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

• United States ex rel. Dominick Sabella v. Hon. H. W. Follette
  432 F.2d 572· 2d Cir.· 1970-10-13 ·cited 8×
  The court affirmed the denial of the habeas corpus petition, finding no constitutional error in the state court convictions.
• United States ex rel. Murray Dickerson v. Rundle
  430 F.2d 462· 3d Cir.· 1970-07-21 ·cited 8×
  The dissenting judge argues that the bring-up proceeding, authorized by a judicial officer, constituted a critical stage requiring counsel, making the subsequent confession inadmissible.
• United States ex rel. Albert LaMOLINARE v. Duggan
  415 F.2d 730· 3d Cir.· 1969-07-25 ·cited 8×
  The dissenting judge would have remanded the case for an evidentiary hearing to determine if the right to challenge the search and seizure was waived and, if not, whether the search was valid.
• Carruth v. Comm'r, Ala. Dep't of Corr.
  93 F.4th 1338· 11th Cir.· 2024-03-01 ·cited 7×·via 28 U.S.C. § 2254(D)(1)
  Michael David Carruth, convicted of four counts of first-degree murder and other crimes in Alabama, sought federal habeas corpus relief on six grounds, including claims of ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel, prosecutorial misconduct, and jury misconduct. The El
• Adams v. R.S. Peterson
  968 F.2d 835· 9th Cir.· 1992-06-24 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the majority's distinction between de jure and de facto guilty pleas, focusing on labels rather than substance, is flawed and undermines constitutional protections.
• Morris v. Kemp
  809 F.2d 1499· 11th Cir.· 1987-02-13 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the petitioner procedurally defaulted his ineffective assistance of counsel claim by failing to raise it in his first state habeas proceeding and affirmed the denial of federal habeas relief.
• Siers v. Ryan
  773 F.2d 37· 3d Cir.· 1985-09-20 ·cited 7×
  A guilty plea induced by the fear of a heavier sentence if a jury trial is chosen, or by the perceived leniency of a judge in a non-jury trial, does not render the plea involuntary or unconstitutional, provided it is made intelligently and with competent legal advice.
• Williams v. Crispus NIX
  700 F.2d 1164· 8th Cir.· 1983-01-10 ·cited 7×
  The court denied the petition for rehearing, adhering to its prior ruling that the State must prove a lack of bad faith to invoke the inevitable-discovery exception to the exclusionary rule.
• Lane v. Henderson
  480 F.2d 544· 5th Cir.· 1973-06-06 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the state court's evidentiary hearing was not full and fair, requiring a remand for further proceedings.
• 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
• Robert v. Black, Jr.
  962 F.2d 394· 5th Cir.· 1992-05-21 ·cited 6×
  The court denied the application for a certificate of probable cause and the motion for a stay of execution.
• Ellis v. Collins
  956 F.2d 76· 5th Cir.· 1992-03-03 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a petitioner seeking federal habeas relief based on newly discovered evidence of actual innocence must demonstrate that a constitutional violation prevented them from presenting this evidence earlier, and that claims not raised in the first federal habeas peti
• Burton v. Johnson
  948 F.2d 1150· 10th Cir.· 1991-11-01 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the majority opinion created an erroneous rule of constitutional law by presuming juror bias based on past abuse and alleged dishonesty, rather than requiring proof of fixed opinions preventing impartial judgment.
• Russell v. Collins
  944 F.2d 202· 5th Cir.· 1991-09-18 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the petitioner's second habeas petition constituted an abuse of the writ because the claims raised could have been presented in the first petition and no cause or prejudice was shown, nor was there a showing of a fundamental miscarriage of justice.
• Ouimette v. Moran
  942 F.2d 1· 1st Cir.· 1991-08-06 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the state prosecutor's failure to disclose the extensive criminal record and deals made with a key witness violated the petitioner's due process rights under Brady v. Maryland.
