Exhaustion Of State Remedies

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

• United States ex rel. Jackson v. Brady
  133 F.2d 476· 4th Cir.· 1943-02-09 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the petitioners waived their claim of racial discrimination in jury selection by failing to present evidence or adequately object in the state trial court. The District Court's dismissal of the habeas corpus petition is affirmed.
• Streetman v. Lynaugh
  812 F.2d 950· 5th Cir.· 1987-03-09 ·cited 29×
  The court held that the facts relevant to the petitioner's ineffective assistance of counsel claim were not adequately developed in state court, requiring a remand for an evidentiary hearing.
• Perry v. J.W. Fairman and Tyrone Fahner
  702 F.2d 119· 7th Cir.· 1983-03-16 ·cited 29×
  The court held that a federal habeas corpus petition should be dismissed if any claim within it is unexhausted, but that a petitioner need not pursue state post-conviction relief if Illinois courts would deem the claim res judicata or waived.
• Parker v. Parratt
  662 F.2d 479· 8th Cir.· 1981-10-28 ·cited 29×
  The court held that neither defendant demonstrated an actual conflict of interest arising from joint representation, and therefore, neither is entitled to federal habeas corpus relief.
• Woodman J. Collins v. Walker
  329 F.2d 100· 5th Cir.· 1964-03-11 ·cited 29×
  The court held that the deliberate inclusion of Negroes on the grand jury list, knowing it was to indict Collins, constituted racial discrimination, rendering the indictment unconstitutional.
• Scruggs v. Moellering
  870 F.2d 376· 7th Cir.· 1989-03-01 ·cited 28×
  A federal civil rights suit ancillary to a post-conviction proceeding, seeking an injunction to obtain an accurate transcript, requires exhaustion of state remedies and is an improper collateral attack on a conviction.
• Grooms v. J.C. Keeney
  826 F.2d 883· 9th Cir.· 1987-09-01 ·cited 28×
  The court held that a suspect's confession was admissible despite invoking the right to silence earlier, as fresh Miranda warnings were given, and that the Oregon aggravated murder statute does not violate due process or equal protection.
• Lefkowitz v. Fair
  816 F.2d 17· 1st Cir.· 1987-04-13 ·cited 28×
  A petitioner must be in custody at the time of filing a habeas corpus petition, and a fully served sentence, even with collateral consequences like license revocation, does not satisfy this requirement. Furthermore, a district court's dismissal of a habeas petition without prejud
• Davis v. Wyrick
  766 F.2d 1197· 8th Cir.· 1985-06-28 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the petitioner is not entitled to habeas corpus relief because his claims regarding competency, prosecutorial misconduct, insufficient evidence, trial court bias, and jury selection lack merit or are unexhausted.
• Alpha Otis O'Daniel Stephens v. Zant
  716 F.2d 276· 5th Cir.· 1983-09-19 ·cited 28×
  The court held that issues not presented to the district court cannot be considered on appeal, even if previously noted by an amicus brief.
• Clover Hayes v. Maggio
  699 F.2d 198· 5th Cir.· 1983-02-07 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the district court clearly erred in finding the plea bargain did not include a promise of parole eligibility, reversing the denial of habeas corpus relief.
• Gutierrez v. Bertram S. Griggs
  695 F.2d 1195· 9th Cir.· 1983-01-07 ·cited 28×
  A district court may summarily dismiss a habeas petition without first resolving exhaustion if the petition is facially without merit as a matter of law.
• Jones v. Norman Hess & the State of Okla.
  681 F.2d 688· 10th Cir.· 1982-06-01 ·cited 28×
  The court held that a federal habeas petition containing both exhausted and unexhausted claims must be dismissed in its entirety, requiring the petitioner to re-file with only exhausted claims or to exhaust the remaining claims.
