Exhaustion Of State Remedies

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

• Chandler v. Crosby
  454 F. Supp. 2d 1137· M.D. Fla.· 2006-02-08 ·cited 4×
  The court denied Petitioner Oba Chandler’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, finding his claims regarding ineffective assistance of counsel did not meet the AEDPA standards for relief.
• New Port Largo, Inc. v. Monroe Cnty.
  873 F. Supp. 633· S.D. Fla.· 1994-12-21 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the plaintiff's Fifth Amendment takings claim was not ripe because it failed to exhaust state remedies for inverse condemnation. However, the due process claims were ripe.
• 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.
• Ritter v. Ross
  992 F.2d 750· 7th Cir.· 1993-05-07 ·cited 4×
  The court held that federal district courts lack subject matter jurisdiction to review state court judgments, even when framed as civil rights claims, under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.
• Hill v. A.L. Lockhart
  992 F.2d 801· 8th Cir.· 1993-05-05 ·cited 4×
  The court held that an attorney appointed under 21 U.S.C. § 848(q) is not entitled to compensation for state clemency proceedings if the request is not part of a non-frivolous federal habeas corpus proceeding or if state law provides compensation for such services.
• Higgason v. Clark
  984 F.2d 203· 7th Cir.· 1993-01-14 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a petitioner challenging a conviction used for sentence enhancement must demonstrate actual innocence or cause and prejudice for procedural defaults, and that a guilty plea is valid if voluntary and intelligent, not solely dependent on strong evidence of guilt
• 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.
• Schwendeman v. Wallenstein
  971 F.2d 313· 9th Cir.· 1992-07-27 ·cited 4×
  A jury instruction allowing an inference of reckless driving solely from evidence of excessive speed is constitutionally deficient and requires reversal unless the error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
• Landano v. Rafferty
  970 F.2d 1230· 3d Cir.· 1992-07-16 ·cited 4×
• Harmon v. Ryan
  959 F.2d 1457· 9th Cir.· 1992-03-26 ·cited 4×
  A state prisoner's failure to seek direct review in the state's highest court is excused if prior state court rulings created confusion or uncertainty about the necessity of such review, thus not barring federal habeas relief.
• Knox v. The State OF Wyo.
  959 F.2d 866· 10th Cir.· 1992-03-20 ·cited 4×
  The court held that an application for a certificate of probable cause, filed timely, can serve as a notice of appeal, but the appeal is dismissed for failure to exhaust state remedies.
• Kennedy v. Delo
  959 F.2d 112· 8th Cir.· 1992-03-19 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the petitioner procedurally defaulted on most claims and that the remaining claim regarding the jury instruction did not constitute a miscarriage of justice.
• Wealot v. Armontrout
  948 F.2d 497· 8th Cir.· 1991-11-08 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the limitation of cross-examination designed to show a witness's motive for fabrication violated the defendant's Sixth Amendment right of confrontation, and this violation was not harmless error.
• Moore v. Deputy Commissioner(S) OF Scihuntingdon
  946 F.2d 236· 3d Cir.· 1991-10-08 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court erred in granting a writ of habeas corpus, finding that the evidence was constitutionally sufficient to support the conviction and that trial counsel was not ineffective.
• Stamper v. Muncie
  944 F.2d 170· 4th Cir.· 1991-08-19 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the circumstantial evidence was sufficient to support a rational trier of fact's finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and that trial counsel's actions regarding jury selection and responses to juror questions did not constitute ineffective assistance of
• Richards v. Bellmon
  941 F.2d 1015· 10th Cir.· 1991-07-19 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the complaint and that the case should be remanded for further proceedings consistent with supervening authority.
• Greyson v. Kellam
  937 F.2d 1409· 9th Cir.· 1991-07-01 ·cited 4×
  The court held that even if the rule barring retrial for prosecutorial misconduct intended to provoke a mistrial could apply when the mistrial motion was denied, this case did not require such an extension because the state court found no evidence of prosecutorial intent to provo
• Mathis v. Hood
  937 F.2d 790· 2d Cir.· 1991-06-28 ·cited 4×
  The court affirmed the district court's grant of habeas relief, finding that the petitioner's appellate counsel had an actual conflict of interest that constituted a per se violation of the Sixth Amendment, making a showing of prejudice unnecessary.
