Exhaustion Of State Remedies

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

• Sammie Felder, Jr. v. W.J. Estelle, Jr.
  693 F.2d 549· 5th Cir.· 1982-12-14 ·cited 36×
  A state sovereign, through authorized representatives, can waive the habeas exhaustion requirement, as comity serves the state's sovereign interest.
• Santana v. Fenton
  685 F.2d 71· 3d Cir.· 1982-07-23 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the petitioner failed to demonstrate exhaustion of state remedies for his right-to-testify claim, as New Jersey's post-conviction relief rules might permit consideration of such constitutional claims.
• Stevens v. Heard
  674 F.2d 320· 5th Cir.· 1982-04-23 ·cited 36×
  The court held that a Certificate of Probable Cause, timely received by the clerk but not filed within 30 days, could suffice as a notice of appeal if it clearly evinced intent to appeal, allowing the court to reach the merits. It also held that claims challenging the fact or len
• Vagner v. Louie L. Wainwright
  398 So. 2d 448· Fla.· 1981-05-07 ·cited 36×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that ineffective assistance claims based on inadequacy or incompetence of retained counsel are cognizable grounds for challenging convictions, overruling prior precedent that had barred such claims. The court rejected distinctions between retained a
• Wilson v. Fogg
  571 F.2d 91· 2d Cir.· 1978-01-19 ·cited 36×
  A state prisoner petitioning for a writ of habeas corpus must exhaust state remedies by presenting the same claim to state courts that is urged in federal court.
• United States ex rel. Alvin Nelson v. Zelker
  465 F.2d 1121· 2d Cir.· 1972-08-22 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the appellant had not exhausted state remedies for his claim that the prosecutor's refusal to accept a co-defendant's plea constituted suppression of exculpatory evidence under Brady v. Maryland.
• Rodriguez v. McGINNIS
  456 F.2d 79· 2d Cir.· 1972-01-25 ·cited 36×
  The court affirmed the district court's orders releasing petitioners, holding that their claims for good behavior time credit were properly considered under the habeas corpus statute, which requires exhaustion of state remedies.
• United States ex rel. Edwin Gockley v. Myers
  411 F.2d 216· 3d Cir.· 1969-04-30 ·cited 36×
  The court held that exceptional circumstances, including significant delay and prior federal court involvement, warranted the District Court deciding the voluntariness of the petitioner's confessions, despite the general rule of exhausting state remedies.
• Maes v. Patterson
  401 F.2d 200· 10th Cir.· 1968-10-02 ·cited 36×
  A federal court cannot summarily dismiss a state prisoner's habeas corpus petition without independently reviewing the state court's record and determining if due process was observed.
• Gale H. Johnson v. Bennett
  386 F.2d 677· 8th Cir.· 1967-11-28 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the defendant's conviction was not tainted by the knowing use of perjured testimony, suppression of evidence, or an erroneous alibi instruction, and thus affirmed the denial of habeas corpus relief.
• Smith v. State OF Kan.
  356 F.2d 654· 10th Cir.· 1966-02-07 ·cited 36×
  The court held that inordinate delay in adjudicating a state post-conviction remedy can constitute a denial of due process, entitling a petitioner to federal habeas corpus relief.
• United States ex rel. James Glenn v. Hon. Daniel McMANN
  349 F.2d 1018· 2d Cir.· 1965-08-26 ·cited 36×
  A voluntary guilty plea, entered on advice of counsel, waives all non-jurisdictional defects in prior proceedings.
• Bundy v. Louie L. Wainwright
  808 F.2d 1410· 11th Cir.· 1987-01-15 ·cited 35×
  The district court erred in denying the habeas corpus petition and stay of execution, and its judgment must be reversed and remanded for proper consideration of the constitutional issues.
• Hayes v. Kincheloe
  784 F.2d 1434· 9th Cir.· 1986-03-19 ·cited 35×
  A guilty plea is involuntary if the defendant does not receive actual notice of the true nature of the charge against him or possess an understanding of the law in relation to the facts.
• Leonard v. Louie L. Wainwright
  601 F.2d 807· 5th Cir.· 1979-08-29 ·cited 35×
  The court held that a federal habeas corpus petition was properly dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust state remedies, as indicated by the petitioner's own response on the application form.
• Smith v. Heard
  315 F.2d 692· 5th Cir.· 1963-04-04 ·cited 35×
  The court held that the district court's findings of fact and conclusions of law were not clearly erroneous, and therefore, the denial of the petition for a writ of habeas corpus was affirmed.
• Maiker Vazquez v. Sec'y, Fla. Dep't OF Corr.
