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

• Winfield C. Patterson v. Cuyler
  729 F.2d 925· 3d Cir.· 1984-03-13 ·cited 42×
  The court held that the state court's findings regarding custody and the voluntariness of the waiver of Miranda rights were entitled to a presumption of correctness under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) and were supported by the record.
• Sinclair v. Turner
  447 F.2d 1158· 10th Cir.· 1971-09-10 ·cited 40×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in limiting cross-examination and that the petitioner waived her right against self-incrimination by testifying. The exclusion of jurors conscientiously opposed to the death penalty did not violate due process or fa
• Bundy v. Dugger
  850 F.2d 1402· 11th Cir.· 1988-07-07 ·cited 39×
  The court affirmed the district court's denial of habeas corpus relief, finding no abuse of the writ, no incompetence to stand trial, no denial of choice of counsel, no ineffective assistance of counsel, no improper Faretta inquiry, no constitutional issue regarding the race of t
• Booker v. Louie L. Wainwright
  764 F.2d 1371· 11th Cir.· 1985-06-21 ·cited 39×
  The court held that the petitioner abused the writ by failing to raise his ineffective assistance of counsel claim in his first habeas petition and that his other claims were procedurally defaulted without sufficient cause or prejudice.
• Fendler v. Goldsmith
  728 F.2d 1181· 9th Cir.· 1983-10-14 ·cited 39×
  The majority erred by making contrary factual findings and failing to decide a ripe constitutional question, exceeding its jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).
• United States ex rel. Robert Harris v. State OF Ill.
  457 F.2d 191· 7th Cir.· 1972-03-17 ·cited 39×
  The court held that even if a state trial court improperly placed the burden of proof on the defendant regarding the independence of an in-court identification, a federal court on habeas review can still determine independence from the record if adequate, and if independent, no c
• Steele v. Taylor
  684 F.2d 1193· 6th Cir.· 1982-07-28 ·cited 38×
  The dissenting judge believes the defendants were deprived of their Sixth Amendment right to confrontation due to the admission of double hearsay evidence, and that the waiver of this right was improperly found.
• Vito Giacalone v. Lucas
  445 F.2d 1238· 6th Cir.· 1971-07-30 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the trial judge did not abuse discretion in denying a continuance and that the search incident to arrest was reasonable.
• Selz v. The State OF Cal.
  423 F.2d 702· 9th Cir.· 1970-02-19 ·cited 38×
  A federal district court cannot rely on state court findings under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) without reviewing the state court record, especially when allegations of an unfair hearing or newly discovered evidence exist.
• Miller v. Fenton
  796 F.2d 598· 3d Cir.· 1986-06-26 ·cited 37×
  The court held that the majority opinion failed to consider the totality of circumstances in determining the voluntariness of the confession, selectively using facts and ignoring evidence of coercion.
• Oliver v. Louie L. Wainwright
  782 F.2d 1521· 11th Cir.· 1986-02-24 ·cited 37×
  The court held that the joint representation of co-defendants did not create an actual conflict of interest that adversely affected counsel's performance, as the alternative defense theory was not plausible based on the evidence.
• Martin v. Rose
  744 F.2d 1245· 6th Cir.· 1984-10-04 ·cited 37×
  A defendant is deprived of the Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel when his attorney refuses to participate in the trial, even if this is a deliberate tactic, because such a tactic fails to subject the prosecution's case to meaningful adversarial testing.
• Haggins v. Warden, Fort Pillow State Farm
  715 F.2d 1050· 6th Cir.· 1983-08-11 ·cited 37×
  The admission of a child victim's hearsay statements, made under the stress of excitement from a startling event, does not violate the Sixth Amendment confrontation clause if they possess sufficient indicia of reliability, even if the child is unavailable to testify.
• Burns v. Clusen
  798 F.2d 931· 7th Cir.· 1986-08-04 ·cited 36×
  The court held that while the state may have failed to adequately prove witness unavailability, the admission of preliminary hearing testimony was harmless error due to the circumstances of the case.
• Hawkman v. Parratt
  661 F.2d 1161· 8th Cir.· 1981-10-14 ·cited 36×
  The court held that a defendant's attorney's failure to adequately investigate facts, inform the defendant of charges and consequences, and initiate plea negotiations constitutes ineffective assistance of counsel, warranting habeas corpus relief.
• Rodriguez v. McGINNIS
  456 F.2d 79· 2d Cir.· 1972-01-25 ·cited 36×
  The court affirmed the district court's orders releasing petitioners, holding that their claims for good behavior time credit were properly considered under the habeas corpus statute, which requires exhaustion of state remedies.
