28 U.S.C. § 2254(D)

712 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 59 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• 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.
• Jacobson v. Henderson
  765 F.2d 12· 2d Cir.· 1985-06-13 ·cited 4×
  The court held that alleged jury misconduct, failure to produce a witness, and exclusion of testimony did not violate the petitioner's constitutional rights.
• Corcoran v. Wyrick
  757 F.2d 207· 8th Cir.· 1985-03-18 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a state court's factual finding regarding a habeas petitioner's understanding of potential punishment is presumed correct under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), and an erroneous statement by the sentencing judge does not invalidate a guilty plea if the petitioner was othe
• Mason v. Procunier
  748 F.2d 852· 4th Cir.· 1984-11-02 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a state is not constitutionally required to provide a defendant with a psychiatrist, and that the prisoner's claims were either foreclosed by precedent, barred by procedural default, or not supported by the evidence.
• Brewster v. Bordenkircher
  745 F.2d 913· 4th Cir.· 1984-10-05 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the trial court's failure to articulate reasons for compelling the defendant to wear manacles during trial violated his due process rights, and this error was not harmless.
• Austad v. Risley
  739 F.2d 428· 9th Cir.· 1984-07-31 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court correctly denied habeas corpus relief, as the state court's findings on mental fitness and impartiality of the jury were entitled to deference.
• McKinley Robinson v. Wyrick
  735 F.2d 1091· 8th Cir.· 1984-06-06 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the state trial court did not err in denying the motion to sever offenses and that the in-court identification was admissible.
• Sizemore v. Dist. Court
  735 F.2d 204· 6th Cir.· 1984-06-01 ·cited 4×
  The Sixth Circuit held that the district court erred in granting the writ of habeas corpus based on a Magistrate's improper evidentiary hearing and that a Magistrate lacks authority to grant bail pending adjudication.
• Chamberlain v. Celeste
  729 F.2d 1071· 6th Cir.· 1984-03-19 ·cited 4×
  The petitioner is not a fugitive and therefore not extraditable because he satisfied the judgment against him through service of his sentence in Ohio as agreed by Arizona.
• Denton v. Ricketts
  728 F.2d 489· 10th Cir.· 1984-03-02 ·cited 4×
  The federal district court and its magistrate failed to comply with the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) by relying on an informal investigatory hearing rather than a formal, adversarial evidentiary hearing.
• Donnie L. Sloan v. W.J. Estelle, Jr.
  710 F.2d 229· 5th Cir.· 1983-07-28 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the petitioner's guilty pleas were voluntary and that the trial court did not err in failing to sua sponte order a competency hearing.
• 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.
• Walker v. Wilmot
  603 F.2d 1038· 2d Cir.· 1979-06-29 ·cited 4×
  The district court erred by not considering the petitioner's testimony regarding his confession and must reconsider the habeas petition with this testimony.
• Thomas v. Estelle
  582 F.2d 939· 5th Cir.· 1978-10-25 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court erred in granting habeas corpus relief without an evidentiary hearing, as factual issues regarding the applicability of a hearsay exception required further development.
• United States ex rel. Tyrone Hall v. Dir., Dep't OF Corr. OF the State OF Ill.
  578 F.2d 194· 7th Cir.· 1978-06-26 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying the habeas corpus petition, as the confession was voluntary under the totality of the circumstances.
• Jewell Jess Stone v. Cardwell
  575 F.2d 724· 9th Cir.· 1978-05-22 ·cited 4×
  The court held that due process requires withdrawal of a guilty plea if it was not knowingly entered or if the state breached the plea bargain, and that the district court must consider these issues, potentially with an evidentiary hearing.
• Wolfrath v. LaVALLEE
  576 F.2d 965· 2d Cir.· 1978-05-09 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the petitioner failed to meet his burden of proving his confession was involuntary, as the totality of the circumstances, including the absence of coercive police tactics and the petitioner's apparent alertness, outweighed expert conjecture about drug effects.
• United States ex rel. Raymond Cooper v. Warden, Ill. State Penitentiary, Pontiac Branch
  566 F.2d 28· 7th Cir.· 1977-11-29 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court properly denied the petition for a writ of habeas corpus, affirming the judgment for the respondent.
• Lyle v. Wyrick
  565 F.2d 529· 8th Cir.· 1977-11-16 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court did not err in applying the presumption of correctness to the state court's finding that the confession was voluntary, and that petitioner failed to present convincing evidence to overcome this presumption.
• Howard v. Henderson
  519 F.2d 1176· 5th Cir.· 1975-09-29 ·cited 4×·via 28 U.S.C. § 2254(D)(1)
  The court held that the petitioner's retained counsel's assistance was not constitutionally ineffective, as it fell within the range of competence demanded of attorneys in criminal cases.
• Hopkins v. Park J. Anderson
  507 F.2d 530· 10th Cir.· 1974-12-16 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the pleas of guilty were knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily made, despite the circumstances surrounding the plea bargain.
• Donnie Lynn Swanson v. Estelle
  492 F.2d 115· 5th Cir.· 1974-04-04 ·cited 4×·via 28 U.S.C. § 2254(D)(3)
• Neville P. Matthews v. Wingo
  474 F.2d 1266· 6th Cir.· 1973-03-01 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a second federal habeas corpus petition raising issues already decided on the merits in a prior petition can be denied, and that conclusory allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel are insufficient to require an evidentiary hearing.