  827 F.3d 964· 11th Cir.· 2016-07-01 ·cited 34×
  Maiker Vazquez appealed the denial of his federal habeas corpus petition challenging the admission of hearsay evidence violating his Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause rights. The district court dismissed the petition as procedurally barred for failure to exhaust state remedies
• Stacey v. Warden, Apalachee Corr. Inst.
  854 F.2d 401· 11th Cir.· 1988-09-02 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the petitioner's escape does not automatically waive his right to federal habeas review for claims not reviewable on direct appeal, and that the state court's denial of coram nobis on the merits, not procedural grounds, means the federal court can review the c
• Oliver v. Louie L. Wainwright and Jim Smith
  795 F.2d 1524· 11th Cir.· 1986-08-11 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the petitioner's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and prosecutorial misconduct lacked merit, affirming the denial of his habeas corpus petition.
• McKINNIS v. Lt. James Mosely
  693 F.2d 1054· 11th Cir.· 1982-12-13 ·cited 34×
  The court held that while the prisoner's claim was properly brought under § 1983, it failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted because it did not present an identifiable federal or constitutional issue.
• Domaingue v. Butterworth
  641 F.2d 8· 1st Cir.· 1981-02-12 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the petitioner had not exhausted state remedies for his broad claim of ineffective assistance of counsel at the time he filed his federal habeas corpus petition.
• Johnson v. Presley Hardy
  601 F.2d 172· 5th Cir.· 1979-08-07 ·cited 34×
  A prisoner's challenge to the duration of confinement, even if framed as a request for damages or declaratory relief under § 1983, is properly treated as a habeas corpus matter requiring exhaustion of state remedies.
• Fielding v. LeFEVRE
  548 F.2d 1102· 2d Cir.· 1977-01-19 ·cited 34×
  The court affirmed the denial of the writ of habeas corpus, holding that the petitioner failed to exhaust state remedies for his Sixth Amendment claim and that his Eighth Amendment claims lacked merit.
• McREDMOND v. Wilson
  533 F.2d 757· 2d Cir.· 1976-02-02 ·cited 34×
• United States ex rel. Theodore Geisler v. Walters
  510 F.2d 887· 3d Cir.· 1975-02-05 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the petitioner had exhausted his state remedies, either through prior rulings or due to circumstances rendering the state process ineffective, and thus was entitled to federal habeas corpus relief.
• Wolfs v. Britton
  509 F.2d 304· 8th Cir.· 1975-01-31 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the denial of a continuance, which prevented defense counsel from adequately preparing for trial, amounted to a denial of the Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel.
• HAM v. State OF N.C.
  471 F.2d 406· 4th Cir.· 1973-01-11 ·cited 34×
  A prisoner is entitled to credit for pre-sentence confinement time, especially if indigent, even if state law and prior state court rulings deny it.
• United States ex rel. Harvey A. Marcelin v. Mancusi
  462 F.2d 36· 2d Cir.· 1972-05-22 ·cited 34×
  The dissenting judge would find that the petitioner was denied effective assistance of counsel due to counsel's failure to investigate and present a viable insanity defense.
• United States ex rel. James Springle v. Follette
  435 F.2d 1380· 2d Cir.· 1970-12-22 ·cited 34×
  The court held that despite a suggestive station-house identification procedure, the totality of the circumstances did not create a substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification, thus not violating due process.
• United States ex rel. Louis McCLOUD v. Rundle
  402 F.2d 853· 3d Cir.· 1968-10-28 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the prosecution bears the burden of proving a guilty plea's voluntariness when a coerced confession may have influenced it.
• United States ex rel. David M. Levy v. Hon. Daniel McMANN
  394 F.2d 402· 2d Cir.· 1968-05-09 ·cited 34×
  Federal courts must consider exhausted claims in habeas corpus petitions even if unexhausted claims are also present, especially if the unexhausted claims are unrelated or frivolous.
• Turner v. State OF Md.
  303 F.2d 507· 4th Cir.· 1962-05-18 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the District Court erred in denying the petition for a writ of habeas corpus without a hearing, as the allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel, if true, present a substantial constitutional issue.
• Schlette v. People OF the State OF Cal.
  284 F.2d 827· 9th Cir.· 1960-12-01 ·cited 34×
• MacKENNA v. Ellis
  263 F.2d 35· 5th Cir.· 1959-01-16 ·cited 34×
  The majority opinion, which the dissenting judge disagrees with, found that two claims presented grounds for habeas corpus relief.
• Allen v. State OF Ala.
