Exhaustion Of State Remedies

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

• Jenkins v. Atkins
  515 F.2d 1078· 10th Cir.· 1975-04-03
  A federal court may grant habeas corpus relief without requiring a petitioner to resubmit an issue to state courts if the issue has been previously presented and rejected, even if the state court did not fully address the merits.
• Wood v. Superintendent, Carolina Correctional Unit
  504 F.2d 1069· 4th Cir.· 1974-10-03
  The court held that the state courts should have the initial opportunity to rule on the applicability of Argersinger v. Hamlin to the petitioner's case, given recent Supreme Court precedent.
• United States ex rel. Sidney J. Clark v. Anderson
  502 F.2d 1080· 3d Cir.· 1974-06-13
  A state cannot constitutionally apply a superseded predecessor statute to a defendant after ruling the successor statute unconstitutionally vague, as this violates due process notice requirements.
• United States ex rel. Melvin Oliver v. Vincent
  498 F.2d 340· 2d Cir.· 1974-06-03
  A federal court is not precluded from holding an evidentiary hearing in a habeas corpus proceeding, even if state court findings are presumed correct under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), if the state court did not make a determination after a hearing on the merits of a factual issue.
• Lehman S. Elliott v. State OF Ala.
  493 F.2d 1348· 5th Cir.· 1974-05-16
  The court held that the district court lacked sufficient evidence to support its findings regarding the voluntariness of the guilty plea and waiver of jury trial.
• Negron v. Henderson
  496 F.2d 858· 2d Cir.· 1974-04-17
  The court held that a procedural error in a jury instruction regarding the voluntariness of a confession does not warrant federal habeas corpus relief unless the petitioner shows that his confession was involuntary.
• Tillery v. Weitzenfeld
  490 F.2d 179· 5th Cir.· 1974-02-20
  The court held that the district court's denial of habeas corpus relief was premature due to an incomplete record and insufficient consideration of state remedies.
• Morgan v. Juv. & Dom. Relations Court
  491 F.2d 456· 4th Cir.· 1974-01-29
  A petitioner is not entitled to habeas corpus relief if they are no longer imprisoned and allege no collateral consequences jeopardizing their liberty, even if denied counsel at trial.
• Moore v. Hon. John Hill
  487 F.2d 221· 5th Cir.· 1973-11-14
  The court held that all issues raised by the appellant had been previously determined adversely to him in other federal habeas proceedings.
• Newton v. Estelle
  483 F.2d 447· 5th Cir.· 1973-08-14
  The court held that a federal court should not remand issues to state court if the petitioner concedes those issues lack merit.
• Mason v. Askew
  484 F.2d 642· 5th Cir.· 1973-08-10
  The court held that a state prisoner challenging the fact of his confinement must first exhaust state remedies via habeas corpus before seeking federal relief under § 1983.
• Schoultz v. Warden Carl Hocker
  478 F.2d 842· 9th Cir.· 1973-04-25
  The court held that the California District Court should reconsider the petition in light of subsequent proceedings and the State of California's lack of interest in the conviction.
• Esherick v. Perini
  475 F.2d 577· 6th Cir.· 1973-03-22
  The court held that the appellant failed to exhaust his state remedies regarding his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.
• Garza v. State OF Tex.
  474 F.2d 905· 5th Cir.· 1973-02-12
  The court held that a federal habeas corpus petitioner must exhaust state remedies for claims regarding pre-sentence and post-appeal jail time credit before federal intervention.
• Robinson v. Beto
  473 F.2d 665· 5th Cir.· 1973-01-29
  The federal court erred in denying the habeas petition for failure to exhaust state remedies, as the state appellate court had already addressed the substantive issue.
• Kemp v. Louie L. Wainwright
  472 F.2d 586· 5th Cir.· 1973-01-22
  A state prisoner must exhaust available state remedies, including Rule 3.850 motions, before seeking federal habeas corpus relief, even if not currently serving the challenged sentence.