• Purvis v. Dugger
  932 F.2d 1413· 11th Cir.· 1991-06-10 ·cited 6×
  The dissenting judge would grant the writ of habeas corpus, finding that the admission of Purvis's confession violated Miranda, either due to custody issues or the improper admission of details obtained after custody began.
• Hart v. Stagner
  935 F.2d 1007· 9th Cir.· 1991-06-03 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a habeas court need only examine relevant portions of the state court record for harmless error analysis of a defective jury instruction on aiding and abetting, not the entire record. It also held that extensive pretrial publicity did not violate the defendant
• Doyle v. Dugger
  922 F.2d 646· 11th Cir.· 1991-01-14 ·cited 6×
  The dissenting judge holds that trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance during the penalty phase by failing to consult psychiatrists regarding mitigating circumstances.
• Rector v. Clark
  923 F.2d 570· 8th Cir.· 1991-01-02 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the Ford standard is the appropriate measure for competency to be executed and that the district court correctly applied it, affirming the denial of habeas corpus relief. The court also affirmed the district court's finding that the petitioner was competent to
• 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.
• Clark v. Commonwealth OF Pa.
  892 F.2d 1142· 3d Cir.· 1989-12-27 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the 1974 convictions, obtained without a required juvenile certification hearing, were constitutionally infirm and should not have been considered in sentencing for the 1979 conviction.
• 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.
• Hawkins v. Lynaugh
  862 F.2d 487· 5th Cir.· 1988-12-12 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the defendant failed to show substantial evidence that could not be expressed in the jury's deliberateness inquiry, and thus a stay of execution was not warranted.
• Shedelbower v. Estelle
  859 F.2d 727· 9th Cir.· 1988-10-12 ·cited 6×
  The court held that Shedelbower's confession was not obtained in violation of his constitutional rights, as he voluntarily initiated further communication after invoking his right to counsel.
• Smith v. Duckworth
  856 F.2d 909· 7th Cir.· 1988-09-06 ·cited 6×
  The court held that while the state court's implicit finding of a voluntary Miranda waiver is entitled to deference, a remand is necessary for an evidentiary hearing on the voluntariness of the confession itself due to insufficient record evidence.
• Cooper v. Scroggy
  845 F.2d 1385· 6th Cir.· 1988-04-26 ·cited 6×
  The court held that Calloway's confession was unconstitutionally admitted, but Cooper's confession was not. However, Cooper's Sixth Amendment rights were violated by the admission of Calloway's confession against him.
• Beauford White v. Louie L. Wainwright
  809 F.2d 1478· 11th Cir.· 1987-01-20 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the state courts' findings that the petitioner contemplated the use of lethal force and voluntarily participated in the robbery and murders were supported by the record and satisfied the Enmund standard, thus allowing the imposition of the death penalty.
• Rone v. Wyrick
  764 F.2d 532· 8th Cir.· 1985-06-14 ·cited 6×
  A juvenile's confession is admissible if voluntarily made under the totality of the circumstances, even without parental presence, provided the juvenile knowingly and intelligently waived their rights.
• Ford v. Louie L. Wainwright
  752 F.2d 526· 11th Cir.· 1985-01-17 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the Florida statute for determining the sanity of a death row inmate meets minimum due process standards, and precedent binds the panel to affirm the denial of the petition.
• Peek v. Kemp
  746 F.2d 672· 11th Cir.· 1984-10-26 ·cited 6×
• Caudill v. Jago
  747 F.2d 1046· 6th Cir.· 1984-10-22 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a guilty plea is not rendered involuntary merely because it was entered to avoid the possibility of a death penalty, and the judge's explanation of potential consequences does not constitute coercion if it is a fair description of alternatives.
• Powell v. Wyrick
  744 F.2d 632· 8th Cir.· 1984-09-26 ·cited 6×·via 28 U.S.C. § 2254(D)(8)
  The court held that the petitioner knowingly and intelligently waived his right to counsel, and there was no constitutional infirmity in his conviction.