• Maes v. Patterson
  401 F.2d 200· 10th Cir.· 1968-10-02 ·cited 36×
  A federal court cannot summarily dismiss a state prisoner's habeas corpus petition without independently reviewing the state court's record and determining if due process was observed.
• Bundy v. Louie L. Wainwright
  808 F.2d 1410· 11th Cir.· 1987-01-15 ·cited 35×
  The district court erred in denying the habeas corpus petition and stay of execution, and its judgment must be reversed and remanded for proper consideration of the constitutional issues.
• Lincoln v. Franklin Y.K. Sunn
  807 F.2d 805· 9th Cir.· 1987-01-06 ·cited 35×
  The court held that the district court erred in denying habeas corpus relief without an evidentiary hearing and lacked sufficient findings to affirm the denial. The court reversed and remanded for further proceedings on prosecutorial misconduct and notice issues.
• Hayes v. Kincheloe
  784 F.2d 1434· 9th Cir.· 1986-03-19 ·cited 35×
  A guilty plea is involuntary if the defendant does not receive actual notice of the true nature of the charge against him or possess an understanding of the law in relation to the facts.
• Ross v. Kemp
  756 F.2d 1483· 11th Cir.· 1985-03-25 ·cited 35×
• United States ex rel. Sidney Foster v. DeROBERTIS
  741 F.2d 1007· 7th Cir.· 1984-08-16 ·cited 35×
  The court held that the district court correctly denied the habeas corpus petition, finding no constitutional error in the state court proceedings regarding competency, sufficiency of evidence, or evidentiary rulings.
• United States ex rel. William Stanbridge v. Zelker
  514 F.2d 45· 2d Cir.· 1975-04-15 ·cited 35×
  The court held that the district judge erred in granting a writ of habeas corpus based on the Bruton rule, as the confessions of co-defendants interlocked and did not violate the petitioner's Sixth Amendment rights. The court affirmed the denial of the other habeas corpus claims.
• Agan v. Dugger
  835 F.2d 1337· 11th Cir.· 1987-12-30 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the inmate's claims of incompetence and ineffective assistance of counsel warranted an evidentiary hearing, which had not been provided by the state court.
• Agee v. J.D. White
  809 F.2d 1487· 11th Cir.· 1987-02-13 ·cited 34×
  The court held that a confession obtained after an illegal arrest is admissible if the taint of the arrest is sufficiently attenuated by intervening circumstances, and that a suspect's subjective belief of immunity, absent police misrepresentation, does not render a Miranda waive
• Stewart v. Bishop
  403 F.2d 674· 8th Cir.· 1968-11-21 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the petitioner's appeal should be reviewed on its merits, despite procedural irregularities, to avoid prejudice.
• Lukehart v. Sec'y, Fla. Dep't of Corr.
  50 F.4th 32· 11th Cir.· 2022-09-26 ·cited 33×
  The Eleventh Circuit held that the Florida Supreme Court's determination regarding the petitioner's Miranda rights was potentially unreasonable, particularly concerning the custody analysis, but ultimately found that Miranda warnings were not required because the petitioner was n
• Duncan Peder McKENZIE, Jr. v. Risley
  842 F.2d 1525· 9th Cir.· 1988-03-10 ·cited 33×
  The court held that the jury instructions were so fundamentally flawed and riddled with constitutional errors that they rendered the trial fundamentally unfair, making harmless error analysis inappropriate.
• Allen v. State OF Ala.
  728 F.2d 1384· 11th Cir.· 1984-04-02 ·cited 33×
  The court held that a federal district court must grant an evidentiary hearing to a habeas applicant when the merits of the factual dispute were not resolved in the state hearing, and the state factual determination is not fairly supported by the record.
• Shuler v. Louie L. Wainwright
  491 F.2d 1213· 5th Cir.· 1974-03-27 ·cited 33×
  The court held that the district court erred in granting habeas corpus relief based on the alleged faking of footprint casts, as the state court's findings were supported by substantial evidence. The court also found that the failure to voluntarily disclose the victim's statement
• Cordova v. Collins
  953 F.2d 167· 5th Cir.· 1992-01-21 ·cited 32×
• Parker v. Dugger
  876 F.2d 1470· 11th Cir.· 1989-06-19 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the district court erred in granting habeas corpus relief based on its interpretation of the Tedder standard and that Parker's Stromberg claim was procedurally barred.
• Daugherty v. Dugger
  839 F.2d 1426· 11th Cir.· 1988-02-12 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the appellant failed to demonstrate prejudice from his counsel's alleged ineffectiveness regarding a jury instruction and the failure to present psychiatric testimony, and that his claim regarding prosecutorial discretion was procedurally barred.
