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

• Berry v. Cowan
  497 F.2d 1274· 6th Cir.· 1974-06-12 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the federal courts must defer to state court factual findings when supported by the record, and that the petitioner received constitutionally effective assistance of counsel.
• United States ex rel. James L. Wright v. LaVALLEE
  471 F.2d 123· 2d Cir.· 1972-11-22 ·cited 6×
  A statement obtained in violation of Escobedo may be used to impeach a defendant's trial testimony, even if inadmissible in the prosecution's case-in-chief.
• Perez v. Turner
  462 F.2d 1056· 10th Cir.· 1972-07-17 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the inmate's confinement in prison, despite sexual assaults, did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment violating the Eighth Amendment, and thus habeas corpus relief was not warranted.
• Eugene v. Ross
  451 F.2d 298· 5th Cir.· 1971-11-22 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court erred in denying habeas corpus relief without an evidentiary hearing, as the petitioner's allegations regarding misleading advice about his guilty plea were not conclusively refuted by the record.
• Ellis George Payne v. Cardwell
  436 F.2d 577· 6th Cir.· 1971-01-06 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a state appellate court's decision alone is insufficient to deny a federal habeas corpus petition without an evidentiary hearing.
• United States ex rel. Louis Henry Burns v. LaVALLEE
  436 F.2d 1352· 2d Cir.· 1970-12-21 ·cited 6×·via 28 U.S.C. § 2254(D)(8)
  The court held that the written statement obtained from the appellant was involuntary as a matter of federal constitutional law, despite state court findings to the contrary.
• Schram v. Hoyt C. Cupp
  436 F.2d 692· 9th Cir.· 1970-11-25 ·cited 6×
  The dissenting judge believes the majority erred by not granting a hearing to assess the credibility of the petitioner's assertion of non-knowing waiver of counsel.
• United States ex rel. Thomas N. Cole v. Mancusi
  429 F.2d 61· 2d Cir.· 1970-07-16 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the jury charge regarding the inference of guilt from possession of recently stolen property, while not a model, was cured by other instructions and did not violate the defendant's Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. The court also found the
• Goodwin v. Page
  418 F.2d 867· 10th Cir.· 1969-11-18 ·cited 6×·via 28 U.S.C. § 2254(D)(3)
  The court held that a consecutive sentence for a subsequent crime runs independently of a prior conviction that is later declared void.
• United States ex rel. John C. Rebenstorf v. Pate
  417 F.2d 1222· 7th Cir.· 1969-09-22 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel without reviewing the state court record, and that the denial of a transcript and counsel for a post-judgment relief appeal was not a constitutional violation as the pr
• Hutchinson v. Craven
  415 F.2d 278· 9th Cir.· 1969-08-14 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court erred in denying the habeas application based on prior proceedings because those proceedings lacked an evidentiary hearing on the merits. The court also noted a substantial new issue regarding denial of counsel that could warrant relief.
• United States ex rel. Edward Allen v. Hon. J. Edwin LaVALLEE
  411 F.2d 241· 2d Cir.· 1969-05-29 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the appellant's confession was not obtained in violation of his constitutional rights, and the detention as a material witness was lawful.
• Ortiz v. Baker
  411 F.2d 263· 10th Cir.· 1969-05-26 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the federal habeas court did not err in denying relief without an evidentiary hearing because the state proceedings provided a full and fair hearing on the factual issues.
• Woodington v. Mathews
  401 F.2d 125· 7th Cir.· 1968-09-20 ·cited 6×
  The court affirmed the district court's denial of the writ of habeas corpus, holding that federal courts should defer to state court decisions on the merits when federal standards have been met.
• van Ermen v. Burke
  398 F.2d 329· 7th Cir.· 1968-06-28 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court correctly denied the habeas corpus petition without an evidentiary hearing, as the state court's findings were supported by evidence and dispositive of the claims.
• Doyle J. Williams v. Armontrout
  912 F.2d 924· 8th Cir.· 1990-08-15 ·cited 5×
  The dissenting opinion argues that the state trial court's refusal to instruct the jury on first-degree (felony) murder in a capital case violated due process and equal protection. This refusal stemmed from an inconsistent and arbitrary application of Missouri law by the state ap
• Gore v. Dugger
  763 F. Supp. 1110· M.D. Fla.· 1989-08-17 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the trial court erred by precluding mitigating evidence regarding Petitioner's drug and alcohol abuse and cousin's dominance, violating the Eighth Amendment, and granted a new sentencing hearing on that claim.