• Gonzalez v. Sullivan
  934 F.2d 419· 2d Cir.· 1991-05-28 ·cited 4×
  A state court must be given fair warning of the federal nature of a petitioner's claim before it can be considered exhausted, and procedural defaults in state court bar federal habeas review unless cause and prejudice are shown.
• Emil Carsetti v. State OF Me.
  932 F.2d 1007· 1st Cir.· 1991-05-14 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the petitioner's due process claim was not procedurally barred from federal habeas review because the state court's denial of appeal did not clearly and expressly state it rested on a procedural default, and the merits of both the ineffective assistance and du
• Renaldo Grey v. Hoke
  933 F.2d 117· 2d Cir.· 1991-05-09 ·cited 4×
  The court held that petitioner's prosecutorial misconduct and sentencing claims were procedurally barred due to failure to properly present them to the highest state court, and the Fourth Amendment claim was barred by Stone v. Powell. Therefore, the petition was affirmed.
• Asherman v. Meachum
  932 F.2d 137· 2d Cir.· 1991-05-01 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the Commissioner violated Asherman's Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination by revoking his supervised home release status solely because he invoked the privilege and refused to participate in a psychiatric evaluation concerning his conviction.
• Hampton v. Miller
  927 F.2d 429· 8th Cir.· 1991-03-08 ·cited 4×
  The Eighth Circuit held that the State waived the exhaustion requirement for federal habeas corpus review by its pleadings, and therefore, the case should be remanded for further proceedings.
• Traver Stewart v. Scully
  925 F.2d 58· 2d Cir.· 1991-02-01 ·cited 4×
  Increasing a state prisoner's maximum sentence after he has served a substantial portion of his original sentence violates the Double Jeopardy Clause by disturbing his legitimate expectation of finality.
• Goodwin v. State OF Okla.
  923 F.2d 156· 10th Cir.· 1991-01-16 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a petitioner is excused from exhausting state remedies if the state's highest court has already addressed and resolved the precise legal issue adversely to the petitioner.
• Blair-Bey v. Crispus C. NIX
  919 F.2d 1338· 8th Cir.· 1990-11-28 ·cited 4×
  A stay order under Offet v. Solem is appealable as a collateral order, and state remedies must be exhausted even if the loss of good time credits will not shorten a life sentence without commutation.
• Harris v. Duckworth
  909 F.2d 1057· 7th Cir.· 1990-08-09 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the habeas petition for failure to exhaust state remedies, as Indiana law now clearly indicates no judicial review of prison disciplinary decisions.
• Harrison v. Dahm
  911 F.2d 37· 8th Cir.· 1990-07-26 ·cited 4×
  The court held that prison officials were entitled to qualified immunity because the law was not clearly established that their actions violated an inmate's due process rights, and affirmed the dismissal of the inmate's section 1983 action.
• Server v. Mizell
  902 F.2d 611· 7th Cir.· 1990-05-21 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the Illinois aggravated criminal sexual assault and abuse statutes, as construed by state courts, are not unconstitutionally vague and that the petitioner's other claims lack merit.
• Hawkins v. Higgins
  898 F.2d 1365· 8th Cir.· 1990-03-26 ·cited 4×
  The court held that state remedies were futile and therefore exhausted, allowing federal habeas corpus review.
• Carroll E. Harrison v. Warden, Maryland Penitentiary
  890 F.2d 676· 4th Cir.· 1989-11-24 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the appellant understood the nature of the charges against him when he pled guilty, and that his guilty plea was voluntary. The court also declined to address the issue of the trial judge's passion as it was not raised below.
• Cavanaugh v. Kincheloe
  877 F.2d 1443· 9th Cir.· 1989-07-03 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court erred in failing to address the ineffectiveness of counsel claim and must determine if it is procedurally barred, and if not, its merits.
• Duttry v. Scip Superintendent Petsock & The Attorney Gen. of the Commonwealth of Pa.
  878 F.2d 123· 3d Cir.· 1989-06-29 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a district court should obtain the state court record before dismissing a habeas petition for failure to exhaust state remedies, especially when the petitioner demonstrates a good faith effort to acquire the records but is unable to do so.
