Exhaustion Of State Remedies

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

• Tully v. Scheu
  637 F.2d 917· 3d Cir.· 1980-12-30 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the state afforded the defendant a meaningful sentence reduction hearing as required by prior mandate, and thus the district court erred in granting habeas corpus relief.
• Wright v. Bombard
  638 F.2d 457· 2d Cir.· 1980-10-30 ·cited 2×
  Federal habeas corpus review is foreclosed because the petitioner failed to properly raise his constitutional claim in state court, and thus did not meet the cause and prejudice standard required by Wainwright v. Sykes.
• Meggs v. Fair
  621 F.2d 460· 1st Cir.· 1980-05-12 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the petitioner failed to exhaust state remedies for some claims and that the remaining claims did not rise to the level of constitutional error warranting habeas corpus relief.
• In re the Application of William Sheffield for a Writ of Habeas Corpus v. Cardwell
  621 F.2d 319· 9th Cir.· 1980-03-20 ·cited 2×
  The court held that while the district court had jurisdiction on February 10, the petition was moot because the relief sought had already been granted by another judge.
• Cole v. Wyrick
  615 F.2d 1206· 8th Cir.· 1980-02-26 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the petitioner's consecutive sentences were imposed based on a statute later found unconstitutional, and thus the matter should be remanded for resentencing.
• Jones v. Louie L. Wainwright
  608 F.2d 180· 5th Cir.· 1979-12-12 ·cited 2×
  A petition for habeas corpus should not be dismissed for failure to exhaust state remedies when the petitioner is not asserting unexhausted claims, even if the state contends such claims might be asserted in the future.
• Rice v. Parratt
  605 F.2d 1091· 8th Cir.· 1979-10-03 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a second federal habeas corpus petition raising issues not previously presented to state courts must first exhaust those state remedies, even if the appellant claims they are ineffective.
• Tully v. Scheu
  607 F.2d 31· 3d Cir.· 1979-09-26 ·cited 2×
  The court held that denying a defendant a hearing on a timely motion for sentence reduction due to court rule time limits, after the hearing was adjourned to obtain substitute counsel, violates the constitutional right to counsel at a critical stage of the proceeding.
• Averil Medaries v. Louie L. Wainwright
  584 F.2d 756· 5th Cir.· 1978-11-27 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a federal habeas petition may not be considered until the petitioner has exhausted state remedies for all claims presented.
• Devore v. Blackburn
  584 F.2d 52· 5th Cir.· 1978-11-02 ·cited 2×
• Miller v. Harvey
  566 F.2d 879· 4th Cir.· 1977-11-29 ·cited 2×
  The dissenting judge believes the jury's experiment constituted a denial of due process and would remand for an evidentiary hearing.
• Dorsey v. Maschmann
  571 F.2d 1002· 8th Cir.· 1977-09-20 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court correctly applied legal principles in denying habeas corpus relief for failure to exhaust state remedies.
• Williams v. Perini
  557 F.2d 1221· 6th Cir.· 1977-07-07 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the petitioner had not exhausted available state remedies, specifically an action for mandamus or further appeal of his habeas corpus petition, before filing for federal habeas relief.
• Graham v. Hutto
  557 F.2d 164· 8th Cir.· 1977-06-23 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the petitioner had sufficiently exhausted state remedies regarding his due process claim.
• Kelsey v. State OF Minn. ex rel. Frank Wood
  554 F.2d 895· 8th Cir.· 1977-05-11 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the prisoner had not exhausted his state remedies and therefore the federal district court properly dismissed his petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
• United States ex rel. Clifford Morgan & Donald L. Allen v. Allyn R. Sielaff
  546 F.2d 218· 7th Cir.· 1976-11-22 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a representative habeas corpus action was properly maintained even if the legal issue had not been definitively adjudicated, and that the Stachulak decision requiring proof beyond a reasonable doubt for commitment under the Sexually Dangerous Persons Act shoul
• Pehler v. Schoen
  537 F.2d 970· 8th Cir.· 1976-07-09 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the prisoner's claim for injunctive relief from adverse conditions of confinement due to a detainer was moot after his transfer to Louisiana, and his request for release or parole revocation prevention was a habeas corpus claim requiring exhaustion of state re
• Bell v. Louie L. Wainwright
  531 F.2d 1339· 5th Cir.· 1976-05-24 ·cited 2×
  The District Court should have dismissed Bell's habeas petition without prejudice on principles of comity and federalism, allowing the state courts to first review the competency determination.