  728 F.2d 1384· 11th Cir.· 1984-04-02 ·cited 33×
  The court held that a federal district court must grant an evidentiary hearing to a habeas applicant when the merits of the factual dispute were not resolved in the state hearing, and the state factual determination is not fairly supported by the record.
• Escobedo v. Estelle
  655 F.2d 613· 5th Cir.· 1981-09-08 ·cited 33×
  A habeas petitioner does not meet the statutory 'in custody' requirement if they are no longer in custody for the attacked conviction or a demonstrably related conviction at the time of filing, even if they were previously.
• Eichler O. Kelly v. Springett
  527 F.2d 1090· 9th Cir.· 1975-09-05 ·cited 33×
  The court held that the district court properly granted summary judgment because the appellant's claim was essentially a tax refund action barred by 28 U.S.C. § 1341, and he failed to present specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial.
• Shuler v. Louie L. Wainwright
  491 F.2d 1213· 5th Cir.· 1974-03-27 ·cited 33×
  The court held that the district court erred in granting habeas corpus relief based on the alleged faking of footprint casts, as the state court's findings were supported by substantial evidence. The court also found that the failure to voluntarily disclose the victim's statement
• Layton v. Carson
  479 F.2d 1275· 5th Cir.· 1973-06-18 ·cited 33×
  Federal courts need not require exhaustion of state remedies if it is plain that resort to state courts would be futile due to adverse precedent.
• Ala. Labor Council, AFL-CIO v. The State OF Ala.
  453 F.2d 922· 5th Cir.· 1972-01-07 ·cited 33×
  The court held that failure to file a petition for permission to appeal within the statutory time limit is a jurisdictional defect, precluding appellate review.
• Hahn v. Burke
  430 F.2d 100· 7th Cir.· 1970-08-19 ·cited 33×
  The court held that the revocation of probation without a hearing violates the basic requirements of due process, and therefore, the revocation was a nullity.
• Reed v. Beto
  343 F.2d 723· 5th Cir.· 1965-04-07 ·cited 33×
  The court held that while the petitioner had not technically exhausted state remedies, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals had consistently ruled on the issue, and no intervening Supreme Court decision suggested a change, thus the state remedy was not effectively available.
• Pugh v. Parish OF ST. Tammany
  875 F.2d 436· 5th Cir.· 1989-05-31 ·cited 32×
  The court held that a complaint filed in forma pauperis is not automatically frivolous for failing to state a claim, but this complaint was still properly dismissed as frivolous due to prosecutorial immunity and lack of arguable basis in law or fact.
• Austin v. City & Cnty. OF Honolulu
  840 F.2d 678· 9th Cir.· 1988-02-24 ·cited 32×
  A property owner's inverse condemnation claim is not ripe for federal court review until they have pursued and been denied compensation through available state remedies, even if state law is uncertain.
• Hickey v. Duffy
  827 F.2d 234· 7th Cir.· 1987-08-24 ·cited 32×
  The court held that even if a federal statutory claim was ripe, the district court should have abstained from deciding it due to parallel state proceedings and important state interests.
• Serio v. Members OF La. State Bd. OF Pardons
  821 F.2d 1112· 5th Cir.· 1987-07-17 ·cited 32×
  Members of the Louisiana State Board of Pardons are absolutely immune from § 1983 damages claims. Claims for injunctive relief that are essentially attacks on a single parole hearing require exhaustion of state habeas corpus remedies.
• Passman v. Blackburn
  797 F.2d 1335· 5th Cir.· 1986-08-22 ·cited 32×
  The court held that a pro se petitioner's knowledge of a claim for habeas corpus relief is judged by an actual knowledge standard, not a constructive knowledge standard, for purposes of the abuse of the writ doctrine.
• Lenza v. Wyrick
  665 F.2d 804· 8th Cir.· 1981-12-02 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the petitioner was afforded a full and fair opportunity to litigate his Fourth Amendment claim in state court, that the hearsay testimony was admissible under the state of mind exception and did not violate the Confrontation Clause, and that there was sufficie
• Batten v. Scurr
  649 F.2d 564· 8th Cir.· 1981-05-19 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the state's evidentiary rulings do not raise a federal constitutional question reviewable by writ of habeas corpus unless they directly implicate constitutional rights.
• Cherry v. Dir., State Bd. OF Corr.
  635 F.2d 414· 5th Cir.· 1981-01-27 ·cited 32×
  The court concurred that the trial judge's sua sponte grant of a mistrial was violative of manifest necessity standards, but denied habeas relief because the Jorn decision does not retroactively apply to the pre-Jorn mistrial.