• Traverso v. Carleton Penn
  874 F.2d 209· 4th Cir.· 1989-05-10 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court's res judicata determination was erroneous because the state conviction was overturned, and that the § 1983 action should be stayed pending the outcome of a new state prosecution under abstention principles.
• McGUIRE v. Estelle
  873 F.2d 1323· 9th Cir.· 1989-05-08 ·cited 4×
  The admission of evidence of prior injuries to a child, coupled with a jury instruction allowing the jury to infer guilt of the charged crime if the defendant committed the prior acts, violated due process.
• DeLUNA v. Lynaugh
  873 F.2d 757· 5th Cir.· 1989-04-26 ·cited 4×
  The court held that trial counsel's decision not to present certain mitigation evidence was a reasonable trial strategy and did not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel. The court also held that an oral hearing was not required and that there is no constitutional right to
• Morgan v. Norwood Jackson
  869 F.2d 682· 2d Cir.· 1989-03-08 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a federal habeas petitioner must exhaust state remedies by fairly presenting their federal claim to the state courts, including the factual and legal premises, before seeking federal review.
• Neely v. Zimmerman
  858 F.2d 144· 3d Cir.· 1988-10-03 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the state procedural rule requiring issues to be raised in written post-verdict motions is an independent and adequate state ground that precludes federal habeas review, absent a showing of cause and prejudice.
• Ames v. Endell
  856 F.2d 1441· 9th Cir.· 1988-09-15 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the petitioner failed to demonstrate ineffective assistance of counsel, as the attorneys' actions were within the bounds of reasonable professional judgment and tactical decisions were appropriate.
• Catarino Gonzales, Jr. v. Grammer
  848 F.2d 894· 8th Cir.· 1988-06-07 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the prior guilty pleas were not entered in accord with due process, as the defendant was not sufficiently informed of his constitutional rights to make an intelligent choice.
• Roberts v. Arvon J. Arave
  847 F.2d 528· 9th Cir.· 1988-05-23 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the petitioner failed to exhaust state remedies by not petitioning the Idaho Supreme Court for discretionary review and failed to show cause and prejudice to overcome the procedural default.
• Mattox v. Dugger
  839 F.2d 1523· 11th Cir.· 1988-03-18 ·cited 4×
  The court held that while the petitioner did not procedurally default on his claims, the evidence was constitutionally sufficient and cross-examination was not improperly limited, thus affirming the denial of the writ.
• Aiken v. Spalding
  841 F.2d 881· 9th Cir.· 1988-01-21 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the habeas petition must be dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust state remedies, as new evidence was presented that had not been considered by state courts.
• Jones v. Smith
  835 F.2d 175· 8th Cir.· 1987-12-09 ·cited 4×
  A prisoner's claim for restoration of good-time credits is a habeas corpus claim requiring exhaustion of state remedies, but a claim for monetary damages under section 1983 should be stayed, not dismissed, pending exhaustion.
• Stamps v. Rees
  834 F.2d 1269· 6th Cir.· 1987-12-07 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the petitioner's claims of insufficient evidence for his persistent felony offender conviction, the trial court's failure to conduct an on-the-record inquiry into the voluntariness of a de facto guilty plea, and ineffective assistance of counsel were without m
• Scales v. Miss. State Parole Bd.
  831 F.2d 565· 5th Cir.· 1987-11-10 ·cited 4×
  The Mississippi parole statute does not create a constitutionally protected liberty interest because it grants the Parole Board absolute discretion, and therefore, the petitioner's due process claims fail.
• Cobb v. E.P. Perini
  832 F.2d 342· 6th Cir.· 1987-11-06 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the admission of pre-Miranda statements was not reversible error, and the appellant was not denied effective assistance of counsel.
• Pinson v. Morris
  830 F.2d 896· 8th Cir.· 1987-10-05 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the panel opinion's reasoning regarding Pinson's knowledge of his appellate rights was incongruous and that the state may have an obligation to explicitly inform indigent defendants of their appellate rights.
• Rosario Joseph Dispensa v. Lynaugh
  826 F.2d 375· 5th Cir.· 1987-09-04 ·cited 4×
  The court held that new evidence presented at a federal habeas hearing, which significantly strengthens the petitioner's claims regarding an impermissibly suggestive identification procedure, requires the state courts to be given an opportunity to consider this evidence first.
• 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