• Tatzel v. Hon. Morton J. Hanlon
  530 F.2d 1205· 5th Cir.· 1976-04-30 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court erred in granting a stay of state proceedings and dismissing the habeas corpus petition because the petitioner failed to exhaust state remedies or demonstrate futility.
• Collins v. Green
  505 F.2d 22· 5th Cir.· 1974-12-09 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the petitioner failed to present convincing evidence to rebut the presumption of correctness of the state court's factual determination that his guilty plea was voluntarily and knowingly entered with competent counsel.
• Thomas v. Shaw
  497 F.2d 123· 5th Cir.· 1974-07-18 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the complaint as a habeas corpus petition without allowing for further fact development.
• Brown v. Louie L. Wainwright
  495 F.2d 559· 5th Cir.· 1974-06-07 ·cited 2×
  The court affirmed the denial of relief on the Florida speedy trial rule claim but vacated and remanded the federal speedy trial claim for failure to exhaust state remedies.
• van Geldern v. Field
  498 F.2d 400· 9th Cir.· 1974-05-29 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the habeas corpus petition based on the concurrent sentence doctrine, as the petitioner failed to demonstrate significant prejudice from the challenged conviction.
• United States ex rel. Charles Townsend v. Twomey
  493 F.2d 1325· 7th Cir.· 1974-03-18 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the appeal should be dismissed and the petition consolidated with a prior case, as the primary issue is whether the state timely determined to resentence the petitioner, which should be resolved in state post-sentencing procedures.
• United States ex rel. Leo Di Giangiemo v. Vincent
  489 F.2d 1370· 2d Cir.· 1974-01-09 ·cited 2×
  The court held that federal courts should not decide constitutional questions involving state law until state courts have had an opportunity to interpret their own statutes.
• Redd v. State OF La. ex rel. C. Murray Henderson
  489 F.2d 766· 5th Cir.· 1973-12-20 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court erred in granting habeas corpus relief on a claim not exhausted in state courts.
• Jim v. Fisher
  484 F.2d 1099· 10th Cir.· 1973-09-10 ·cited 2×
  A litigant who freely and without reservation submits federal claims for decision in state court after federal abstention has elected to forego their right to return to federal court.
• Eaton v. Capps
  480 F.2d 1021· 5th Cir.· 1973-07-05 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the federal district court correctly remanded the case to the state court for re-sentencing, rather than ordering immediate discharge or re-sentencing itself.
• Haynes v. Henderson
  480 F.2d 550· 5th Cir.· 1973-06-04 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying habeas corpus relief because the prisoner's guilty plea was valid and his federal rights were not violated.
• Ross v. Craven
  478 F.2d 240· 9th Cir.· 1973-05-04 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the federal district court erred in dismissing the habeas petition for failure to exhaust state remedies, as the California Supreme Court had denied the petition on the merits.
• Prince v. State OF Ala.
  476 F.2d 298· 5th Cir.· 1973-03-26 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a federal habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is premature if the petitioner's conviction is still on direct appeal in the state court system.
• Ferguson v. Dutton
  477 F.2d 121· 5th Cir.· 1973-03-21 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the state courts should have the first opportunity to pass on the validity of a habeas petitioner's challenge to jury array based on systematic exclusion of Black jurors, even if the petitioner is white.
