Exhaustion Of State Remedies

3,028 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• Harris v. Champion
  938 F.2d 1062· 10th Cir.· 1991-06-17 ·cited 12×
  The court modified its previous order to delete the requirement that two specific cases be consolidated, but reaffirmed its prior opinion regarding the investigation of constitutional allegations concerning the provision of appellate counsel to indigent defendants.
• Simmons v. State
  579 So. 2d 874· Fla. 1st DCA· 1991-05-23 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the state circuit court correctly denied the defendant's motions for postconviction relief because the available procedural remedies had lapsed or were inapplicable to the claims presented.
• Meadows v. Legursky
  904 F.2d 903· 4th Cir.· 1990-06-01 ·cited 12×
  The court affirmed the dismissal of Acord's petition, finding the state procedural bar adequate and independent, and reversed the grant of habeas relief to Meadows, remanding for dismissal due to failure to exhaust state remedies.
• Shaykh Matulu Abdurrahman v. Henderson
  897 F.2d 71· 2d Cir.· 1990-02-23 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the petitioner exhausted his state court remedies by citing Strickland v. Washington in a pro se brief, but his claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel was without merit.
• Charles v. Smith
  894 F.2d 718· 5th Cir.· 1990-02-20 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the arrest was supported by probable cause, thus the identification was not tainted. However, the court found a Miranda violation regarding the 'blue jacket' statement, but deemed it harmless error.
• Stone v. R.G. Godbehere
  894 F.2d 1131· 9th Cir.· 1990-02-01 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the Arizona statute and injunction were not unconstitutionally vague and did not violate due process, but that the amended sentencing order violated double jeopardy principles under Arizona law.
• LEE v. McCAUGHTRY
  892 F.2d 1318· 7th Cir.· 1990-01-16 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the admission of out-of-court accusations, offered to show the defendant's response and not for their truth, did not violate the Confrontation Clause, especially with a limiting instruction and prosecutor's argument consistent with that limitation.
• Riddick v. Edmiston
  894 F.2d 586· 3d Cir.· 1990-01-16 ·cited 12×
  The court held that Miranda warnings are sufficient to inform a defendant of their Sixth Amendment right to counsel after indictment, and that a prosecutor's race-neutral explanation for a peremptory challenge, found credible by the trial court, satisfies Batson requirements.
• Brooks v. Jones
  875 F.2d 30· 2d Cir.· 1989-05-12 ·cited 12×
  The court held that a habeas corpus petitioner need not exhaust state remedies if state court processes have been demonstrably ineffective due to neglect and delay.
• Ross v. Petsock George
  868 F.2d 639· 3d Cir.· 1989-02-28 ·cited 12×
  The court should remand the case to the district court for reconsideration of the ineffective assistance of counsel claim, as the district court failed to review the state record to determine if the claim was fairly presented.
• Miller v. Dugger
  858 F.2d 1536· 11th Cir.· 1988-11-01 ·cited 12×
  The court held that appellate counsel was not ineffective for failing to raise claims that lacked merit, and therefore, the petition for a writ of habeas corpus should be denied.
• O'Halloran v. Ryan
  835 F.2d 506· 3d Cir.· 1987-12-18 ·cited 12×
  A state prisoner seeking federal habeas corpus relief must exhaust available state remedies, including developing necessary factual support through state post-conviction procedures, before the federal court will consider the merits of the claim.
• Thomas v. Tex. State Bd. OF Med. Exam'rs
  807 F.2d 453· 5th Cir.· 1987-01-08 ·cited 12×
  Federal courts should not abstain from deciding federal questions when no state proceedings are pending, even if state remedies are available.
• Tuggle v. Seabold
  806 F.2d 87· 6th Cir.· 1986-11-24 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the district court correctly granted habeas corpus relief based on a due process violation, but remanded for a determination of whether the error was harmless.
• Wojtczak v. Fulcomer
  800 F.2d 353· 3d Cir.· 1986-09-09 ·cited 12×
  Inordinate delay by the state in processing post-conviction relief can excuse the federal habeas corpus exhaustion requirement.
• Brand v. Grady Lewis
  784 F.2d 1515· 11th Cir.· 1986-03-24 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the habeas corpus petition for failure to exhaust state remedies, as the claim was properly presented to the state appellate court.
• Gonce v. Warden Walter W. Redman
  780 F.2d 333· 3d Cir.· 1985-12-30 ·cited 12×
  The court held that a federal habeas petition containing an unexhausted claim must be remanded to the district court for the petitioner to either delete the unexhausted claim or exhaust it in state court.