• Dobbert v. Wainwright
  593 F. Supp. 1418· M.D. Fla.· 1984-09-03 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the state court's findings of fact were presumed correct and supported by the record, and that the petitioner's claims regarding witness testimony reliability and ineffective assistance of counsel lacked merit.
• Wilson v. Mintzes
  733 F.2d 424· 6th Cir.· 1984-05-04 ·cited 6×
  The trial court's denial of the defendant's request for substitute counsel, made due to an irreconcilable conflict and ineffective representation, deprived the defendant of his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel.
• King v. Ponte
  717 F.2d 635· 1st Cir.· 1983-09-14 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the undisclosed exculpatory evidence, even if considered, would not have affected the outcome of the trial, and thus affirmed the denial of the habeas corpus petition.
• Terry v. Duckworth
  715 F.2d 1217· 7th Cir.· 1983-08-25 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the petitioner's thirty-two month delay between charge and arrest did not violate his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial.
• United States ex rel. Theodore Ross v. Franzen
  688 F.2d 1181· 7th Cir.· 1982-09-24 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the trial court's failure to submit a straight 'not guilty' verdict form to the jury violated the defendant's Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to have a jury determine guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
• Ford v. Parratt
  673 F.2d 232· 8th Cir.· 1982-03-15 ·cited 6×
  The dissenting judge would affirm the district court's denial of habeas corpus relief, finding no demonstrated prejudice from counsel's alleged failure to investigate a rumor.
• Emilio Valenzuela, Jr. v. Griffin
  654 F.2d 707· 10th Cir.· 1981-07-22 ·cited 6×·via 28 U.S.C. § 2254(D)(3)
  The court held that the prosecution failed to demonstrate a good-faith effort to secure the witness's presence at trial, thus violating the Sixth Amendment's confrontation clause.
• Hubbard v. Jeffes
  653 F.2d 99· 3d Cir.· 1981-07-07 ·cited 6×
• Lonberger v. Jago
  651 F.2d 447· 6th Cir.· 1981-06-11 ·cited 6×·via 28 U.S.C. § 2254(D)(8)
  A federal court must explain its reasons for departing from state court findings of fact in a habeas corpus suit, and a prior conviction used as a specification for a greater offense is constitutionally infirm if the guilty plea to the prior offense was not intelligently made.
• Thomas v. Estelle
  587 F.2d 695· 5th Cir.· 1979-01-10 ·cited 6×
  The court would reverse the district court's finding because the state court's fact-finding, on the same record, is entitled to a presumption of correctness and there is no substantial evidence to support the district court's contrary finding.
• Jones v. State OF Wis.
  562 F.2d 440· 7th Cir.· 1977-09-20 ·cited 6×
  A guilty plea entered under Wisconsin statute § 971.31(10) must be vacated if the trial court failed to suppress inadmissible evidence, even if some other evidence remains admissible.
• 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.
• United States ex rel. Carl Buford v. Henderson
  524 F.2d 147· 2d Cir.· 1975-09-25 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying the habeas corpus petition without providing transcripts, as the petitioner had prior access and failed to demonstrate a need or new supporting evidence.
• Caver v. State OF Ala.
  511 F.2d 124· 5th Cir.· 1975-04-10 ·cited 6×
  The federal court erred in denying a habeas corpus petition without an evidentiary hearing when contested issues of fact controlled the constitutional questions raised.
• Cranford v. Rodriguez
  512 F.2d 860· 10th Cir.· 1975-03-18 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the petitioner's constitutional rights were not violated by the confession obtained in Mexico, as the state court's determination of voluntariness was presumed correct and the Miranda warnings, though imperfect, were a good faith effort under the circumstances
• Whitaker v. Estelle
  509 F.2d 194· 5th Cir.· 1975-03-06 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the appellant's state rape conviction was not unconstitutional, as his arrest was based on probable cause, his confession was voluntary, and the state court had jurisdiction.