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

• Sims v. Livesay
  970 F.2d 1575· 6th Cir.· 1992-08-03 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the petitioner's trial counsel's failure to investigate crucial physical evidence, specifically a quilt with gunshot residue, constituted ineffective assistance of counsel under the Strickland standard. This failure prejudiced the outcome of the trial.
• Amirault v. Fair
  968 F.2d 1404· 1st Cir.· 1992-07-08 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the petitioner's Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury and right to a fair trial were not violated by a juror's nondisclosure of a past trauma or by prosecutorial remarks.
• Squires v. Dugger
  794 F. Supp. 1568· M.D. Fla.· 1992-05-26 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the petitioner's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and Brady violations lacked merit, and that procedural default barred one claim.
• 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.
• Tate v. Wood
  963 F.2d 20· 2d Cir.· 1992-05-01 ·cited 2×·via 28 U.S.C. § 2254(D)(1)
  The court held that the district court erred in summarily denying the habeas petition without a hearing, as petitioner may be entitled to relief on his Brady and ineffective assistance of counsel claims.
• Wilson v. Armontrout
  962 F.2d 817· 8th Cir.· 1992-04-24 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court correctly denied the habeas corpus petition because the petitioner's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and due process violations were without merit or procedurally barred.
• Coogan v. McCAUGHTRY
  958 F.2d 793· 7th Cir.· 1992-04-01 ·cited 2×·via 28 U.S.C. § 2254(D)(8)
  The court held that the petitioner failed to demonstrate ineffective assistance of counsel or that newly discovered evidence warranted a new trial, thus denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
• Monroe v. Collins
  951 F.2d 49· 5th Cir.· 1992-01-03 ·cited 2×
  The court held that brief, isolated, and substantially correct comments about parole by jurors, even if violating state law, do not necessarily rise to the level of a federal constitutional violation warranting habeas relief.
• Reese v. Fulcomer
  946 F.2d 247· 3d Cir.· 1991-10-15 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court did not err in relying on state court findings for ineffective assistance of counsel claims, as the underlying facts were supported by the record and the petitioner failed to rebut the presumption of correctness.
• Jones v. Murray
  947 F.2d 1106· 4th Cir.· 1991-10-01 ·cited 2×
  The court affirmed the denial of the habeas corpus petition, finding no constitutional error in the denial of the petition or the underlying state court judgment.
• Dante Todaro # AJ-1779 v. Fulcomer
  944 F.2d 1079· 3d Cir.· 1991-09-10 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the state trial court's fact-finding procedure afforded the defendant a full and fair hearing, and the district court did not err in denying an evidentiary hearing on the habeas corpus petition.
• Smith v. Dugger
  758 F. Supp. 688· N.D. Fla.· 1990-06-08 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the state's argument that a prior finding of no prejudice under Strickland v. Washington automatically renders a Hitchcock error harmless is incorrect, as the tactical decisions were made under the law as it existed at the time, and the subsequent change in la
• Wilton Howell v. W.R. Barker
  904 F.2d 889· 4th Cir.· 1990-05-24 ·cited 2×
  A defendant seeking due process relief for preindictment delay must prove actual prejudice, after which the court balances the prejudice against the government's justification for the delay.
• Paster v. Lynaugh
  876 F.2d 1184· 5th Cir.· 1989-06-27 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the petitioner's claims were procedurally barred or unsupported by the record, and thus denied his motions for a certificate of probable cause and a stay of execution.
• Cannon v. A.L. Lockhart
  850 F.2d 437· 8th Cir.· 1988-06-28 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a new trial requires demonstrating that a juror failed to honestly answer a material question on voir dire and that a correct answer would have provided a basis for a challenge for cause.
• Sellers v. Morris
  840 F.2d 352· 6th Cir.· 1988-02-26 ·cited 2×
• Nichols v. E.P. Perini
  818 F.2d 554· 6th Cir.· 1987-05-12 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the state court's factual finding that the petitioner was aware of the maximum sentence was entitled to deference under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) and was not overcome by the evidence presented.
• Oviedo v. Jago
  809 F.2d 326· 6th Cir.· 1987-01-21 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the juvenile court's reliance on facts and information not formally introduced into evidence at a transfer hearing did not violate the petitioner's federal due process rights, as the state court had found all relevant criteria were considered.
• Woolls v. O.L. McCOTTER
  798 F.2d 695· 5th Cir.· 1986-08-14 ·cited 2×
  The court denied the appellant's motion for a certificate of probable cause, finding no substantial showing of the denial of a federal right, and dismissed the appeal.
• 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.
• Roscoe Cotton v. Armontrout
  784 F.2d 320· 8th Cir.· 1986-02-18 ·cited 2×
  The court held that suggestive pretrial identification procedures did not create a substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification, and the jury was adequately instructed on eyewitness identification.
• Brown v. Louie L. Wainwright
  772 F.2d 780· 11th Cir.· 1985-09-30 ·cited 2×
  A federal court granting a writ of habeas corpus must explain why the statutory presumption of correctness of state court findings does not apply. The district court's order granting the writ is vacated and remanded for specific findings.
• Saccomanno v. Scully
  758 F.2d 62· 2d Cir.· 1985-03-22 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court failed to defer to the state appellate court's implied factual determination that the defendant's disruptive behavior justified his exclusion from the courtroom.
• Brantley v. McKASKLE
  722 F.2d 187· 5th Cir.· 1984-01-03 ·cited 2×
  The federal court must defer to state court findings of fact unless clearly erroneous, but may independently review conclusions of law regarding confession voluntariness.
• Cruz v. Alexander
  708 F.2d 31· 2d Cir.· 1983-05-02 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the state's denial of wiretapping was insufficient and a further inquiry was warranted due to new evidence and incomplete prior denials.
