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

• Scott v. Fla. Dep't of Corr.
  2025 WL 708612· S.D. Fla.· 2025-06-10 ·cited 2×·via 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Habeas Corpus
  The court denied Petitioner's claims 11, 14, and 16 on the merits, finding no violation of federal law or unreasonable determination of facts by the state court.
• Cajan v. Fla. Dep't of Corr.
  2014 WL 12929717· S.D. Fla.· 2023-11-30 ·cited 2×
  A district court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction to entertain a second or successive petition for a writ of habeas corpus when the petitioner has not obtained prior authorization from the court of appeals.
• Cuffy v. Dixon
  2021 WL 247917· S.D. Fla.· 2023-09-27 ·cited 2×
  A resentencing order that is nunc pro tunc to the original judgment does not create a 'new judgment' for purposes of filing a second or successive federal habeas corpus petition.
• Forbes v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr.
  S.D. Fla.· 2023-02-17 ·cited 2×
  The court denied the petitioner's motion to alter or amend the judgment because it was untimely and, even if construed as a Rule 60(b) motion, failed to show a basis for relief.
• Brosky v. Sec'y, Fla. Dep't of Corr.
  S.D. Fla.· 2022-05-06 ·cited 2×
  A Certificate of Appealability (COA) shall not issue regarding the denial of the Petitioner's motion to alter and amend judgment.
• Griffin v. McNeil
  667 F. Supp. 2d 1340· S.D. Fla.· 2009-10-15 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the petitioner's federal habeas corpus petition was not time-barred under the AEDPA's one-year statute of limitations due to continuous tolling during state post-conviction proceedings.
• Porter v. Singletary
  883 F. Supp. 660· M.D. Fla.· 1995-04-17 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the petitioner's claims were procedurally barred or failed to meet the Strickland standard for ineffective assistance of counsel, and that his sentence was not an ex post facto violation.
• Herring v. Singletary
  879 F. Supp. 1180· N.D. Fla.· 1995-03-10 ·cited 2×
  Herring, a Florida inmate convicted of second-degree murder, challenged the forfeiture of 1,540 days of provisional credits that had been awarded under Fla. Stat. § 944.277 (1988) but retroactively cancelled by Fla. Stat. § 944.278 (1993). The district court held that the retroac
• Lowery v. Collins
  988 F.2d 1364· 5th Cir.· 1993-04-07 ·cited 2×·via 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Habeas Corpus
  The admission of a videotaped interview of a child complainant, without the child testifying in court and being subject to cross-examination, violates the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause, and such an error is not harmless when the videotape likely contributed to the convic
• Williams v. Groose
  979 F.2d 1335· 8th Cir.· 1992-11-23 ·cited 2×·via 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the appointment of counsel and in dismissing the habeas petition as an abuse of the writ.
• Herta Spitzweiser-Wittgenstein v. Newton
  978 F.2d 1195· 10th Cir.· 1992-11-03 ·cited 2×
  The district court erred in relying on the presumption of correctness under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) to uphold the state court's competency finding, as material facts were not adequately developed in state court.
• Satter v. Leapley
  977 F.2d 1259· 8th Cir.· 1992-10-19 ·cited 2×·via 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Habeas Corpus
  The court affirmed the dismissal of the habeas petition, holding that the appellant procedurally defaulted his Double Jeopardy claim by abandoning the sufficiency of evidence issue in state post-conviction proceedings.
• Chakouian v. Moran
  975 F.2d 931· 1st Cir.· 1992-09-23 ·cited 2×·via Habeas Corpus Relief Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254
  The court affirmed the dismissal of the habeas corpus petition, holding that the petitioner failed to establish a prima facie case of racial discrimination in the prosecutor's use of peremptory challenges.
• Wiles v. Jones
  960 F.2d 751· 8th Cir.· 1992-04-03 ·cited 2×·via 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition
  The court affirmed the dismissal of the federal habeas petition, finding no merit to the petitioner's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, constitutional violations, or jurisdictional defects.
• Harris v. State OF Mo.
  960 F.2d 738· 8th Cir.· 1992-04-01 ·cited 2×·via 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Habeas Corpus
  The court held that the defendant's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and judicial bias were without merit, and affirmed the denial of his habeas corpus petition.
• Ruark v. Gunter
  958 F.2d 318· 10th Cir.· 1992-03-06 ·cited 2×
  A petitioner seeking collateral relief via habeas corpus must demonstrate a non-frivolous claim before being entitled to a free trial transcript.
• Arnold v. Cody
  951 F.2d 280· 10th Cir.· 1991-12-16 ·cited 2×·via 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Habeas Corpus
  The court held that applying the amended Oklahoma Prison Overcrowding Emergency Powers Act to Petitioner violated the ex post facto clause because it was retrospective and disadvantageous.