• Smith v. Major DeBARTOLI
  769 F.2d 451· 7th Cir.· 1985-08-07 ·cited 12×
  The court affirmed the district court's decision, holding that while a due process violation occurred, nominal damages were appropriate as the plaintiff's guilty plea meant the outcome would have been the same. The denial of costs was also upheld.
• Riner v. Owens
  764 F.2d 1253· 7th Cir.· 1985-06-14 ·cited 12×
  The majority holds that the petitioner demonstrated sufficient cause and prejudice to overcome waiver of his Sixth Amendment claim. The dissenting judge would hold that the petitioner failed to demonstrate prejudice and thus the claim should be denied.
• Doby v. Strength
  758 F.2d 1405· 11th Cir.· 1985-03-06 ·cited 12×
  The court held that Fourth Amendment claims are not generally cognizable in federal habeas corpus and that abstention is appropriate pending state appellate review of the conviction.
• Lockett v. ARN
  728 F.2d 266· 6th Cir.· 1984-07-03 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the appellant's failure to raise constitutional objections to jury instructions at trial procedurally barred federal habeas review, absent a showing of cause and prejudice, and that her other claims were without merit.
• Koontz v. Glossa
  731 F.2d 365· 6th Cir.· 1984-04-11 ·cited 12×
  The court held that amending the indictment without returning to the grand jury, changing the charge from direct arson to arson for hire, violated the petitioner's due process rights by denying him fair notice of the charges and sufficient time to prepare a defense.
• Stamper v. Alton Baskerville
  724 F.2d 1106· 4th Cir.· 1984-01-13 ·cited 12×
  The court reversed the district court's decision, finding that even if discretion existed to depart from a prior order, the district court abused that discretion.
• Stranghoener v. Black
  720 F.2d 1005· 8th Cir.· 1983-12-01 ·cited 12×
  A federal habeas corpus claim is not "fairly presented" to state courts if significant factual allegations supporting the claim are raised for the first time in federal court. Therefore, the petitioner failed to exhaust state remedies.
• Norbert Glenn Richardson v. Major B.F. Turner
  716 F.2d 1059· 4th Cir.· 1983-09-09 ·cited 12×
  The court held that a federal court should not adjudicate habeas corpus claims if there is a reasonable possibility that a state court exception to a procedural bar rule would allow the petitioner to raise those claims.
• United States ex rel. Ronnie Lee Cunningham v. DeROBERTIS
  719 F.2d 892· 7th Cir.· 1983-08-10 ·cited 12×
  A habeas petitioner cannot claim a violation of another person's Fifth Amendment rights when that person's confession was determined to be voluntary and was not used at the petitioner's trial.
• Collins v. A.L. Lockhart
  707 F.2d 341· 8th Cir.· 1983-05-11 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the petitioner's claims lacked merit and the district court's denial of the writ of habeas corpus should be affirmed.
• Hawkins v. West
  706 F.2d 437· 2d Cir.· 1983-05-04 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the petitioner's claim of insufficient evidence was adequately presented to state courts and that the futility exception to the exhaustion requirement remains valid.
• Scott v. Maggio
  695 F.2d 916· 5th Cir.· 1983-01-20 ·cited 12×
  The court affirmed the denial of habeas relief, holding that the petitioner's Fourth Amendment claims were either inapplicable or justified by exigent circumstances, the identification procedure was not impermissibly suggestive, hearsay was not admitted or did not deny fundamenta
• Walker v. Zant
  693 F.2d 1087· 11th Cir.· 1982-12-16 ·cited 12×
  The court held that a federal court may grant habeas corpus relief if the petitioner has raised the same issues on direct appeal in state court, as this satisfies the exhaustion requirement.
• United States ex rel. Nathaniel Spurlark v. Wolff
  683 F.2d 216· 7th Cir.· 1982-07-14 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the petitioner's request for substitute counsel was dilatory and properly denied by the state trial court, and even if it were an error, it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
• Kirksey v. Jones
  673 F.2d 58· 2d Cir.· 1982-03-08 ·cited 12×
  The court affirmed the denial of habeas corpus relief, finding that the appellant had not exhausted state remedies for two of his claims and that the one exhausted claim regarding the prosecutor's use of a co-defendant's confession did not violate the Confrontation Clause.
• Escobedo v. Estelle
  650 F.2d 70· 5th Cir.· 1981-07-06 ·cited 12×
  A state prisoner has exhausted state remedies for federal habeas corpus purposes when the federal claim has been fairly presented to the highest state court, even if that court did not explicitly address the claim in its opinion.
