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

• Harris Percy Wynn v. Smith
  446 F.2d 341· 5th Cir.· 1971-07-12 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the appellant had not deliberately bypassed state remedies and that the district court should determine the merits of his claims regarding the right to counsel and the voluntariness of his guilty plea.
• United States ex rel. Nicholas Cardaio v. Casscles
  446 F.2d 632· 2d Cir.· 1971-06-22 ·cited 16×
  The dissenting judge would reverse and remand, arguing the search was unconstitutional.
• Basker v. Crouse
  426 F.2d 531· 10th Cir.· 1970-05-18 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the petitioner's claims of speedy trial denial, ineffective assistance of counsel, procedural irregularities, and a coercive jury instruction did not rise to the level of constitutional violations warranting federal habeas corpus relief.
• Heyd v. Brown
  406 F.2d 346· 5th Cir.· 1969-01-13 ·cited 16×
  The court held that a federal court is not required to conduct an evidentiary hearing if the state trial court provided a full and fair hearing and the record supports the federal court's findings.
• Burden v. Zant
  24 F.3d 1298· 11th Cir.· 1994-06-15 ·cited 15×
  The Eleventh Circuit reversed the district court's denial of the writ of habeas corpus, holding that the petitioner's trial counsel labored under an actual conflict of interest that adversely affected his performance. This conflict arose from the attorney's representation of both
• Collazo v. Estelle
  940 F.2d 411· 9th Cir.· 1991-07-18 ·cited 15×
  The court held that the state court's denial of the writ should be affirmed, finding that the defendant initiated contact with officers and was not coerced into waiving his right to counsel.
• Lesko v. Lehman
  925 F.2d 1527· 3d Cir.· 1991-02-11 ·cited 15×
  The court held that the district court erred in failing to hold an evidentiary hearing on Lesko's claim that his guilty plea was used in violation of due process, and that prosecutorial comments tainted the jury's sentencing determination.
• Landano v. Rafferty
  856 F.2d 569· 3d Cir.· 1988-09-09 ·cited 15×
  The court held that the district court properly denied the habeas corpus petition, finding no constitutional error in the trial court's admission of identification testimony, the prosecution's disclosure practices, or the supplemental jury charge.
• Martin v. Dugger
  686 F. Supp. 1523· S.D. Fla.· 1988-06-01 ·cited 15×
  The court denies the writ of habeas corpus for claims I, III, and IV, finding them procedurally barred or without merit, but orders an evidentiary hearing for claim II regarding competency to be executed.
• Howell v. Sec'y, Fla. Dep't OF Corr.
  730 F.3d 1257· 11th Cir.· 2013-09-13 ·cited 14×
  The court affirmed the denial of Mr. Howell's federal habeas petition. The concurring opinion found that Mr. Howell's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, based on the failure to present an intervening cause defense, the trial court's sentencing procedure, and alleged con
• Syvasky Lafayette Poyner v. Murray
  964 F.2d 1404· 4th Cir.· 1992-05-08 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the defendant's statement was a request for clarification, not an invocation of his right to counsel, and that even if it were, his subsequent statements reinitiated interrogation and constituted a knowing and intelligent waiver of his rights.
• Nedley G. Norman, Jr. v. Ducharme
  871 F.2d 1483· 9th Cir.· 1989-03-31 ·cited 14×
  The court held that a sentence of life without parole imposed under a statute that reserved such a penalty only for those who went to trial is unconstitutional under United States v. Jackson. The court also held that the appellant's confession was admissible.
• Thames v. Dugger
  848 F.2d 149· 11th Cir.· 1988-06-27 ·cited 14×·via 28 U.S.C. § 2254(D)(8)
  The court held that a motion for a certificate of probable cause can constitute a timely notice of appeal and that the district court erred in denying a habeas corpus petition without an adequate record or evidentiary hearing on the ineffective assistance of counsel claim.
• Godfrey v. Kemp
  836 F.2d 1557· 11th Cir.· 1988-03-01 ·cited 14×
  The court held that an unconstitutional jury instruction shifting the burden of proof on intent was not harmless error given evidence of a dissociative attack, but that the introduction of a state psychiatrist's testimony did not violate the defendant's right to counsel. The cour
• Laws v. Armontrout
  834 F.2d 1401· 8th Cir.· 1987-12-09 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court correctly determined that appellant received ineffective assistance of counsel at the penalty phase of his trial.
• Simmons v. A.L. Lockhart
  814 F.2d 504· 8th Cir.· 1987-03-18 ·cited 14×
  The court affirmed the district court's denial of habeas corpus relief, finding no error in the trial court's rulings on change of venue, juror impartiality, or discovery violations.
