Deference To State Court Findings

66 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• O'Bryan v. W.J. Estelle, Jr.
  714 F.2d 365· 5th Cir.· 1983-08-26 ·cited 75×
  The Fifth Circuit should apply the same standard of review in Witherspoon cases as in other habeas corpus matters, giving deference to state court factual findings unless clearly erroneous, and remanding for evidentiary hearings when the record is unclear.
• Graham v. Solem
  728 F.2d 1533· 8th Cir.· 1984-03-05 ·cited 59×
  The court held that the admission of the victim's identification of Graham violated his due process rights due to impermissibly suggestive identification procedures that created a substantial likelihood of misidentification.
• 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.
• Conner v. Wingo
  429 F.2d 630· 6th Cir.· 1970-06-05 ·cited 34×
  The dissenting judge would hold that the trial judge's awareness of the petitioner's mental state and behavior created a bona fide doubt regarding his competence to stand trial, necessitating a sua sponte inquiry.
• 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.
• Lundy v. Donal Campbell and Charles W. Burson
  888 F.2d 467· 6th Cir.· 1989-11-01 ·cited 24×
  The court held that while the trial court erred in limiting cross-examination, the cumulative effect of the alleged errors did not render the trial fundamentally unfair, and thus, habeas relief was not warranted.
• Sandstrom v. Butterworth
  738 F.2d 1200· 11th Cir.· 1984-08-13 ·cited 22×
  The majority found that Sandstrom's federal constitutional claim regarding judicial disqualification was exhausted in state courts, but the dissenting judge disagreed.
• Satchell v. Cardwell
  653 F.2d 408· 9th Cir.· 1981-08-10 ·cited 21×
  The court held that the petitioner's Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel was not violated by his attorney's failure to file a motion to suppress evidence, as the attorney's actions were within the bounds of reasonably competent representation and the entry wa
• Sampley v. Attorney General OF North Carolina
  786 F.2d 610· 4th Cir.· 1986-03-10 ·cited 20×
  The court held that a state trial court's denial of a continuance, which resulted in the defendant proceeding to trial without counsel, did not violate the Sixth Amendment because the defendant failed to demonstrate a lack of fair opportunity to secure counsel and the denial was
• United States ex rel. Alonzo Howard Jones v. DeROBERTIS
  766 F.2d 270· 7th Cir.· 1985-06-17 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the state courts' rejection of the defendant's claims regarding false testimony and Brady violations was entitled to deference, and that the defendant's other claims lacked merit or were procedurally barred.
• Plunkett v. W.J. Estelle, Jr.
  709 F.2d 1004· 5th Cir.· 1983-07-22 ·cited 18×
  The majority erred by failing to give sufficient deference to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals' findings regarding the jury charge and prosecutor's argument.
• Fikri Bayramoglu v. Estelle
  806 F.2d 880· 9th Cir.· 1986-12-16 ·cited 16×
  The court held that juror misconduct and bias, while serious, were harmless beyond a reasonable doubt and did not violate the defendant's constitutional right to an impartial jury.
• Matusiak v. Kelly
  786 F.2d 536· 2d Cir.· 1986-03-20 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court erred in denying the habeas petition because the state court's acceptance of the guilty plea was not knowing and voluntary, violating due process.
• Fritz v. Spalding
  682 F.2d 782· 9th Cir.· 1982-07-27 ·cited 16×
  The court held that a defendant's motion to proceed pro se is timely if made before trial begins, unless it is shown to be a tactic to secure delay, and a federal court must grant an evidentiary hearing if material facts were not adequately developed in state court.
• United States ex rel. Harold D. Rogers v. Richmond
  271 F.2d 364· 2d Cir.· 1959-10-28 ·cited 16×
  The dissenting judge argues that the federal court should not be bound by state court findings of fact when reviewing the voluntariness of confessions, especially given coercive police tactics.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• United States ex rel. Jose Mireles v. Greer
  736 F.2d 1160· 7th Cir.· 1984-06-12 ·cited 12×
  The court held that a trial judge's initial doubt about a defendant's competency to stand trial can be dissipated by subsequent evidence and reports, and the judge is not automatically required to hold a hearing if that doubt is reasonably resolved.
• Reddix v. Thigpen
  732 F.2d 494· 5th Cir.· 1984-05-21 ·cited 12×
  The court held that jury instructions potentially imputing accomplice intent to a defendant in a felony murder case, without a finding of personal intent to kill, violate Enmund v. Florida and preclude a death sentence.
• Chizen v. Hunter
  809 F.2d 560· 9th Cir.· 1986-12-24 ·cited 11×
  A nolo contendere plea induced by an attorney's misrepresentation regarding the sentence is involuntary, even if the defendant signs a waiver form and the judge advises them of their rights.
• Johnson v. Crispus C. NIX
  763 F.2d 344· 8th Cir.· 1985-06-03 ·cited 10×
  The court affirmed the denial of the habeas corpus petition, finding that any error in admitting incriminating statements was harmless and that the defendant's other claims regarding a fair trial and jury impartiality were without merit.