• Francois v. Murray Henderson
  850 F.2d 231· 5th Cir.· 1988-07-26 ·cited 5×·via 28 U.S.C. § 2254(D)(8)
  The court held that the state trial judge's denial of release was not supported by the record and that the patient was not mentally ill or dangerous under Louisiana law, thus requiring deinstitutionalization. The court also noted that recent changes in Louisiana law may violate t
• Kermit F. Holton v. Lanson Newsome
  750 F.2d 1513· 11th Cir.· 1985-01-21 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the district court correctly denied the habeas corpus petition because the petitioner's claims regarding marital privilege, undisclosed evidence, and unconstitutional search and seizure lacked merit.
• Wise v. Smith
  735 F.2d 735· 2d Cir.· 1984-05-25 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the appellant was not denied effective assistance of counsel nor a fair trial, and that the district court correctly denied his petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
• Collins v. Hendrickson
  371 F. Supp. 2d 1326· M.D. Fla.· 2005-01-26 ·cited 4×·via 28 U.S.C. § 2254(D)(1)
  The Florida Parole Commission violated Petitioner's due process rights by disregarding a hearing examiner's factual findings and substituting its own in revoking his control release.
• Brown v. Crosby
  249 F. Supp. 2d 1285· S.D. Fla.· 2003-03-19 ·cited 4×
  The Court found that the Petitioner's waiver of his Miranda rights was not knowing and intelligent due to his severe intellectual deficits, and therefore his confession should have been suppressed.
• Davis v. Singletary
  853 F. Supp. 1492· M.D. Fla.· 1994-05-25 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the pretrial publicity did not rise to the level of presumed prejudice and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a motion for individual and sequestered voir dire.
• James v. Collins
  987 F.2d 1116· 5th Cir.· 1993-03-25 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the Texas capital sentencing scheme, including its special issues, is constitutional and that the district court properly deferred to state court findings of fact. The court also found no unconstitutional deprivation of mental health expert assistance.
• Jones v. Joseph Ryan, Superintendent, State Corr. Inst. at Dallas, PA
  987 F.2d 960· 3d Cir.· 1993-03-05 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the prosecution's use of peremptory challenges to strike black venirepersons violated the petitioner's right to equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment.
• Nolan v. Armontrout
  973 F.2d 615· 8th Cir.· 1992-08-19 ·cited 4×
  The court held that ineffective assistance of post-conviction counsel does not constitute cause to excuse a procedural default, and inaccurate parole advice does not automatically taint a guilty plea without proof of prejudice.
• Moran v. Godinez
  972 F.2d 263· 9th Cir.· 1992-07-30 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the state court erred by applying the wrong legal standard to determine the defendant's competency to waive his constitutional rights and enter guilty pleas.
• Adams v. Aiken
  965 F.2d 1306· 4th Cir.· 1992-05-19 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the jury instructions on reasonable doubt announced a new rule not retroactively applicable to this habeas corpus case, and that the defendant was competent throughout his trial. The court also found that the confession was admissible and that no Brady violati
• MAY v. Collins
  961 F.2d 74· 5th Cir.· 1992-05-06 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the trial judge's televised remarks did not demonstrate inadequate state court factfinding procedures or warrant relief under Rule 60(b).
• Ventura v. Meachum
  957 F.2d 1048· 2d Cir.· 1992-02-26 ·cited 4×
  The district court erred by failing to defer to state court findings of fact regarding the effect of the Yamin letter on the petitioner's guilty plea.
• Washington v. Murray
  952 F.2d 1472· 4th Cir.· 1991-12-19 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel regarding the failure to use exculpatory forensic evidence without an evidentiary hearing, and remanded that claim for further proceedings. Other claims of ineffective assistan
• Grubbs v. Delo
  948 F.2d 1459· 8th Cir.· 1991-11-08 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the state failed to present sufficient evidence to support two aggravating circumstances found by the jury, which were necessary for the imposition of the death penalty.
• Williams v. Whitley
  940 F.2d 132· 5th Cir.· 1991-08-30 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the petitioner was entitled to an evidentiary hearing to develop facts regarding a police report containing impeachment evidence and his trial counsel's knowledge of it.