• Saunders v. COX
  470 F.2d 734· 4th Cir.· 1972-12-11
  The court held that the defendant's claim of an unconstitutionally excessive sentence was not properly before the federal court due to a failure to exhaust state remedies.
• Donnie Lee Sloan v. The State OF Tex.
  469 F.2d 677· 5th Cir.· 1972-11-28
  The appeal is dismissed as moot because the appellant's state habeas corpus petition was granted, leading to his convictions being set aside and new trials ordered.
• Uribe v. Nelson
  469 F.2d 1086· 9th Cir.· 1972-11-24
  The court held that the prisoner's claims do not warrant habeas corpus relief because his Miranda rights were not violated in a way that prejudiced him, no plea bargain was breached, and his claim regarding the crime charged is unexhausted.
• Galligher v. McCARTHY
  470 F.2d 740· 9th Cir.· 1972-11-22
  A prisoner's petition seeking an injunction for recognition of religious rights and expungement of disciplinary records is not subject to federal habeas corpus exhaustion requirements.
• Sanders v. Weldon COX
  472 F.2d 1227· 6th Cir.· 1972-11-15
  The court held that the petitioner's claims were properly dismissed for failure to exhaust state remedies, except for the involuntary statement issue, which was also denied.
• Mitchell v. Eyman
  468 F.2d 856· 9th Cir.· 1972-10-30
  The court held that the appellant's claims were procedurally barred due to failure to exhaust state remedies and that the District Court did not err in denying the habeas corpus petition without an evidentiary hearing.
• Bentley v. Jones
  467 F.2d 906· 5th Cir.· 1972-09-27
  The court held that the district court properly ruled that the petitioner failed to exhaust state remedies before seeking federal habeas corpus relief.
• Minor v. Hoyt C. Cupp
  466 F.2d 1369· 9th Cir.· 1972-08-15
  The court held that the prisoner's refusal to proceed with his state post-conviction remedies, after being fully advised and given the opportunity to do so, constituted a deliberate bypass of those remedies.
• Oather James Mannings v. State
  465 F.2d 423· 5th Cir.· 1972-08-02
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the habeas corpus petition for failure to exhaust state remedies, given the specific circumstances and relief sought.
• Ferguson v. COX
  464 F.2d 461· 4th Cir.· 1972-07-26
  The court held that the petitioner had not exhausted state remedies for all claims, and that state remedies remained available to him, thus affirming the district court's dismissal.
• Williams v. Hocker
  463 F.2d 234· 9th Cir.· 1972-07-03
  Federal courts lack jurisdiction to consider claims not presented to state courts, including challenges to evidence, jury instructions, and competency hearings.
• Pope v. Turner
  461 F.2d 644· 10th Cir.· 1972-06-14
  The court held that the federal district court should have required the petitioner to exhaust state remedies before granting a writ of habeas corpus.
• Sabatino Fondanova v. Moore
  460 F.2d 308· 1st Cir.· 1972-05-24
  The court held that a petitioner must fully exhaust state remedies, even if relief is discretionary, before seeking federal habeas corpus relief.
• Robertson v. Haynes
  459 F.2d 456· 8th Cir.· 1972-05-05
  The court held that the pretrial identification procedures used were not unconstitutional and that the defendant was afforded a full and fair evidentiary hearing in state court.
• Rayfield Moore v. Louie L. Wainwright
  458 F.2d 982· 5th Cir.· 1972-04-17
  The court held that the district court's denial of habeas corpus relief regarding the alleged promise about prior convictions was premature, requiring exhaustion of state remedies.
• Campbell v. The State OF Ga. & Robert Grady
  459 F.2d 1039· 5th Cir.· 1972-04-05
  The court held that the search warrant affidavit was legally sufficient and the resulting seizure was valid, agreeing with the district court's findings.
• Benson v. Eyman
  458 F.2d 397· 9th Cir.· 1972-03-20
  The court held that the district court erred in denying the habeas corpus writ without a hearing, as factual issues regarding the validity of prior convictions and their impact on present custody were presented.