• Wingo v. Blackburn
  783 F.2d 1046· 5th Cir.· 1986-02-24 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the state court's finding of specific intent to kill was supported by the evidence and that Wingo's other constitutional claims lacked merit.
• Green v. Zant
  715 F.2d 551· 11th Cir.· 1983-09-19 ·cited 32×
  The court held that material facts pertaining to the petitioner's federal constitutional claim were not adequately developed in the state court, necessitating an evidentiary hearing and findings of fact.
• Hines v. Enomoto
  658 F.2d 667· 9th Cir.· 1981-10-05 ·cited 32×
  The majority's conclusion that the state's inadvertent provision of fewer peremptory challenges than statutorily required violates the Due Process Clause is foreclosed by Supreme Court precedent.
• Linroy Davis v. Heyd
  479 F.2d 446· 5th Cir.· 1973-05-29 ·cited 32×
  The majority opinion, which the dissent disagrees with, found that factual inconsistencies in witness statements presented a question of law, potentially requiring a retrial of the state conviction.
• Hobbs v. Blackburn
  752 F.2d 1079· 5th Cir.· 1985-02-14 ·cited 31×
  A guilty plea is valid if entered voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently, even if the state trial judge fails to explain all elements or lesser included offenses, provided the defendant understood the charge and consequences.
• Buxton v. Lynaugh
  879 F.2d 140· 5th Cir.· 1989-07-21 ·cited 30×
  The state court's determination of a factual issue based solely on conflicting affidavits, without an evidentiary hearing, was not adequate to afford a full and fair hearing as required by 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2).
• Bryan v. Warden, Ind. State Reformatory
  820 F.2d 217· 7th Cir.· 1987-05-15 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the voluntariness of a Miranda waiver is a factual determination entitled to deference under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), and that the appellant waived his due process claim by failing to raise it on rehearing.
• Nash v. Israel
  707 F.2d 298· 7th Cir.· 1983-05-19 ·cited 30×·via 28 U.S.C. § 2254(D)(8)
  The court held that a guilty plea is invalid if the trial court fails to establish on the record that the defendant understood the elements of the charge, particularly when the defendant explicitly states confusion.
• Edmond Jackson v. Fogg
  589 F.2d 108· 2d Cir.· 1978-12-19 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the admission of identification testimony from three eyewitnesses, tainted by suggestive police procedures, constituted a denial of due process.
• Leavitt v. Howard
  462 F.2d 992· 1st Cir.· 1972-05-24 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the district court erred in disregarding the state court's findings of fact regarding consent to search, as the state court's findings were supported by the record and no statutory exceptions under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) were met.
• In re Parker
  423 F.2d 1021· 8th Cir.· 1970-03-23 ·cited 30×
  The federal court erred in granting habeas corpus relief because it failed to give presumptive weight to the state court's factual findings, and the petitioner did not provide convincing evidence to overcome this presumption.
• Ponticelli v. Sec'y, Fla. Dep't OF Corr., Attorney Gen., State of Fla.
  690 F.3d 1271· 11th Cir.· 2012-08-16 ·cited 29×·via 28 U.S.C. § 2254(D)(1)
  The Florida Supreme Court's decision rejecting Mr. Ponticelli's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel during the sentencing phase of his capital trial was an unreasonable application of the prejudice analysis required by Strickland v. Washington. The state court failed to ac
• Streetman v. Lynaugh
  812 F.2d 950· 5th Cir.· 1987-03-09 ·cited 29×
  The court held that the facts relevant to the petitioner's ineffective assistance of counsel claim were not adequately developed in state court, requiring a remand for an evidentiary hearing.
• Parker v. Parratt
  662 F.2d 479· 8th Cir.· 1981-10-28 ·cited 29×
  The court held that neither defendant demonstrated an actual conflict of interest arising from joint representation, and therefore, neither is entitled to federal habeas corpus relief.
• Morris v. Wyrick
  516 F.2d 1387· 8th Cir.· 1975-05-14 ·cited 29×·via 28 U.S.C. § 2254(D)(1)
  The court held that a state prisoner was not denied his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial, and the district court did not err in denying his habeas corpus petition without an evidentiary hearing.
• United States ex rel. James L. Worlow v. Pate
  411 F.2d 972· 7th Cir.· 1969-06-10 ·cited 29×
  The district court erred in denying habeas corpus petitions without compelling the state court record to determine if petitioners received a full and fair hearing.
• Tinsley v. Borg
  895 F.2d 520· 9th Cir.· 1990-01-19 ·cited 28×
  A juror's prior professional experience counseling a rape victim, without more, does not create implied bias sufficient to warrant a new trial, especially when the state courts found no actual bias and the juror testified to impartiality.