• Lewis v. Erickson
  946 F.2d 1361· 8th Cir.· 1991-10-15 ·cited 2×
  The court held that newly discovered evidence, specifically the victim's recantation of her identification of Lewis's co-assailant, would likely produce an acquittal on retrial and thus warrants habeas relief.
• Griffin v. Delo
  946 F.2d 1356· 8th Cir.· 1991-10-11 ·cited 2×
  The court affirmed the denial of the habeas corpus petition, finding no constitutional error in the admission of evidence, ineffective assistance of counsel, or prosecutorial misconduct.
• Stevenson v. Thornburgh
  943 F.2d 1214· 10th Cir.· 1991-08-29 ·cited 2×·via 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Habeas Corpus
  The court held that the petitioner's claims are controlled by the prior decision in Blango v. Thornburgh, and that the transfer did not violate the compact clause.
• Rapheld v. Delo
  940 F.2d 324· 8th Cir.· 1991-07-31 ·cited 2×·via 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition
  The court held that the petitioner failed to show actual innocence to excuse the abuse of the writ in filing a successive habeas petition.
• Evans v. Denis Dowd
  932 F.2d 739· 8th Cir.· 1991-05-08 ·cited 2×·via 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Habeas Corpus
  The court held that the confession was not involuntary and affirmed the dismissal of the habeas corpus petition.
• Carter v. Armontrout
  929 F.2d 1294· 8th Cir.· 1991-04-09 ·cited 2×·via Habeas Corpus Review Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254
  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 claims.
• Parette v. A.L. Lockhart
  927 F.2d 366· 8th Cir.· 1991-02-28 ·cited 2×·via 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition
  The court held that while a district court in the district of confinement has habeas jurisdiction over an attack on another state's detainer, the petition was properly dismissed without prejudice because the petitioner failed to exhaust available state remedies in Louisiana.
• Marzano v. Kincheloe
  915 F.2d 549· 9th Cir.· 1990-10-02 ·cited 2×·via 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Habeas Corpus
  A sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole cannot be constitutionally imposed on a defendant who pleads guilty, even if they agree to such a sentence in a plea bargain, as the statute requires jury findings for such sentences.
• Jeffries v. Crispus C. NIX
  912 F.2d 982· 8th Cir.· 1990-08-30 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial court properly excluded evidence of the victim's past sexual behavior under the rape shield law, and any error in excluding evidence of delusions was harmless.
• Welch v. Fritz
  909 F.2d 1330· 9th Cir.· 1990-07-27 ·cited 2×·via 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Habeas Corpus
  The appeal from the civil rights action dismissal is dismissed as untimely, and the dismissal of the habeas corpus petition is affirmed.
• Henderson v. Smith
  903 F.2d 534· 8th Cir.· 1990-05-09 ·cited 2×·via Habeas Corpus Review Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254
  The court held that a defendant in state court can validly waive their Sixth Amendment right to conflict-free counsel without an on-the-record inquiry, provided the waiver is knowing, voluntary, and intelligent.
• Capps v. Collins
  900 F.2d 58· 5th Cir.· 1990-05-04 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction, the exclusion of irrelevant evidence did not violate the right to confrontation, and counsel was not ineffective for failing to introduce inadmissible evidence.
• Epps v. State of Iowa
  901 F.2d 1481· 8th Cir.· 1990-05-02 ·cited 2×·via 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Habeas Corpus
  The court affirmed the denial of the habeas petition, finding no constitutional violation regarding the change of venue and no ineffective assistance of counsel.
• McCartney v. Vitek
  902 F.2d 616· 8th Cir.· 1990-02-07 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a federal court may dismiss a habeas petition for failure to exhaust state remedies, even before the state has responded, if the state indicates it will not waive the exhaustion requirement.
• Wilson v. A.L. Lockhart
  892 F.2d 754· 8th Cir.· 1990-01-03 ·cited 2×·via Habeas Corpus Relief Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254
  The court held that a petitioner's pro se status on a prior habeas petition does not, by itself, warrant relitigation of a claim already decided on the merits.
• Earnest Smith v. A.L. Lockhart
  882 F.2d 331· 8th Cir.· 1989-08-16 ·cited 2×·via 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Habeas Corpus
  The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the habeas petition, finding that grounds for relief were either procedurally barred due to failure to demonstrate cause and prejudice, or without merit.
• Newman v. Frey
  873 F.2d 1092· 8th Cir.· 1989-04-28 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a state prisoner's failure to pursue a claim of prosecutorial impropriety in state postconviction proceedings creates a procedural bar to federal habeas corpus review, absent a showing of cause and prejudice.
