Exhaustion Of State Remedies

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

• Conrado Vela v. W.J. Estelle, Jr.
  708 F.2d 954· 5th Cir.· 1983-07-05 ·cited 50×
  The court held that the petitioner's counsel at the sentencing proceeding was constitutionally deficient, and that counsel's errors resulted in actual and substantial disadvantage to the client's defense.
• Elijah "Tootie Pie" Cosby, Jr. v. Jones
  682 F.2d 1373· 11th Cir.· 1982-08-16 ·cited 50×
  The court held that the inference of guilt from recent possession of stolen goods, without corroborating evidence, is insufficient to support a burglary conviction under the Jackson v. Virginia standard.
• Beavers v. Balkcom
  636 F.2d 114· 5th Cir.· 1981-02-05 ·cited 50×
  The court held that the federal district court should have dismissed the habeas corpus petition without prejudice because the specific issue of counsel's failure to obtain a psychiatric examination and present medical evidence was not fully developed in state court.
• Johnson v. Metz
  609 F.2d 1052· 2d Cir.· 1979-12-04 ·cited 50×
  The court held that a trial judge's conduct, including excessive intervention and comments, can deny a defendant's due process rights to a fair trial.
• Moore v. DeYOUNG
  515 F.2d 437· 3d Cir.· 1975-04-08 ·cited 50×
  The federal court erred in granting a writ of habeas corpus and enjoining ongoing state criminal proceedings. The petitioner failed to exhaust his state court remedies on the merits of his speedy trial claim and did not demonstrate "extraordinary circumstances" that would justify
• United States ex rel. Edward Bennett No. H-6720 v. Alfred T. Rundle, Warden of E. Corr. Inst., Graterford, Pa
  419 F.2d 599· 3d Cir.· 1969-12-05 ·cited 50×
  The court held that the Pennsylvania practice of a preliminary hearing to determine confession voluntariness, followed by jury determination in public, satisfies the Sixth Amendment's public trial requirement.
• Wheeler v. Beto
  407 F.2d 816· 5th Cir.· 1969-03-04 ·cited 50×
  The court held that a federal court should not entertain a habeas corpus petition if the petitioner has not exhausted state remedies for all claims presented, even if some claims have been exhausted.
• Schiers v. The People OF the State OF Cal.
  333 F.2d 173· 9th Cir.· 1964-06-04 ·cited 50×
  The court held that the petitioner had not exhausted available state remedies for most of his claims, requiring dismissal of the federal habeas corpus petition without prejudice.
• Holly v. Smyth
  280 F.2d 536· 4th Cir.· 1960-06-03 ·cited 50×
  The court held that a juvenile defendant facing serious charges without counsel, who was not advised of his rights and received a harsher sentence than co-defendants, presented sufficient 'special circumstances' to warrant a hearing on his habeas corpus petition alleging a violat
• Gray v. Greer
  778 F.2d 350· 7th Cir.· 1985-11-27 ·cited 49×
  The court held that the magistrate erred in dismissing the ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claim without reviewing the trial record, and that the standard for showing cause for a procedural default to raise jury selection claims is lower than constitutional ineffectiv
• Smittie v. A.L. Lockhart
  843 F.2d 295· 8th Cir.· 1988-03-31 ·cited 48×
  A federal court must dismiss a habeas petition if the petitioner fails to demonstrate cause and prejudice for not exhausting state remedies, even if state remedies are futile.
• Smith v. Robbins
  454 F.2d 696· 1st Cir.· 1972-01-18 ·cited 48×
  The court held that prison officials may not open mail addressed to a prisoner from an attorney in the prisoner's absence, even to check for contraband, without a strong justification. The court also vacated the dismissal of the prisoner's claim regarding good time forfeiture, re
• Fitzsimmons v. Yeager
  391 F.2d 849· 3d Cir.· 1968-02-19 ·cited 48×
  The court would affirm the dismissal of the habeas corpus petition for failure to exhaust state remedies, finding that excusable neglect might apply to the petitioner's late filing under state rules.
• United States ex rel. James J. Savini v. Jackson
  250 F.2d 349· 2d Cir.· 1957-11-29 ·cited 48×
  The court held that a state prisoner's sentence, enhanced based on a prior conviction obtained without advising him of his right to counsel, is unconstitutional and subject to habeas corpus relief.
• United States v. McCORKLE
  248 F.2d 1· 3d Cir.· 1957-08-06 ·cited 48×
  The court held that a juror's prior experience with armed robbery, coupled with the prosecutor's appeal to the jury's fear of robbery, rendered the juror biased, violating due process and making the death sentence intolerable.
• O.P. Hollis v. J.O. Davis & the Attorney Gen. of the State of Ala.