• United States ex rel. James Smiley v. LaVALLEE
  473 F.2d 682· 2d Cir.· 1973-02-13 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the identification procedures, while imperfect, were not so impermissibly suggestive as to invalidate the victim's identification of the defendant.
• Mozingo v. Craven
  475 F.2d 1254· 9th Cir.· 1973-02-12 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a prior parole revocation, even if followed by subsequent revocations, could have collateral consequences and thus was not moot, requiring a due process hearing.
• Graves v. State OF La.
  472 F.2d 1191· 5th Cir.· 1973-02-07 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court improperly dismissed the habeas petition for failure to exhaust state remedies when the issue had been presented to the state's highest court on direct appeal.
• Kelly v. Wingo
  472 F.2d 717· 6th Cir.· 1973-01-25 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the petitioner had exhausted his state remedies and that he was not denied effective assistance of counsel because he insisted on going to trial despite his attorney's recommendation for a continuance.
• Kirby v. Beto
  472 F.2d 167· 5th Cir.· 1973-01-16 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the federal habeas corpus petition should have been dismissed for failure to exhaust state remedies, not on the merits.
• Jacobs v. The State OF Tex.
  470 F.2d 1366· 5th Cir.· 1973-01-10 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a federal district court correctly dismissed a habeas corpus petition for failure to exhaust state remedies when a direct appeal on the underlying conviction was still pending.
• Ford v. Wingo
  472 F.2d 148· 6th Cir.· 1973-01-03 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying a habeas corpus petition without an evidentiary hearing based on conclusory allegations.
• Pine v. Estelle
  470 F.2d 721· 9th Cir.· 1972-11-27 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the appellant's claims regarding the voluntariness of his guilty plea and waiver of counsel were without merit, and that the lower court's denial of habeas corpus was correct.
• HAY v. Beto
  467 F.2d 1388· 5th Cir.· 1972-10-10 ·cited 2×
  A federal habeas corpus petitioner need not exhaust state remedies if the state's highest court has already ruled on the claims.
• Fryer v. Ellis C. MacDOUGALL
  462 F.2d 1093· 5th Cir.· 1972-07-12 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court's denial of habeas corpus relief must be vacated and remanded due to the confused state of the record.
• United States ex rel. Harry E. Carey v. Johnson
  462 F.2d 592· 3d Cir.· 1972-06-20 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the admission of evidence of a similar prior assault and the jury instructions regarding the defendant's silence did not constitute constitutional error.
• Brookins v. State
  461 F.2d 663· 5th Cir.· 1972-06-19 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the petitioner failed to exhaust state remedies by not presenting his claim to the state appellate courts.
• COX v. Cardwell
  464 F.2d 639· 6th Cir.· 1972-06-15 ·cited 2×
• Williams v. Craven
  460 F.2d 1253· 9th Cir.· 1972-05-30 ·cited 2×
  The denial of habeas corpus relief is affirmed because the petitioner failed to exhaust state remedies for his claims.
• Pryor v. Beto
  460 F.2d 306· 5th Cir.· 1972-05-01 ·cited 2×
  A federal habeas petition is not barred as successive if the prior petition was denied for failure to exhaust state remedies, and the petitioner has since exhausted those remedies.
• LEE v. Louie L. Wainwright
  457 F.2d 771· 5th Cir.· 1972-03-28 ·cited 2×
  The court held that while the petitioner's claim of inadequate counsel was properly rejected, the denial of a hearing on his competence to stand trial was not adequately addressed by the lower court.
• Baskerville v. Nelson
  455 F.2d 430· 9th Cir.· 1972-02-23 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the petitioner had not exhausted his state remedies, as a denial by the California Supreme Court without opinion may be based on procedural grounds.
• Blaylock v. Fitzharris
  455 F.2d 462· 9th Cir.· 1972-02-17 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the petitioner's statements did not demonstrate a knowing and understanding bypass of state court remedies, and thus an evidentiary hearing on the deliberate bypass issue was required.