• Robinson v. A.L. Lockhart
  835 F.2d 1271· 8th Cir.· 1988-01-06 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying the habeas corpus petition because the guilty pleas were voluntary and counsel was effective.
• Metheny v. M.C. Hamby
  835 F.2d 672· 6th Cir.· 1987-12-22 ·cited 2×·via 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Habeas Corpus
  A claimed violation of Article IV(e) of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers (IAD) is not a fundamental defect cognizable under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, absent exceptional circumstances.
• Flowers v. Blackburn
  764 F.2d 276· 5th Cir.· 1985-06-18 ·cited 2×·via Habeas Corpus Relief Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254
  The court granted a certificate of probable cause, finding that the petitioner made a substantial showing of the denial of a federal right regarding jury instructions on specific intent.
• Earnest Lee Wade v. A.L. Lockhart
  763 F.2d 999· 8th Cir.· 1985-06-06 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the state court's failure to conduct a full and adequate inquiry into Wade's financial status after he raised questions about his ability to afford counsel violated his Fourteenth Amendment right to counsel on appeal.
• Basheer Hameed and Abdul Majid v. Jones
  750 F.2d 154· 2d Cir.· 1984-11-26 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the declaration of a mistrial was a proper exercise of discretion and did not violate the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy.
• Lacy v. A.L. Lockhart
  697 F.2d 271· 8th Cir.· 1983-01-12 ·cited 2×·via Habeas Corpus Relief Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254
  The court affirmed the district court's denial of the habeas corpus petition, finding no constitutional violations regarding incriminating statements, in-court identification, sufficiency of evidence, or ineffective assistance of counsel.
• White v. Wyrick
  651 F.2d 597· 8th Cir.· 1981-06-17 ·cited 2×·via 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition
  A federal court properly denied a habeas corpus petition where the petitioner failed to exhaust available state remedies for most of his claims.
• Black v. Woods
  651 F.2d 528· 8th Cir.· 1981-03-25 ·cited 2×·via 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Habeas Corpus
  The court held that the prosecution's calling of a witness who refused to testify did not violate due process, nor did the admission of her prior statements violate the Sixth Amendment confrontation clause, as the defendant forfeited that right.
• Lyndale Walker v. Lockhart
  620 F.2d 683· 8th Cir.· 1980-05-08 ·cited 2×·via 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Habeas Corpus
  The dissenting judge would hold that the second trial was barred by the double jeopardy clause because the mistrial was not justified by manifest necessity and the defendant's right to proceed was denied.
• Tully v. Scheu
  607 F.2d 31· 3d Cir.· 1979-09-26 ·cited 2×·via Habeas Corpus Relief Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254
  The court held that denying a defendant a hearing on a timely motion for sentence reduction due to court rule time limits, after the hearing was adjourned to obtain substitute counsel, violates the constitutional right to counsel at a critical stage of the proceeding.
• Gable v. Massey
  566 F.2d 459· 5th Cir.· 1978-01-16 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the challenged clause of Florida Statute § 800.04 is not unconstitutionally vague and that the 118-day delay in sentencing did not violate the petitioner's speedy trial rights.
• Wrone v. Park J. Anderson
  478 F.2d 291· 10th Cir.· 1973-04-30 ·cited 2×·via 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Habeas Corpus
  The court held that the revocation of the inmate's suspended sentence without a hearing was constitutional under the statutes in effect at the time, as the relevant case law regarding probation revocation was not applicable and the rules for parole revocation were not retroactive
• Garner v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr.
  2006 WL 3086888· M.D. Fla.· 2025-12-12 ·cited 1×
  A juvenile offender convicted of homicide does not have a constitutional right to a 'meaningful opportunity' for release under the Eighth Amendment, and parole-eligible life sentences are not prohibited by Miller v. Alabama.
• Baker v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr. (Pinellas)
  2019 WL 10303104· M.D. Fla.· 2025-05-28 ·cited 1×·via Habeas Corpus Relief Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254
  The court held that the petitioner's sole remaining habeas claim is procedurally defaulted and barred from federal review.
• Brown v. Fla. Dep't of Corr.
  2009 WL 1227820· S.D. Fla.· 2023-10-22 ·cited 1×
  The court held that a pro se petitioner's motion, even if labeled as a motion for consideration of actual innocence, is legally a successive petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction if the petitioner has not obtained
• Restricted Filer - Alfred v. Dixon
  2023 WL 3686787· S.D. Fla.· 2023-08-22 ·cited 1×·via 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition
  The court held that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over a successive habeas corpus petition filed without authorization from the court of appeals and sanctioned the petitioner for abusive litigation.