  941 F.2d 1471· 11th Cir.· 1991-09-18 ·cited 47×
  The Eleventh Circuit reversed the district court's denial of O.P. Hollis' petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The court found that the systematic exclusion of blacks from the Bullock County jury list in 1959 rendered both the grand and petit juries unconstitutionally composed.
• Dorman v. Louie L. Wainwright
  798 F.2d 1358· 11th Cir.· 1986-09-09 ·cited 47×
  The court held that the state denied petitioner his constitutional right to self-representation and that the district court properly granted habeas corpus relief.
• Tarter v. Hury
  646 F.2d 1010· 5th Cir.· 1981-06-01 ·cited 47×
  The court affirmed the dismissal of most claims, finding some barred by immunity and exhaustion requirements, and others failing to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
• Lindner v. Wyrick
  644 F.2d 724· 8th Cir.· 1981-03-24 ·cited 47×
  The court held that the district court properly dismissed unexhausted claims and did not err in denying an evidentiary hearing on the exhausted claims, as the factual dispute could be resolved by the record.
• Rowe v. Peyton
  383 F.2d 709· 4th Cir.· 1967-08-28 ·cited 47×
  The writ of habeas corpus is available to state prisoners seeking to attack future sentences, even if those sentences have no present effect on parole eligibility, because the prisoners are substantively in custody for all consecutive sentences.
• Thomas v. Cunningham
  313 F.2d 934· 4th Cir.· 1963-01-08 ·cited 47×
  A state court's refusal to suspend a trial for a preliminary inquiry into the defendant's sanity, despite uncontroverted expert testimony suggesting psychosis, constitutes a denial of due process.
• United States v. Jones
  907 F.2d 456· 4th Cir.· 1990-07-03 ·cited 46×
  The Sentencing Guidelines do not confer power on federal courts to entertain challenges to the constitutionality of prior state convictions used for sentence enhancement.
• Nutall v. Greer
  764 F.2d 462· 7th Cir.· 1985-06-11 ·cited 46×
  A convicted state prisoner who fails to seek leave to appeal to the highest state court waives constitutional objections unless they show cause for the default and prejudice from the alleged infirmities.
• Hopkins v. Jarvis
  648 F.2d 981· 5th Cir.· 1981-06-23 ·cited 46×
  The court held that the appellant received adequate notice that he was subject to criminal contempt proceedings, thus affirming the denial of his habeas corpus petition.
• Sweet v. Hoyt C. Cupp
  640 F.2d 233· 9th Cir.· 1981-02-19 ·cited 46×
  The court has jurisdiction and the appeal should be affirmed on the merits.
• Wilks v. Israel
  627 F.2d 32· 7th Cir.· 1980-07-22 ·cited 46×
  The court held that the petitioner knowingly and intelligently waived his right to counsel and that the trial judge's refusal to recuse himself did not deprive the petitioner of a fair trial. The court also held that the petitioner failed to exhaust his state remedies on the issu
• Grooms v. Louie L. Wainwright
  610 F.2d 344· 5th Cir.· 1980-01-25 ·cited 46×
  The court held that the state did not violate appellant's right against double jeopardy by retrying him after a mistrial, nor was he denied due process due to a juror's alleged remark, as the trial judge acted within his discretion.
• Wilwording v. Swenson
  502 F.2d 844· 8th Cir.· 1974-09-10 ·cited 46×
  The court held that the petitioner's claim of punishment without any evidence is cognizable in habeas corpus and not barred by res judicata, collateral estoppel, controlling weight, or waiver, and is not foreclosed by the nonretroactivity of Wolff v. McDonnell.
• United States ex rel. Joseph Marcial v. FAY
  247 F.2d 662· 2d Cir.· 1957-08-16 ·cited 46×
  Federal courts should not intervene in state criminal proceedings unless there's a clear showing of fundamental unfairness or injustice, even if the defendant lacked counsel.
• Puleio v. Vose
  830 F.2d 1197· 1st Cir.· 1987-10-09 ·cited 45×
  The court held that the appellant's claims were procedurally barred or lacked constitutional merit, affirming the district court's dismissal of the habeas corpus petition.
• Huggins v. Isenbarger
  798 F.2d 203· 7th Cir.· 1986-08-08 ·cited 44×
  The court must give significant weight to the executive branch's interpretation of state law when state courts have not yet ruled on the matter, especially when that interpretation does not conflict with federal law or constitutional rights.
• Reyes Barrera, Jr. v. Young
  794 F.2d 1264· 7th Cir.· 1986-07-09 ·cited 44×
  The court held that Barrera's confession was voluntary and did not violate his Sixth Amendment right to counsel, as he knowingly and intelligently waived his rights despite the interrogation tactics used.
• Martin v. Kemp
  760 F.2d 1244· 11th Cir.· 1985-05-21 ·cited 44×
  The court held that a guilty plea induced by threats against a third party is not an absolute bar to challenging the plea's voluntariness, and a remand for an evidentiary hearing is necessary if the state did not have probable cause for the threats.