• Smith v. A.L. Lockhart
  697 F.2d 267· 8th Cir.· 1983-01-12 ·cited 2×
• Shriner v. Wainwright
  570 F. Supp. 766· N.D. Fla.· 1982-04-20 ·cited 2×
  The court denied the petition for a writ of habeas corpus and the application for a stay of execution, finding no constitutional violations in the petitioner's conviction or sentence.
• 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.
• Foster v. Strickland
  515 F. Supp. 22· N.D. Fla.· 1981-05-29 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a federal court may grant a stay of execution and conduct an evidentiary hearing if the state court's factual findings are not fairly supported by the record, even if the state court denied a hearing.
• Schmidt v. Lowell D. Hewitt
  573 F.2d 794· 3d Cir.· 1978-02-24 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the state court record did not fairly support the decision regarding the admissibility of the confession, requiring a federal evidentiary hearing.
• Reddy v. Jones
  572 F.2d 979· 4th Cir.· 1977-11-03 ·cited 2×
  The court, in dissent, argues that the denial of rehearing en banc was improper because the lower court's reasoning regarding the non-disclosure of witness inducements and exculpatory statements violated due process principles.
• Bailleaux v. Hoyt C. Cupp
  535 F.2d 543· 9th Cir.· 1976-05-19 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying the habeas corpus petition, as the appellant was not a parolee and the state board's conditions were lawful.
• Velleca v. Superintendent, M.C.I., Walpole
  523 F.2d 1040· 1st Cir.· 1975-10-16 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a district court can properly reaffirm a dismissal of a habeas corpus petition without an evidentiary hearing, even if a magistrate recommended dismissal, and can rely on a state court's detailed opinion when the state proceedings were full and fair.
• Stroud v. Hall
  511 F.2d 1100· 1st Cir.· 1975-03-05 ·cited 2×
  A certificate of probable cause should not issue because the conviction did not rest on suppressed evidence or tainted testimony.
• 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.
• Stidham v. Swenson
  506 F.2d 478· 8th Cir.· 1974-03-28 ·cited 2×
  The court held that not all material facts were adequately developed at the state court hearing, requiring an evidentiary hearing in the district court.
• United States ex rel. Vaughan Booker H-9095 v. Johnson
  488 F.2d 229· 3d Cir.· 1973-09-28 ·cited 2×
  The dissent argues that if a guilty plea was induced by counsel's misrepresentation of the law regarding diminished responsibility, an evidentiary hearing is mandated.
• Dodge v. Johnson
  471 F.2d 1249· 6th Cir.· 1973-01-19 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the appellant failed to carry his burden of proving his statements were involuntary or that he was denied his constitutional right to counsel at the preliminary examination.
• Comeaux v. Henderson
  462 F.2d 1345· 5th Cir.· 1972-07-05 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the habeas petition without an evidentiary hearing, as factual uncertainties regarding consent to search require further development.
• Edwards v. Louie L. Wainwright
  461 F.2d 238· 5th Cir.· 1972-06-08 ·cited 2×
  The court held that while the district court erred in denying the appellant access to state court records, this error was harmless because the records did not support his claims.
• United States ex rel. Harry Shank v. Commonwealth of Pa.
  461 F.2d 61· 3d Cir.· 1972-06-01 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a habeas corpus hearing, as the state court's decision that the guilty pleas were voluntary and knowing was fairly supported by the record.
• United States ex rel. Warren E. Cronan v. Hon. Vincent R. Mancusi
  444 F.2d 51· 2d Cir.· 1971-06-11 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the petitioner's confessions were voluntary and that the state proceedings adequately determined their voluntariness, thus denying the petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
• McKEE v. Page
  435 F.2d 689· 10th Cir.· 1970-12-15 ·cited 2×
  The failure of retained counsel to perfect an appeal within the statutory time, absent a showing of indigency at the time the appeal was due, does not constitute grounds for discharge on habeas corpus.
• Moore v. Dutton
  432 F.2d 1281· 5th Cir.· 1970-10-22 ·cited 2×
  The court held that while the state courts provided sufficient hearings on the coerced confession and deprivation of counsel claims, a further federal evidentiary hearing was necessary on the discriminatory jury selection issue and the retroactivity of Witherspoon v. Illinois.
• Leventhal v. Gavin
  421 F.2d 270· 1st Cir.· 1970-01-22 ·cited 2×·via 28 U.S.C. § 2254(D)(3)
  The court held that the district court's findings were not clearly erroneous, affirming the dismissal of the habeas corpus petition.
• United States ex rel. Charles Sims v. LaVALLEE
  418 F.2d 437· 2d Cir.· 1969-11-24 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the federal habeas court properly considered the voluntariness of the confession de novo and that the appellant's claims of coercion were not persuasive.
• Duke v. Wingo
  415 F.2d 243· 6th Cir.· 1969-08-13 ·cited 2×
  The dissenting judge would have granted the writ, arguing the District Court erred in deferring to state court findings on indigency without an evidentiary hearing.
• United States ex rel. William Heirens v. Pate
  405 F.2d 449· 7th Cir.· 1968-12-27 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the petitioner's guilty pleas were intelligent and voluntary, and the district court did not err in denying the habeas corpus petition without an evidentiary hearing.
• Siskos v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr.
  M.D. Fla.· 2020-03-24 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the petitioner's claims regarding competency, ineffective assistance of counsel, and prosecutorial misconduct lacked merit and were denied.
• Haliburton v. Sec'y for the Dep't of Corr.
  160 F. Supp. 2d 1382· S.D. Fla.· 2001-09-10 ·cited 1×
  The court denied the petition for writ of habeas corpus, finding that the state court's decisions were reasonable and that trial counsel's performance was not constitutionally ineffective.