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

• Wycoff v. Crispus NIX
  869 F.2d 1111· 8th Cir.· 1989-03-13 ·cited 6×·via 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Habeas Corpus
  The court held that the petitioner's claims of prosecutorial misconduct and ineffective assistance of counsel did not rise to the level of constitutional violations, and therefore, habeas corpus relief was properly denied.
• Wright v. A.L. Lockhart
  854 F.2d 309· 8th Cir.· 1988-08-17 ·cited 6×·via 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Habeas Corpus
  The court held that the petitioner's claims were either procedurally barred or without merit, and thus affirmed the denial of his habeas corpus petition.
• Ward v. A.L. Lockhart
  841 F.2d 844· 8th Cir.· 1988-03-09 ·cited 6×·via 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Habeas Corpus
  The court held that the evidence was insufficient to support the burglary conviction, violating due process, and that the case should be remanded for an evidentiary hearing on claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and improper sentencing.
• Valles v. Lynaugh
  835 F.2d 126· 5th Cir.· 1988-01-08 ·cited 6×·via 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition
  The court affirmed the district court's rejection of the habeas petition, finding no merit in the appellant's contentions.
• Fink v. A.L. Lockhart
  823 F.2d 204· 8th Cir.· 1987-07-06 ·cited 6×·via 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition
  The court held that the petitioner failed to demonstrate prejudice from his counsel's alleged errors, and therefore, his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel was properly denied.
• McDONALD v. Blackburn
  806 F.2d 613· 5th Cir.· 1986-12-24 ·cited 6×·via 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Habeas Corpus
  The court held that the district court properly dismissed the appellant's second habeas corpus petition under Rule 9(b) because it failed to allege new grounds for relief and the prior determination was on the merits, and that relief on the second ground was also properly denied.
• Reese v. Frey
  801 F.2d 348· 8th Cir.· 1986-09-18 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the appellant's claims of prosecutorial suppression of exculpatory evidence and ineffective assistance of counsel were without merit, and thus the denial of his habeas corpus petition was affirmed.
• Sadler v. Sheriff, Sullivan, Joseph A., Philadelphia Cnty., Patton, Ernest S., Superintendent State Corr. Inst. at Camp Hill & the Attorney Gen. of the State of Pa.
  748 F.2d 820· 3d Cir.· 1984-11-20 ·cited 6×·via Habeas Corpus Relief Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254
  The Equal Protection Clause does not require Pennsylvania to apply its 180-day prompt trial rule from the date of a juvenile petition filing to a juvenile certified for adult trial.
• Terry v. Duckworth
  715 F.2d 1217· 7th Cir.· 1983-08-25 ·cited 6×·via Habeas Corpus Review Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254
  The court held that the petitioner's thirty-two month delay between charge and arrest did not violate his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial.
• Rupert Ray Dixon v. Dupnik
  688 F.2d 682· 9th Cir.· 1982-09-23 ·cited 6×·via 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Habeas Corpus
  The court held that prosecuting an individual under Arizona Revised Statutes section 13-3970 for committing a felony while released on recognizance, after conviction for the underlying felony, violates the Double Jeopardy Clause because the conviction subsumes the elements of the
• Jackson v. Estelle
  672 F.2d 505· 5th Cir.· 1982-04-08 ·cited 6×·via Habeas Corpus Relief Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254
  The court held that the state appellate court's finding of no prejudice from the denial of a mistrial transcript was presumed correct under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), and the appellant failed to overcome this presumption.
• Theodis Maxwell v. Mabry
  672 F.2d 683· 8th Cir.· 1982-03-16 ·cited 6×·via 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Habeas Corpus
  The court affirmed the district court's denial of relief, holding that the appellant's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and Fourth Amendment violations were properly rejected.
• Piepenburg v. Cutler
  649 F.2d 783· 10th Cir.· 1981-05-21 ·cited 6×·via 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Habeas Corpus
  The court held that the Utah obscenity statute was constitutional and that the trial court did not err in its procedures regarding preliminary hearings, jury challenges, or closing arguments.
• Cerbo v. Fauver
  616 F.2d 714· 3d Cir.· 1980-03-13 ·cited 6×·via Habeas Corpus Relief Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254
  The court held that appellate counsel's tactical decision not to raise a tape sealing defense, based on then-existing adverse case law, did not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment, and an evidentiary hearing was not required.
• Bufford McDonald v. Estelle
  590 F.2d 153· 5th Cir.· 1979-02-23 ·cited 6×·via 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Habeas Corpus
  The court held that the petitioner's claims do not establish cause for procedural default or present constitutional issues warranting habeas relief.
• Wendall Hall v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr.
  N.D. Fla.· 2025-11-21 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the petitioner's claims are procedurally defaulted because the state courts relied on independent and adequate state-law procedural grounds, and the petitioner failed to establish cause for the default or demonstrate a miscarriage of justice.