• Darden v. Louie L. Wainwright
  725 F.2d 1526· 11th Cir.· 1984-02-22 ·cited 44×
  The court held that the disqualification of a prospective juror based on opposition to the death penalty was improper without a clear showing that the juror would automatically vote against imposition of capital punishment regardless of the evidence.
• Thomas v. Wyrick
  622 F.2d 411· 8th Cir.· 1980-06-13 ·cited 44×
  The court held that a federal court should not dismiss a habeas corpus petition for failure to exhaust state remedies if there is a presently available state procedure for determining the federal claim, even if the claim was not properly presented in prior state proceedings.
• Gonzales v. Stone
  546 F.2d 807· 9th Cir.· 1976-10-19 ·cited 44×
  A federal court must decline to decide any issues in a habeas corpus petition until all claims raised have been exhausted in state court, absent specific mitigating circumstances.
• United States ex rel. Keith Webb v. Court OF Common Pleas OF Philadelphia Cnty.
  516 F.2d 1034· 3d Cir.· 1975-05-13 ·cited 44×
  The court held that the double jeopardy clause bars retrial when a mistrial is declared without manifest necessity, particularly when the judge initiates the mistrial without consulting counsel and without a clear indication of jury deadlock.
• United States ex rel. Martin Sostre v. Festa
  513 F.2d 1313· 2d Cir.· 1975-03-31 ·cited 44×
  The court affirmed the district court's denial of habeas corpus relief, finding no clear error in the trial judge's credibility determination.
• Cruz v. Skelton
  502 F.2d 1101· 5th Cir.· 1974-10-14 ·cited 44×
  Members of the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles are immune from suits for damages under the Civil Rights Act for their parole decisions.
• Linver Jenkins v. Fitzberger
  440 F.2d 1188· 4th Cir.· 1971-04-16 ·cited 44×
  The court held that the state may waive the exhaustion requirement for federal habeas corpus petitions, allowing federal courts to consider claims on the merits.
• United States ex rel. Stanley Meadows v. State OF NEW York & Warden of the United States Penitentiary
  426 F.2d 1176· 2d Cir.· 1970-05-05 ·cited 44×
  The dissenting judge held that the district court lacked jurisdiction to transfer the habeas corpus petition to New York because the prisoner was incarcerated in Georgia, and the petition could only be brought in the district of incarceration.
• Cooper v. Hutchinson
  184 F.2d 119· 3d Cir.· 1950-07-21 ·cited 44×
  The dissenting judge believes the District Court's denial of an injunction should be affirmed, as federal courts should not intervene when state remedies are available and no irreparable harm is shown.
• United States ex rel. Dominick Caruso v. Zelinsky
  689 F.2d 435· 3d Cir.· 1982-09-22 ·cited 43×
  The court held that a state prisoner's procedural default in failing to raise claims within state time limits requires a showing of cause and prejudice for federal habeas corpus relief, and remanded for factual findings on whether Caruso demonstrated cause and prejudice.
• Klein v. Harris
  667 F.2d 274· 2d Cir.· 1981-12-15 ·cited 43×
  A state court's constitutional error at trial can warrant federal habeas relief, even considering principles of comity and finality.
• United States ex rel. Thomas E. Kemp v. Pate
  359 F.2d 749· 7th Cir.· 1966-04-07 ·cited 43×
  The court held that the petitioner had exhausted his state remedies, and his confession was involuntary due to coercive circumstances, thus violating due process.
• Johnson v. Matthews
  182 F.2d 677· D.C. Cir.· 1950-05-01 ·cited 43×
  The court held that it is barred from inquiring into charges of cruel and unusual punishment or denial of trial in an extradition case.
• Williams v. Lane
  826 F.2d 654· 7th Cir.· 1987-08-13 ·cited 42×
  The court held that the Illinois Appellate Court's determination of procedural default was not based on an independent and adequate state procedural ground, thus allowing federal habeas review.
• Corn v. City OF Lauderdale Lakes
  816 F.2d 1514· 11th Cir.· 1987-05-14 ·cited 42×
  The court held that the plaintiff's Section 1983 action for damages was ripe because Florida law does not provide an adequate state remedy for injuries caused by confiscatory zoning ordinances.
• Georgevich v. Judge Samuel Strauss
  772 F.2d 1078· 3d Cir.· 1985-09-05 ·cited 42×
  The court held that Pullman abstention is required because the case presents an unsettled question of state law regarding parole procedures that could obviate the need to decide a federal constitutional issue. The court also found that state judges are proper parties and that the
• Winfield C. Patterson v. Cuyler
  729 F.2d 925· 3d Cir.· 1984-03-13 ·cited 42×
  The court held that the state court's findings regarding custody and the voluntariness of the waiver of Miranda rights were entitled to a presumption of correctness under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) and were supported by the record.