• Vincent v. Al Parke
  942 F.2d 989· 6th Cir.· 1991-08-23 ·cited 4×
  The admission of a co-defendant's out-of-court statement implicating the defendant violated the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause and was not harmless error.
• Chandler v. Richards
  935 F.2d 915· 7th Cir.· 1991-07-01 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court correctly applied the presumption of correctness under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) to state court findings of fact when reviewing a habeas petition for insufficient evidence, and that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction.
• Martsay Bolder v. Armontrout
  928 F.2d 806· 8th Cir.· 1991-03-21 ·cited 4×
• Micheaux v. Collins
  911 F.2d 1083· 5th Cir.· 1990-09-17 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a state court's finding that a petitioner would not have pleaded guilty if properly admonished is a factual finding entitled to a presumption of correctness under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), and that a federal court cannot disregard such findings by labeling them mix
• Ingrassia v. Armontrout
  902 F.2d 1368· 8th Cir.· 1990-05-15 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court properly applied the presumption of correctness to state court findings and that the petitioner's guilty plea was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent, and he received effective assistance of counsel.
• Medeiros v. Shimoda
  889 F.2d 819· 9th Cir.· 1989-11-08 ·cited 4×
  The dissent argues that the presumption that an initial confession has a coercive effect on subsequent confessions was not rebutted in this case.
• Smith v. Jago
  888 F.2d 399· 6th Cir.· 1989-10-20 ·cited 4×
  The Sixth Circuit held that the district court erred by failing to defer to state court findings of fact and by applying an improper standard of prejudice. The court found the state court's factual determinations were supported by the record and that the defendant failed to demon
• Barkauskas v. Lane
  878 F.2d 1031· 7th Cir.· 1989-07-11 ·cited 4×·via 28 U.S.C. § 2254(D)(3)
  The court held that the state court record was insufficient to determine if the prosecution had withheld material exculpatory evidence, requiring a remand for an evidentiary hearing.
• Buck v. Green
  874 F.2d 1578· 11th Cir.· 1989-06-13 ·cited 4×·via 28 U.S.C. § 2254(D)(1)
  The court held that state courts did resolve the merits of the factual dispute regarding jury discrimination by finding the evidence unsubstantiated, thus the presumption of correctness under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1) should apply.
• Dung Thai Tran v. A.L. Lockhart
  849 F.2d 1064· 8th Cir.· 1988-06-13 ·cited 4×
  The dissenting judge would vacate the judgment dismissing the writ and remand for an evidentiary hearing.
• Brooks v. Kincheloe
  848 F.2d 940· 9th Cir.· 1988-05-25 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the Sixth Amendment right to counsel was not violated because the jailhouse informant was not a government agent acting to deliberately elicit incriminating statements.
• Escalera v. Coombe
  826 F.2d 185· 2d Cir.· 1987-08-13 ·cited 4×
  The court held that precluding an alibi witness solely as a sanction for noncompliance with notice statutes, absent a showing of substantial prejudice, violates the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments, and that the district court erred in failing to review the sufficiency of evidenti
• Meadows v. Kuhlmann
  812 F.2d 72· 2d Cir.· 1987-02-20 ·cited 4×
  Any error in admitting the lineup identification and the defendant's incriminating statements for impeachment was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt due to overwhelming evidence of guilt.
• Wang v. Withworth
  811 F.2d 952· 6th Cir.· 1987-02-11 ·cited 4×
  The dissenting judge would deny the writ of habeas corpus, finding that the trial judge's declaration of a mistrial due to prejudice, rather than insufficient evidence, does not bar retrial under the Double Jeopardy Clause.
• Myrick v. Herb Maschner & the Attorney Gen. of the State of Kan.
  799 F.2d 642· 10th Cir.· 1986-08-29 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a constitutionally deficient jury instruction regarding intent was harmless error because the evidence overwhelmingly established the petitioner's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and the instruction did not affect the verdict. The court also held that the pet
• Smith v. O.L. McCOTTER
  798 F.2d 129· 5th Cir.· 1986-08-21 ·cited 4×
  The court denied the petitioner's motion for a certificate of probable cause and a stay of execution, finding no substantial showing of a federal right denial.
• McCOY v. Cabana
  794 F.2d 177· 5th Cir.· 1986-07-11 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the petitioner's constitutional rights were not violated during his state court conviction, affirming the denial of his habeas corpus petition.