or did not rise to the level of a constitutional violation.
• Singleton v. A.L. Lockhart
  871 F.2d 1395· 8th Cir.· 1989-04-10 ·cited 6×·via Habeas Corpus Relief Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254
  The court held that the defendant's conviction was valid, but his death sentence should be reinstated, finding no constitutional error in jury selection or ineffective assistance of counsel, and that the prior vacating of the sentence was based on an overruled precedent.