• Tolliver v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr. (Hillsborough County)
  2023 WL 4488294· M.D. Fla.· 2025-04-28 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the petition for writ of habeas corpus was time-barred under AEDPA and must be dismissed.
• Grim v. Sec'y, Fla. Dep't OF Corr.
  705 F.3d 1284· 11th Cir.· 2013-01-22 ·cited 5×
  Norman Grim, a Florida death row inmate, challenged his capital sentence on federal habeas review, arguing that the Sixth and Fifth Amendments required that aggravating circumstances be charged in the indictment and found by a jury. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district cour
• Merrill E. Fields v. Attorney Gen. OF the State OF Md.
  956 F.2d 1290· 4th Cir.· 1992-02-26 ·cited 5×
  A voluntary and intelligent guilty plea generally bars collateral review of antecedent constitutional claims, and the defendant failed to demonstrate prejudice or an actual conflict of interest for his ineffective assistance of counsel claim.
• Davis v. O.L. McCOTTER
  766 F.2d 203· 5th Cir.· 1985-07-22 ·cited 5×·via 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Habeas Corpus
  The Texas rule requiring a defendant to prove duress by a preponderance of the evidence does not violate the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
• Kleckley v. State
  2022 WL 3566908· S.D. Fla.· 2023-03-02 ·cited 4×
  A resentencing on one count that does not alter the term of imprisonment or vacate the original judgment does not restart the AEDPA limitations period for undisturbed counts.
• Higgason v. Clark
  984 F.2d 203· 7th Cir.· 1993-01-14 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a petitioner challenging a conviction used for sentence enhancement must demonstrate actual innocence or cause and prejudice for procedural defaults, and that a guilty plea is valid if voluntary and intelligent, not solely dependent on strong evidence of guilt
• Alexander v. Whitley
  940 F.2d 946· 5th Cir.· 1991-09-09 ·cited 4×·via Habeas Corpus Relief Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254
  The court held that the district court should first consider whether the petitioner's habeas petition constitutes an abuse of the writ under Rule 9(b), in light of the intervening Supreme Court decision in McCleskey v. Zant.
• Richards v. Bellmon
  941 F.2d 1015· 10th Cir.· 1991-07-19 ·cited 4×·via 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Habeas Corpus
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the complaint and that the case should be remanded for further proceedings consistent with supervening authority.
• Camillo v. Armontrout
  938 F.2d 879· 8th Cir.· 1991-07-10 ·cited 4×·via Habeas Corpus Relief Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254
  The court held that a defendant has a due process right to be present at proceedings determining persistent offender status, and the failure to provide notice or opportunity to be present violates this right.
• Eckert v. Tansy
  936 F.2d 444· 9th Cir.· 1991-06-17 ·cited 4×·via 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Habeas Corpus
  The court held that the exclusion of alibi testimony did not violate the defendant's Sixth Amendment rights, his counsel's performance was not ineffective, and the imposition of consecutive life sentences did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment.
• Grooms v. A.L. Lockhart
  919 F.2d 505· 8th Cir.· 1990-11-23 ·cited 4×·via 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Habeas Corpus
  The court affirmed the denial of habeas relief, finding no prejudice from the improper jury instruction or ineffective assistance of counsel.
• Galowski v. Murphy
  891 F.2d 629· 7th Cir.· 1989-12-14 ·cited 4×·via Habeas Corpus Review Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254
  The court held that the petitioner was not denied effective assistance of counsel and affirmed the district court's denial of the habeas corpus petition.
• Bagby v. Sowders
  853 F.2d 1340· 6th Cir.· 1988-08-10 ·cited 4×·via Habeas Corpus Review Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254
  The court held that the prosecutor's comments were not manifestly intended to reflect the accused's silence and would not naturally and necessarily be understood as such by the jury.
• Landry v. Judge J. Robert Hoepfner and William Guste, Jr.
  840 F.2d 1201· 5th Cir.· 1988-03-17 ·cited 4×·via Habeas Corpus Review Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254
  The dissenting judge would reverse the lower court's decision and hold that a jury trial is mandated in driving while intoxicated cases.
• Webb v. Black
  826 F.2d 769· 8th Cir.· 1987-08-18 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court correctly denied the habeas corpus petition because the petitioner failed to overcome the presumption of verity attached to his guilty plea and state court findings.
• Wedemann v. Solem
  826 F.2d 766· 8th Cir.· 1987-08-17 ·cited 4×·via 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Habeas Corpus
  The court held that the admission of evidence of prior fires, insufficient evidence, and refusal of a jury instruction did not violate due process, and an evidentiary hearing was not required.
• Eddy Ray Messimer v. A.L. Lockhart
  822 F.2d 43· 8th Cir.· 1987-06-30 ·cited 4×·via Habeas Corpus Relief Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the habeas corpus petition for abuse of the writ and procedural default, finding the appellant had adequate notice.