• Aubran Wayne Martin v. Warden, Huntingdon State Corr. Inst. & Attorney Gen. of the Commonwealth of Pa.
  653 F.2d 799· 3d Cir.· 1981-06-30 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the pretrial publicity did not create a presumption of prejudice, the voir dire was not unconstitutionally restrictive, and the felony-murder jury instructions did not violate due process.
• Santos v. Alaska BAR Ass'n & the Justices of the Supreme Court of Alaska
  618 F.2d 575· 9th Cir.· 1980-05-08 ·cited 12×
  Alaska Bar Admission Rule 1-2 does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment for graduates of unaccredited law schools.
• Warren v. Harvey
  632 F.2d 925· 2d Cir.· 1980-05-01 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the Connecticut statute allowing commitment of insanity acquittees based on a preponderance of the evidence standard is facially constitutional, and that it was constitutionally applied to the appellant. The state met its burden of proving the appellant's dang
• United States ex rel. Leroy Charles Lockett v. Ill. Parole & Pardon Bd.
  600 F.2d 116· 7th Cir.· 1979-06-20 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the exhaustion requirement for federal habeas corpus petitions is not waivable by the state and must be raised by the court if not properly presented.
• Ogle v. Estelle
  592 F.2d 1264· 5th Cir.· 1979-04-10 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the petitioner had sufficiently exhausted state remedies for his federal habeas corpus claims, as the state appellate court had a fair opportunity to consider them.
• Macio Ennis v. LeFEVRE
  560 F.2d 1072· 2d Cir.· 1977-08-09 ·cited 12×
  The court affirmed the denial of the petition because the appellant had not exhausted his state remedies regarding the ineffective assistance of counsel claim.
• Graves v. Estelle
  556 F.2d 743· 5th Cir.· 1977-07-27 ·cited 12×
  The court held that while the petitioner had exhausted state remedies, his Fourth Amendment claim could not be granted on federal habeas review because the state courts provided a full and fair opportunity to litigate the claim, as required by Stone v. Powell.
• Prentice Robinson, Jr. v. Richardson
  556 F.2d 332· 5th Cir.· 1977-07-25 ·cited 12×
  The court held that a state prisoner challenging his conviction based on discriminatory jury selection must first exhaust state remedies via a habeas corpus action, as this claim goes to the validity of the conviction itself.
• Pruitt v. Hutto
  542 F.2d 458· 8th Cir.· 1976-09-21 ·cited 12×
  The court held that a federal court should defer to state courts to determine if an issue can be litigated in a state post-conviction proceeding, especially when the state rule's application is unclear.
• Noll v. The People OF the State OF Neb.
  537 F.2d 967· 8th Cir.· 1976-06-17 ·cited 12×
  Federal habeas corpus jurisdiction does not lie in the district court where the petitioner is not in the custody of the respondent, even if a prior conviction from that district was used to enhance a sentence in another state.
• Durkin v. Davis
  538 F.2d 1037· 4th Cir.· 1976-03-23 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the petitioner had not exhausted state remedies by failing to properly present his federal claim to the state courts, and therefore the federal court should have dismissed the petition.
• United States ex rel. Agnes Scranton v. The State OF NEW York
  532 F.2d 292· 2d Cir.· 1976-03-15 ·cited 12×
  A federal court should not grant habeas corpus relief to a state prisoner who has not exhausted all available state remedies, even if the prisoner claims a speedy trial violation.
• Ellis Coney, Jr. v. Wyrick
  532 F.2d 94· 8th Cir.· 1976-03-08 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the guilty pleas to robbery and rape were involuntary due to a misunderstanding of the sentencing terms, but the confessions were voluntary under the totality of the circumstances.
• White v. Wyrick
  530 F.2d 818· 8th Cir.· 1976-03-02 ·cited 12×
• United States ex rel. James Morris Fletcher v. Walters
  526 F.2d 359· 3d Cir.· 1975-11-12 ·cited 12×
  A federal court may consider the validity of prior uncounselled convictions for habeas corpus relief from a subsequent sentence, even if those prior convictions have not been challenged in state court.
• Bailey v. Ault
  490 F.2d 71· 5th Cir.· 1974-02-20 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the claim regarding denial of the right to a direct appeal for failure to exhaust state remedies, as this issue had been previously litigated and decided adversely in state courts.
• United States ex rel. Arnold Cleveland v. Casscles
  479 F.2d 15· 2d Cir.· 1973-05-25 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the federal district court should not have ruled on the constitutional issue until the state sentencing court had an opportunity to address the new factual allegation of the petitioner not being the stabber.