• Nelson v. Fulcomer
  911 F.2d 928· 3d Cir.· 1990-08-17 ·cited 8×
  The court held that confronting a suspect who has invoked their right to remain silent with their alleged partner in crime, after informing the suspect that the partner has confessed, constitutes interrogation under Miranda and Innis, unless the suspect was not informed of the co
• Boggs v. Bair
  892 F.2d 1193· 4th Cir.· 1989-12-12 ·cited 8×
  The Fourth Circuit held that the district court erred in granting habeas relief as to the penalty phase, reversing that decision, but affirmed the denial of relief as to the guilt phase. The court found no constitutional error in the admission of the confession, the search of the
• Chappee v. Vose
  843 F.2d 25· 1st Cir.· 1988-03-28 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the preclusion of defense expert testimony was a constitutionally permissible sanction for a deliberate and prejudicial discovery violation, even if less severe sanctions were theoretically available.
• United States ex rel. Alonzo Lewis v. Lane
  822 F.2d 703· 7th Cir.· 1987-06-17 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the petitioner failed to present substantial facts to doubt his competency, and therefore, the restoration hearing procedures were adequate and the conviction stands.
• Thomerson v. A.L. Lockhart
  835 F.2d 1257· 8th Cir.· 1987-12-30 ·cited 6×
  The dissenting judge holds that the prosecution presented insufficient evidence of premeditation and deliberation to sustain a first-degree murder conviction.
• 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.
• 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.
• Mahoney v. Vondergritt
  938 F.2d 1490· 1st Cir.· 1991-07-24 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the trial judge did not err in conducting a private interview with a juror without defense counsel present, nor in summarily dismissing the habeas corpus petition.
• Martsay Bolder v. Armontrout
  928 F.2d 806· 8th Cir.· 1991-03-21 ·cited 4×
• 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
• Hunt v. M.L. Woodson
  800 F.2d 416· 4th Cir.· 1986-09-11 ·cited 4×
  The dissenting judge believes the majority opinion incorrectly reversed the district court's judgment.
• Jacobson v. Henderson
  765 F.2d 12· 2d Cir.· 1985-06-13 ·cited 4×
  The court held that alleged jury misconduct, failure to produce a witness, and exclusion of testimony did not violate the petitioner's constitutional rights.
• United States ex rel. Raymond Cooper v. Warden, Ill. State Penitentiary, Pontiac Branch
  566 F.2d 28· 7th Cir.· 1977-11-29 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court properly denied the petition for a writ of habeas corpus, affirming the judgment for the respondent.
• Johnson v. Armontrout
  961 F.2d 748· 8th Cir.· 1992-04-10 ·cited 3×
  The court held that a defendant is deprived of his constitutional right to an impartial jury and effective counsel when jurors who convicted a co-defendant in the same crime are empaneled without sufficient inquiry into their bias, and counsel fails to challenge them for cause.
• Perez v. Groose
  973 F.2d 630· 8th Cir.· 1992-08-21 ·cited 2×
  The court held that substantial evidence supported the conviction, and a rational fact-finder could have found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
• 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.
• Vinston v. A.L. Lockhart
  850 F.2d 420· 8th Cir.· 1988-06-24 ·cited 2×
  The court affirmed the denial of the habeas corpus petition, finding the Sixth Amendment jury claim was procedurally defaulted and the identification procedures were not impermissibly suggestive.
• 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.
• Claudio Fernandez v. Rodriguez
  761 F.2d 558· 10th Cir.· 1985-04-04 ·cited 2×
  The admission of polygraph test results, which are testimonial communications, in a criminal trial cannot be harmless error if the confession was involuntary or if the error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
• 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.
• 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.
• Fundora-Martinez v. Sec'y Dep't of Corr. (Duval County)
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-02-26
  Reinier Fundora-Martinez, an inmate convicted in Duval County state court of motor vehicle fraud and organized fraud offenses, sought federal habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, raising five grounds including claims of deficient performance by his trial counsel regarding failur
• Montgomery v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr. (Polk County)
  M.D. Fla.· 2023-07-13
  The court held that the petitioner's habeas corpus petition was untimely and did not qualify for the actual innocence exception, as the newly presented evidence was not credible and contradicted the trial record.
• Hodge v. State
  N.D. Fla.· 2021-09-28
  The court held that the petitioner's federal habeas corpus petition was untimely filed under the AEDPA's one-year limitations period, and the petitioner failed to establish a valid actual innocence gateway claim.
• Roland v. Sec'y, Fla. Dep't of Corr. (Flagler County)
  M.D. Fla.· 2021-08-19
  Jaquez Roland, a Florida prisoner convicted of armed robbery and related crimes stemming from a 2011 liquor store robbery, sought federal habeas relief challenging his conviction and sentence on sufficiency of evidence and ineffective assistance of counsel grounds. The district c
• Pinckney v. Crosby
  386 F. Supp. 2d 1231· M.D. Fla.· 2005-09-06
  The court found that the state court's adjudication of the ineffective assistance of counsel claim was not contrary to federal law, an unreasonable application of federal law, or based on an unreasonable determination of facts.
• Turner v. Singletary
  46 F. Supp. 2d 1238· N.D. Fla.· 1999-01-26
  The court held that a pro se prisoner's petition for writ of habeas corpus is not deemed filed until it is received by the clerk of court, and mailing it on the last day of the limitation period does not constitute timely filing. Furthermore, the court found that the petitioner h