• Griggs v. Superintendent, Anchorage State Jail, & State of Alaska
  469 F.2d 87· 9th Cir.· 1972-11-07 ·cited 4×·via 28 U.S.C. § 2254(D)(3)
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying an evidentiary hearing on a habeas corpus petition challenging extradition.
• United States ex rel. Walter Henderson v. Brierley
  468 F.2d 1193· 3d Cir.· 1972-11-06 ·cited 4×
  The district court did not err in denying the habeas corpus petition without an evidentiary hearing, nor was the statute allowing magistrate review unconstitutional.
• Sandoval v. Rodriguez
  461 F.2d 1097· 10th Cir.· 1972-06-22 ·cited 4×
  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
• White v. Gnann
  422 F.2d 1306· 5th Cir.· 1970-02-19 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a guilty plea entered voluntarily and understandingly waives all prior non-jurisdictional defects, and affirmed the denial of habeas corpus relief.
• United States ex rel. Herbert James Daley v. Yeager
  415 F.2d 779· 3d Cir.· 1969-08-11 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the relator's constitutional rights under the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments were violated when police obtained consent to search his apartment after he had requested counsel at a preliminary hearing.
• Ingram v. Warden, Holman Correctional Facility
  80 F.4th 1304· 11th Cir.· 2023-09-06 ·cited 3×
  The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the denial of federal habeas corpus relief, holding that the state court's determination that the petitioner failed to demonstrate prejudice from his attorneys' alleged ineffective assistance was not an unreasonable application of Supreme Court prece
• Johnson v. Armontrout
  961 F.2d 748· 8th Cir.· 1992-04-10 ·cited 3×
  The court held that a defendant is deprived of his constitutional right to an impartial jury and effective counsel when jurors who convicted a co-defendant in the same crime are empaneled without sufficient inquiry into their bias, and counsel fails to challenge them for cause.
• 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.
• White v. Wainwright
  632 F. Supp. 1140· S.D. Fla.· 1986-03-31 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the imposition of the death penalty was not unconstitutional under Enmund v. Florida, as the Petitioner was present, armed, and fully participated in the robbery and murders.
• Christopher v. State
  582 F. Supp. 633· S.D. Fla.· 1984-03-13 ·cited 3×·via 28 U.S.C. § 2254(D)(8)
  The court denied the petition for a writ of habeas corpus, finding that the petitioner's claims did not rise to constitutional dimensions and that the state court's findings were supported by the record.
• Pryor v. Rose
  699 F.2d 287· 6th Cir.· 1983-01-26 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the Double Jeopardy Clause is not violated when a defendant is punished for two distinct offenses, as determined by the statutes upon which the defendant was indicted and the Blockburger test, not by jury instructions that may have introduced other statutory p
• United States ex rel. Vincent Cerullo v. Follette
  393 F.2d 879· 2d Cir.· 1968-05-08 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the material facts concerning the voluntariness of the confession were not adequately developed and remanded for a full evidentiary hearing.
• Cassidy v. McNeil
  621 F. Supp. 2d 1222· M.D. Fla.· 2008-06-24 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the state court's adjudication of Petitioner's claim regarding the pocketknife as a deadly weapon was not contrary to federal law and was based on a reasonable determination of the facts.
• Helton v. Singletary
  85 F. Supp. 2d 1323· S.D. Fla.· 2000-01-20 ·cited 2×
  The court held that equitable tolling is appropriate for the petitioner's habeas corpus petition due to counsel's misadvice, allowing consideration of the merits, and that the analysis of ineffective assistance of counsel is ongoing.
• Sawyers v. Collins
  986 F.2d 1493· 5th Cir.· 1993-03-23 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the defendant's Penry claim was not procedurally barred, but that it lacked factual support. The court also held that an evidentiary hearing was not required for the ineffective assistance of counsel claim. Therefore, the request for a certificate of probable
• Pagan v. Keane
  984 F.2d 61· 2d Cir.· 1993-01-19 ·cited 2×
  A district court has discretion to hold an evidentiary hearing in a habeas corpus case, even if not strictly required, and this discretion was erroneously believed to be absent by the lower court.
• 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).
• Manlove v. Tansy
  981 F.2d 473· 10th Cir.· 1992-12-16 ·cited 2×
  The court should not grant a writ of habeas corpus based on a defense strategy not presented to the trial court.
• 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.
• Hunley v. Godinez
  975 F.2d 316· 7th Cir.· 1992-09-11 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court correctly granted a writ of habeas corpus because the burglary of jurors during deliberations created circumstances justifying a presumption of implied bias, violating the defendant's right to a fair and impartial jury.
• Bellamy v. Cogdell
  974 F.2d 302· 2d Cir.· 1992-09-08 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the petitioner did not suffer a per se denial of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel because his attorney's alleged incapacity due to illness did not fall under the narrow circumstances where prejudice is presumed.
• 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.
• McCANN v. Armontrout
  973 F.2d 655· 8th Cir.· 1992-08-25 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying petitioner's request for an evidentiary hearing or in denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus, as the issues could be resolved on the state court record and petitioner failed to demonstrate ineffective assista
• Galindo v. Ylst
  971 F.2d 1427· 9th Cir.· 1992-08-05 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the exclusion of the victim's statement did not deprive the defendant of constitutional rights, and the defendant waived his claim regarding impeachment with a prior conviction by not testifying.
• Gilley v. Collins
  968 F.2d 465· 5th Cir.· 1992-08-04 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the evidence was insufficient to support Richard Gilley's conviction for marijuana possession because the state failed to establish an affirmative link between him and the contraband.