• Grover Cleveland McDANIEL v. Jones
  456 F.2d 1254· 5th Cir.· 1972-02-24
  The court held that the dismissal of the civil rights claim was correct, but the denial of habeas corpus relief was improper and required remand for further proceedings.
• Kelsey D. Bartlett v. Connors
  455 F.2d 459· 6th Cir.· 1972-02-04
  The federal court correctly dismissed the complaint because the plaintiff was attempting to relitigate issues already decided in state courts and should have pursued state appellate remedies.
• Purkhiser v. Louie L. Wainwright
  455 F.2d 506· 5th Cir.· 1972-02-03
  The appellate court affirmed the district court's denial of the habeas corpus petition.
• Williams v. Hon. Daniel McMANN
  454 F.2d 1139· 2d Cir.· 1972-01-25
• Hachey v. State OF Me.
  453 F.2d 369· 1st Cir.· 1972-01-11
  The court held that a certificate of probable cause for appeal should be denied because the petitioner failed to adequately present constitutional claims and the state court's decision was persuasive.
• John Richard (Dick) Anderson. v. Warden Ray H. Page & the State of Okla.
  454 F.2d 432· 10th Cir.· 1972-01-07
  The court held that the district court erred in denying the petition for habeas corpus without an evidentiary hearing, as the record was insufficient to establish a waiver of appeal on the merits.
• United States ex rel. Patrick J. Huffman v. The Commonwealth Court of Dauphin Cnty.
  453 F.2d 1254· 3d Cir.· 1972-01-03
  The court held that the petitioner had not exhausted his state remedies and therefore could not bring a federal habeas corpus petition.
• Jackson v. Caldwell
  452 F.2d 1068· 5th Cir.· 1972-01-03
  A state prisoner must exhaust state remedies before seeking federal habeas corpus relief, even if the prisoner believes state remedies would be futile.
• Iona Starr Doby v. Beto
  451 F.2d 365· 5th Cir.· 1971-11-24
  The court held that the issue of counsel effectiveness was not properly raised and should be decided by state courts, while affirming the finding that counsel was present.
• Taylor v. State OF Minn.
  450 F.2d 1110· 8th Cir.· 1971-11-16
  The court held that a petitioner who raised federal constitutional claims on direct appeal, which were reviewed and rejected by the state's highest court, has exhausted state remedies for federal habeas corpus purposes.
• Copeland v. Sheriff Malcomb Beard & Louie L. Wainwright
  446 F.2d 1393· 5th Cir.· 1971-08-23
  The district court correctly treated the prisoner's civil rights complaint as a habeas corpus petition and denied it for failure to exhaust state remedies.
• Melton v. Patterson
  445 F.2d 410· 10th Cir.· 1971-07-21
  The court held that the lower court did not err in denying habeas corpus relief, affirming that trial counsel was not inadequate and the submission of a dubious confession was not prejudicial given the jury's verdict.
• Langlois v. Louie L. Wainwright
  445 F.2d 836· 5th Cir.· 1971-07-01
  The court held that the lower court's findings of fact were not clearly erroneous and that the state trial court provided a full and fair hearing on the voluntariness of the confession.
• Shabarekh v. City OF Miami
  443 F.2d 992· 5th Cir.· 1971-06-15
  The appellate court held that the trial court erred in refusing to grant the City of Miami relief from a habeas corpus judgment without justification.
• Campos v. Baker
  442 F.2d 331· 10th Cir.· 1971-05-13
  The court held that the issue of denial of a preliminary hearing was not exhausted in state courts and thus could not be considered in federal habeas corpus. The court also found the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel to be without merit.
• Williams v. Oriscello
  441 F.2d 1113· 3d Cir.· 1971-05-12
  The court held that the appellant had not exhausted his state remedies by filing a habeas corpus petition before his direct appeal was decided.
• The Nat'l Ass'n OF Naturopathic Physicians v. The Cal. State Bd. OF Chiropractic Exam'rs
  442 F.2d 466· 9th Cir.· 1971-05-11
  The court held that the appellant's suit was premature because it had not first sought relief in the California state courts.