• Burton v. Foltz
  810 F.2d 118· 6th Cir.· 1987-02-02 ·cited 4×·via 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Habeas Corpus
  A jury instruction that unconstitutionally shifts the burden of proof on intent can be harmless error if the evidence of intent is overwhelming and the predicate facts conclusively establish intent beyond a reasonable doubt.
• Myrick v. Herb Maschner & the Attorney Gen. of the State of Kan.
  799 F.2d 642· 10th Cir.· 1986-08-29 ·cited 4×·via Habeas Corpus Relief Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254
  The court held that a constitutionally deficient jury instruction regarding intent was harmless error because the evidence overwhelmingly established the petitioner's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and the instruction did not affect the verdict. The court also held that the pet
• Bautista v. O.L. McCOTTER
  793 F.2d 109· 5th Cir.· 1986-06-30 ·cited 4×·via 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Habeas Corpus
  A Texas inmate seeking federal habeas relief has not exhausted state remedies if they failed to petition the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals for review of their conviction, even if review is discretionary.
• Abelino Rodriguez v. Ricketts
  777 F.2d 527· 9th Cir.· 1985-12-02 ·cited 4×·via Habeas Corpus Relief Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254
  The court held that the Due Process Clause does not require state courts to establish a factual basis for a guilty plea absent special circumstances, and that no conflict of interest affected the adequacy of appellate representation.
• Magby v. Donald Wawrzaszek & the Attorney Gen. of the State of Ariz.
  741 F.2d 240· 9th Cir.· 1984-08-21 ·cited 4×·via 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Habeas Corpus
  The court held that the district court erred in finding procedural default on the involuntariness claim, and remanded for consideration of that claim on the merits.
• United States v. Wyrick
  675 F.2d 161· 8th Cir.· 1982-04-02 ·cited 4×·via Habeas Corpus Relief Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254
  The court held that the appellant failed to establish a prima facie violation of the Constitution's fair cross-section requirement due to the exclusion of women from jury venires.
• Wilson v. Meyer
  665 F.2d 118· 7th Cir.· 1981-11-16 ·cited 4×
  The retrial of a defendant for felony murder after the felony murder count was nolle prossed violates the Double Jeopardy Clause.
• Arnold v. Wyrick
  646 F.2d 1225· 8th Cir.· 1981-04-10 ·cited 4×·via Habeas Corpus Relief Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254
  The court held that the district court correctly denied the petition for a writ of habeas corpus, affirming the denial of relief.
• Huffman v. State OF Mo.
  527 F.2d 899· 8th Cir.· 1976-01-21 ·cited 4×·via 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Habeas Corpus
  The court held that the petitioner's guilty plea was not rendered unintelligent by ineffective assistance of counsel, as counsel's investigation and advice were constitutionally adequate.
• Martin v. State OF Ind.
  521 F.2d 682· 7th Cir.· 1975-08-28 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court erred in denying the habeas corpus petition by deeming the constitutional issue moot, and that a remand is necessary for further factual determination.
• Sandoval v. Rodriguez
  461 F.2d 1097· 10th Cir.· 1972-06-22 ·cited 4×·via 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Habeas Corpus
  The court held that the federal district court erred in dismissing the claim regarding the jury instruction on failure to testify for failure to exhaust state remedies, but that the instruction and any alleged prosecutorial comment were not constitutional violations or were harml
• Marquetti v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr. (Hillsborough County)
  2021 WL 1853655· M.D. Fla.· 2025-08-18 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the petitioner's federal habeas corpus petition was time-barred under AEDPA, as it was filed years after the one-year limitation period expired, and equitable tolling or actual innocence exceptions did not apply.
• Griffin v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr.
  2024 WL 964197· M.D. Fla.· 2024-10-21 ·cited 3×·via 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition
  The court held that the petitioner's habeas corpus petition was time-barred under AEDPA because he failed to demonstrate entitlement to equitable tolling.
• Sweet v. Dixon
  2023 WL 7110349· N.D. Fla.· 2024-08-19 ·cited 3×
  A district court lacks jurisdiction to consider a second or successive § 2254 petition unless the petitioner has first obtained authorization from the appropriate appellate court.
• Blackmon v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr.
  34 F.4th 1014· 11th Cir.· 2022-05-19 ·cited 3×
  The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Blackmon's habeas petition, finding no violation of clearly established federal law regarding ineffective assistance of counsel.
• Grossman v. Crosby
  359 F. Supp. 2d 1233· M.D. Fla.· 2005-01-31 ·cited 3×
  The court denied Petitioner Martin E. Grossman's amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
• Ramseur v. Beyer
  983 F.2d 1215· 3d Cir.· 1992-12-31 ·cited 3×
  A criminal defendant fails to establish an equal protection violation in grand jury selection when prospective jurors are temporarily set aside based on race if ultimately empaneled, the judge's purpose is achieving representativeness rather than invidious discrimination, and the