• Neuschafer v. McKAY
  807 F.2d 839· 9th Cir.· 1987-01-06 ·cited 14×
  The dissenting judge believes the record contains sufficient evidence for conviction and penalty, and that a remand is unnecessary.
• Jones v. Kemp
  794 F.2d 1536· 11th Cir.· 1986-07-28 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the pretrial identification was not impermissibly suggestive and the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel had not attached at the time of the identification, and even if it had, the identification constituted harmless error.
• Sheik Abdel Rahim Ahmad v. Redman
  782 F.2d 409· 3d Cir.· 1986-01-27 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the state failed to establish a knowing and intelligent waiver of Miranda rights by the petitioner.
• Tavares v. Holbrook
  779 F.2d 1· 1st Cir.· 1985-12-11 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the trial court's thorough investigation and finding of no jury bias, supported by juror statements, meant the defendant was not deprived of his constitutional right to a fair trial by an impartial jury.
• Garland Ray Gregory, Jr. v. Solem
  774 F.2d 309· 8th Cir.· 1985-10-02 ·cited 14×
  A federal court reviewing a state conviction via habeas corpus must afford a high measure of deference to state court factual findings, and a guilty plea is valid if it is knowing, intelligent, and voluntary, even if the defendant does not fully grasp every nuance of the law.
• United States v. De Robertis
  771 F.2d 1015· 7th Cir.· 1985-08-23 ·cited 14×
  The court held that Miranda warnings do not apply to situations where a suspect voluntarily writes a confession without police interrogation, even if family members encouraged the confession.
• United States ex rel. Jerry Devine v. Richard DeROBERTIS & the Attorney Gen. of the State of Ill.
  754 F.2d 764· 7th Cir.· 1985-02-12 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the identity of trial and appellate counsel from the same firm constitutes sufficient 'cause' to overlook a procedural default regarding an ineffective assistance of counsel claim.
• Wilson v. Hon. Robert J. Henderson
  742 F.2d 741· 2d Cir.· 1984-08-27 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the government informant did not elicit inculpatory statements from the appellant, and the lower courts' findings to this effect were supported by the record.
• Stacy v. Love
  679 F.2d 1209· 6th Cir.· 1982-06-03 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, entitling the petitioner to habeas corpus relief.
• Lupe Hernandez Silva v. Estelle
  672 F.2d 457· 5th Cir.· 1982-04-05 ·cited 14×·via 28 U.S.C. § 2254(D)(8)
  A confession obtained after a defendant invoked his right to counsel, even if readvised of his rights, is inadmissible.
• Wedra v. Thomas
  671 F.2d 713· 2d Cir.· 1982-02-03 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the prosecution did not violate due process by failing to disclose post-testimony efforts to secure leniency for a witness, as these actions did not affect the witness's credibility at the time of testimony.
• Clement Dently v. Lane
  665 F.2d 113· 7th Cir.· 1981-11-10 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court erred in denying a habeas corpus petition without an evidentiary hearing, as factual questions regarding potential Sixth Amendment violations due to conflicts of interest in joint representation require further development.
• Mrs. Leo H. Hays v. Al Murphy
  663 F.2d 1004· 10th Cir.· 1981-10-26 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court's finding of competency was based on inadequate evaluations, requiring reversal and remand for further proceedings.
• Bruce v. Duckworth
  659 F.2d 776· 7th Cir.· 1981-09-14 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying habeas corpus relief, affirming the denial of the petitioner's claims regarding identification testimony, juror prejudice, reciprocal discovery, and double jeopardy.
• Ruiz v. Cady
  635 F.2d 584· 7th Cir.· 1980-11-07 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court erred in denying habeas relief without independently examining the entire state court record to determine the materiality of the undisclosed witness agreement.
• Kennedy v. Fairman
  618 F.2d 1242· 7th Cir.· 1980-04-11 ·cited 14×
  The court held that a suspect's waiver of the right to remain silent, after consulting with an attorney, can constitute a knowing and voluntary waiver of the right to have counsel present during interrogation.
• United States ex rel. Pasquale Delle Rose v. LaVALLEE
  468 F.2d 1288· 2d Cir.· 1972-10-27 ·cited 14×
  The dissenting judge would remand the case to allow the state court to clarify its factual findings regarding the voluntariness of the confessions before the federal district court holds a new evidentiary hearing.
