28 U.S.C. § 2254(D) Presumption Of Correctness

93 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• Jeffers v. Ricketts
  832 F.2d 476· 9th Cir.· 1987-11-09 ·cited 8×
  The Arizona Supreme Court's construction of A.R.S. § 13-703(F)(6) to find aggravating circumstances was not unconstitutional, and federal courts should apply a deferential standard of review to such findings.
• Cola v. Reardon
  787 F.2d 681· 1st Cir.· 1986-03-26 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the conviction was fundamentally unfair due to inadequate notice in the bill of particulars and jury instructions.
• Mata v. Sumner
  696 F.2d 1244· 9th Cir.· 1983-01-20 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the pretrial photographic identification procedures used were so impermissibly suggestive as to create a substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification, violating the defendant's due process rights.
• Roberts v. Singletary
  794 F. Supp. 1106· S.D. Fla.· 1992-06-05 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the exclusion of evidence regarding the victim's prior sexual history was not a constitutional violation because the defense theory was not presented at trial and the defendant denied making the statement at issue. The court also found no ineffective assistanc
• Derrick v. R.S. Peterson
  924 F.2d 813· 9th Cir.· 1990-08-28 ·cited 6×
  The court held that Derrick's confession was voluntary under the Fourteenth Amendment and his Miranda waiver was knowing and intelligent, affirming the denial of his habeas corpus petition.
• Mayo v. Lynaugh
  882 F.2d 134· 5th Cir.· 1989-06-30 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the prisoner's constitutional rights were not violated and affirmed the denial of his habeas corpus petition.
• Alford v. Rolfs
  867 F.2d 1216· 9th Cir.· 1989-02-09 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the petitioner's claims regarding the habitual criminal finding, right to counsel, and Eighth Amendment challenge to his life sentence lacked merit.
• Dewayne Hulsey v. Sargent
  865 F.2d 954· 8th Cir.· 1989-01-19 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the state court's finding that juror Creamer was properly excused for cause was fairly supported by the record, and the district court erred in vacating the death sentence.
• Elliott v. Morford
  557 F.2d 1228· 6th Cir.· 1977-07-06 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the District Judge's reliance on the presumption of correctness under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) was misplaced because the state trial judge made no factual finding on the voluntariness of the confession.
• Schram v. Hoyt C. Cupp
  436 F.2d 692· 9th Cir.· 1970-11-25 ·cited 6×
  The dissenting judge believes the majority erred by not granting a hearing to assess the credibility of the petitioner's assertion of non-knowing waiver of counsel.
• Brown v. Crosby
  249 F. Supp. 2d 1285· S.D. Fla.· 2003-03-19 ·cited 4×
  The Court found that the Petitioner's waiver of his Miranda rights was not knowing and intelligent due to his severe intellectual deficits, and therefore his confession should have been suppressed.
• Nolan v. Armontrout
  973 F.2d 615· 8th Cir.· 1992-08-19 ·cited 4×
  The court held that ineffective assistance of post-conviction counsel does not constitute cause to excuse a procedural default, and inaccurate parole advice does not automatically taint a guilty plea without proof of prejudice.
• Moran v. Godinez
  972 F.2d 263· 9th Cir.· 1992-07-30 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the state court erred by applying the wrong legal standard to determine the defendant's competency to waive his constitutional rights and enter guilty pleas.
• Chandler v. Richards
  935 F.2d 915· 7th Cir.· 1991-07-01 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court correctly applied the presumption of correctness under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) to state court findings of fact when reviewing a habeas petition for insufficient evidence, and that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction.
• Micheaux v. Collins
  911 F.2d 1083· 5th Cir.· 1990-09-17 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a state court's finding that a petitioner would not have pleaded guilty if properly admonished is a factual finding entitled to a presumption of correctness under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), and that a federal court cannot disregard such findings by labeling them mix
• Dung Thai Tran v. A.L. Lockhart
  849 F.2d 1064· 8th Cir.· 1988-06-13 ·cited 4×
  The dissenting judge would vacate the judgment dismissing the writ and remand for an evidentiary hearing.
• Escalera v. Coombe
  826 F.2d 185· 2d Cir.· 1987-08-13 ·cited 4×
  The court held that precluding an alibi witness solely as a sanction for noncompliance with notice statutes, absent a showing of substantial prejudice, violates the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments, and that the district court erred in failing to review the sufficiency of evidenti
• Daniel v. Warden, State Corr. Inst. AT Huntingdon, PA. & the Attorney Gen. of the State of Pa. Appeal of John Robert Daniel
  794 F.2d 880· 3d Cir.· 1986-07-08 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court erred in applying the presumption of correctness under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) to the state court's determination of the double jeopardy claim, but affirmed the denial of the writ because the double jeopardy claim lacked merit.