• Hill
  440 F.2d 34· 5th Cir.· 1971-03-11 ·cited 14×
  The court affirmed the denial of habeas corpus relief, finding that the petitioner's claims were either previously adjudicated by state courts, not sufficiently prejudicial, or not properly exhausted.
• United States ex rel. Joseph Hughes v. Hon. Daniel McMANN
  405 F.2d 773· 2d Cir.· 1968-11-14 ·cited 14×
  The court remands the case to the trial judge for further factual exploration regarding the voluntariness of a confession.
• Morris v. Otto C. Boles
  386 F.2d 395· 4th Cir.· 1967-10-25 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the search and seizure were incident to a lawful arrest, the admission of statements was permissible under the orthodox rule for confessions, and the alleged alteration of the warrant did not constitute suppression of exculpatory evidence or denial of cross-ex
• Tucker v. Kemp
  776 F.2d 1487· 11th Cir.· 1985-11-07 ·cited 13×·via 28 U.S.C. § 2254(D)(3)
  The court held that Tucker's trial counsel was not ineffective at sentencing and that the district court did not err in denying an evidentiary hearing.
• Cornman v. Armontrout
  959 F.2d 727· 8th Cir.· 1992-03-24 ·cited 12×
  A successive habeas petition constitutes an abuse of the writ and the court need not reach the merits of the claims if the petitioner cannot show cause for failing to raise the claims earlier or a fundamental miscarriage of justice.
• United States v. Lane
  926 F.2d 694· 7th Cir.· 1991-03-08 ·cited 12×
  The court held that defense counsel's failure to ensure an alibi witness's appearance at trial, despite diligent efforts to locate her, did not constitute constitutionally ineffective assistance of counsel.
• Ford v. Armontrout
  916 F.2d 457· 8th Cir.· 1990-10-11 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the victim's in-court identification was reliable, evidence of other crimes was properly admitted, the speedy trial claim was procedurally barred, and counsel was not ineffective.
• Shedelbower v. Estelle
  885 F.2d 570· 9th Cir.· 1989-09-12 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the appellant's confession was not obtained in violation of his constitutional rights, as he initiated further discussion after invoking his right to counsel and validly waived those rights under the totality of the circumstances.
• Endress v. Dugger
  880 F.2d 1244· 11th Cir.· 1989-08-21 ·cited 12×
  The district court properly applied the presumption of correctness to state appellate court findings and correctly concluded that the petitioner's statements were voluntary and not the product of illegal interrogation.
• McCOY v. Lynaugh
  874 F.2d 954· 5th Cir.· 1989-05-22 ·cited 12×
  The court affirmed the denial of a certificate of probable cause, finding no substantial issue on the merits regarding jury disqualifications.
• Fike v. James
  833 F.2d 1503· 11th Cir.· 1987-12-15 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the state court's finding that the petitioner initiated further communication after invoking his right to counsel is entitled to a presumption of correctness, and thus the subsequent waiver and statement were valid.
• Profitt v. Waldron
  831 F.2d 1245· 5th Cir.· 1987-10-27 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the petitioner's counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to adequately investigate his prior mental history, which prejudiced his defense. The court also affirmed the denial of habeas relief on the Brady and competency issues.
• Ballard v. Johnson
  821 F.2d 568· 11th Cir.· 1987-07-14 ·cited 12×
  A state court's finding that a waiver of Miranda rights preceded a confession is a historical fact entitled to a presumption of correctness in federal habeas review if supported by the record. A confession is admissible even if an attorney attempted to contact the suspect during
• Dooley v. George Petsock. Appeal of John Henry Dooley, Jr.
  816 F.2d 885· 3d Cir.· 1987-04-22 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the majority erred in not remanding for an evidentiary hearing to determine if counsel was ineffective for failing to seek disqualification of the prosecutor, given the prosecutor's prior representation of the defendant.
• United States v. O'Leary
  806 F.2d 1307· 7th Cir.· 1986-11-24 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the district court correctly found an actual conflict of interest that adversely affected counsel's performance, and that the petitioner did not effectively waive this conflict due to collusion among the prosecutor, defense attorney, and police officer.
• Earnest Lee Miller v. Louie L. Wainwright
  798 F.2d 426· 11th Cir.· 1986-08-14 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the district court erred in applying the wrong legal standard to petitioners' claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, denial of access to grand jury testimony, and exclusion of mitigating sentencing evidence.
• Adamson v. Ricketts
  758 F.2d 441· 9th Cir.· 1985-04-18 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the admission of certain hearsay statements was a Confrontation Clause violation but harmless error, and that Arizona's death penalty statute is constitutional as applied.