• Reed Wayne Hamilton v. Crispus NIX
  781 F.2d 619· 8th Cir.· 1985-12-31 ·cited 4×
  The dissenting judge argues that the Iowa Supreme Court's findings regarding the independent source doctrine should be presumed correct under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), and that the majority improperly disregarded these findings.
• Asper v. W.J. Estelle, Jr.
  709 F.2d 356· 5th Cir.· 1983-07-11 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the state trial judge's refusal to credit the petitioner's testimony regarding his indigency was not constitutional error, and thus federal habeas relief was properly denied.
• Reardon v. Manson
  644 F.2d 122· 2d Cir.· 1981-03-18 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court failed to properly apply the presumption of correctness required by 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) when overturning state court convictions based on the same record. The case is remanded for reconsideration.
• Jaffe v. Smith
  825 F.2d 304· 11th Cir.· 1987-08-21 ·cited 3×
  The court held that a fugitive cannot challenge their trial and conviction based on an alleged violation of an extradition treaty unless governmental action was involved in their removal from the asylum state.
• Krantz v. Briggs
  983 F.2d 961· 9th Cir.· 1993-01-19 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a state court's determination of whether a defendant was 'in custody' for Miranda purposes is a factual finding entitled to a presumption of correctness under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).
• Self v. Collins
  973 F.2d 1198· 5th Cir.· 1992-09-22 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court erred in disregarding state court findings of fact and making its own credibility determinations, and that the confession was not obtained contrary to the Constitution.
• Hendricks v. Vasquez
  974 F.2d 1099· 9th Cir.· 1992-09-02 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court erred in failing to conduct an evidentiary hearing on the petitioner's ineffective assistance of counsel claim, but otherwise affirmed the denial of the petition.
• Dunn v. Roberts
  963 F.2d 308· 10th Cir.· 1992-05-01 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the state trial court's refusal to fund a psychiatric expert for an indigent defendant, when her mental condition was a significant factor in her defense, violated her due process rights.
• Sellers v. Morris
  840 F.2d 352· 6th Cir.· 1988-02-26 ·cited 2×
• Harris v. Rees
  794 F.2d 1168· 6th Cir.· 1986-07-16 ·cited 2×
  The court held that denying an indigent defendant's statutory right to appeal solely because his family could afford trial counsel violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
• McNARY v. Sowders
  660 F.2d 703· 6th Cir.· 1981-10-02 ·cited 2×
  The Sixth Circuit held that the district court erred by failing to apply the presumption of correctness required by 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) to the state court's factual findings regarding eyewitness identification reliability.
• Collins v. Green
  505 F.2d 22· 5th Cir.· 1974-12-09 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the petitioner failed to present convincing evidence to rebut the presumption of correctness of the state court's factual determination that his guilty plea was voluntarily and knowingly entered with competent counsel.
• Minerva v. Singletary
  830 F. Supp. 1426· M.D. Fla.· 1993-08-23 ·cited 1×
  The Capital Collateral Representative (CCR) lacks standing to file a habeas corpus petition on behalf of an inmate who has knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to collateral counsel and further proceedings.
• Jeffries v. Blodgett
  988 F.2d 923· 9th Cir.· 1993-03-03
  The Ninth Circuit vacated and remanded the district court's denial of habeas relief, finding a potential conflict with prior precedent regarding juror misconduct. The court held that a remand was necessary for a factual determination of whether a juror had informed others of the
• Jenner v. Smith
  982 F.2d 329· 8th Cir.· 1993-01-05
  The court held that the habeas petitioner's incriminating statements were voluntarily made and not obtained in violation of Miranda, as she was not in custody during the interviews.
• Moss v. A.L. Lockhart
  971 F.2d 77· 8th Cir.· 1992-04-17
  The court held that the jury instructions did not improperly shift the burden of proof to the defendant and that sufficient evidence supported the conviction.
• Burton Donald Woods, III v. Armontrout
  787 F.2d 304· 8th Cir.· 1986-03-20
  The court held that the federal district court erred by applying the presumption of correctness under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) to the state court's determination of confession voluntariness, which requires independent federal review.
• Sockwell v. Blackburn
  748 F.2d 979· 5th Cir.· 1984-12-17
  The court held that the admission of the inculpatory statement was not a violation of the petitioner's right to counsel, and any potential error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
• Martin v. Rose
  717 F.2d 295· 6th Cir.· 1983-09-16
  The court held that the district court correctly found ineffective assistance of counsel, as the state court's contrary findings were not supported by the record.