• Maxwell v. Sumner
  673 F.2d 1031· 9th Cir.· 1982-02-25 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the state prisoner was not barred from federal habeas relief because the state courts denied his self-representation claim on the merits, not on a procedural default, and that the right to self-representation existed at the time of his trial, with his conduct
• Kines v. Butterworth
  669 F.2d 6· 1st Cir.· 1981-12-28 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the district court properly denied the habeas corpus petitions, finding no constitutional violations regarding witness interference or evidentiary rulings that fatally infected the trial.
• Taylor v. Harris
  640 F.2d 1· 2d Cir.· 1981-01-23 ·cited 28×
  The court held that a federal habeas corpus claim is barred by procedural default if the petitioner failed to object to a jury instruction at trial and on appeal, absent a showing of cause and prejudice.
• Davis v. Adult Parole Auth.
  610 F.2d 410· 6th Cir.· 1979-11-27 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the district court erred in applying Rule 9(a) as a strict statute of limitations, rather than as an invocation of the equitable doctrine of laches.
• Speigner v. Jago
  603 F.2d 1208· 6th Cir.· 1979-06-13 ·cited 28×
  A state court criminal conviction is unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause if it lacks any evidentiary support for a crucial element of the crime, and such a claim is reviewable in federal habeas corpus.
• Tifford v. Louie L. Wainwright
  588 F.2d 954· 5th Cir.· 1979-01-31 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the denial of Tifford's motion for severance violated due process, making his joint trial fundamentally unfair, and that the district court did not err in releasing Tifford.
• Eusebia Fernandez v. Honorable Jose Trias Monge
  586 F.2d 848· 1st Cir.· 1978-09-28 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the Younger abstention doctrine did not bar the federal action because the plaintiff lacked an adequate remedy in the Commonwealth courts for his pretrial detention claim, and the denial of certiorari was not a decision on the merits.
• Strader v. Troy
  571 F.2d 1263· 4th Cir.· 1978-02-14 ·cited 28×
  The dissenting judge believes the majority incorrectly interpreted prior case law regarding the certainty required from a sentencing judge's certificate and improperly directed the North Carolina court to pass on the validity of Virginia convictions.
• Kelsey v. State OF Minn.
  565 F.2d 503· 8th Cir.· 1977-11-08 ·cited 28×
  The court held that claims seeking speedier release must be dismissed for failure to exhaust state remedies, but damage claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 can proceed, and the denial of the motion to amend the complaint was proper due to untimeliness.
• Favis Clay Martin v. Estelle
  546 F.2d 177· 5th Cir.· 1977-01-31 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the state competency hearing was inadequate because it failed to address the correct legal standard and confused issues of criminal responsibility with competency to stand trial.
• Am. Civil Liberties Union & Jane Koe v. Bozardt
  539 F.2d 340· 4th Cir.· 1976-03-08 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the Younger v. Harris doctrine bars federal intervention in ongoing state disciplinary proceedings, even when a motion to remand is filed due to a private reprimand, as state remedies are not yet exhausted.
• Kelleher v. Henderson
  531 F.2d 78· 2d Cir.· 1976-02-18 ·cited 28×
  A guilty plea is not rendered involuntary or unintelligent under the Fourteenth Amendment solely because the defendant was unaware of the maximum possible sentence, if the record shows the defendant would have pleaded guilty regardless.
• Prince v. State OF Ala.
  507 F.2d 693· 5th Cir.· 1975-01-31 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the Alabama courts erred in denying the habeas corpus petition, finding that the appellant was denied his Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment right to a speedy trial due to an unconstitutional nine-year delay.
• United States ex rel. Jesse Owens v. Twomey
  508 F.2d 858· 7th Cir.· 1974-12-31 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the petitioner had exhausted his state judicial remedies and that the district court erred in dismissing his habeas corpus petition on that ground. The court further found that the evidence challenged as fruit of an illegal search was admissible under the inde
• MacOn v. Lash
  458 F.2d 942· 7th Cir.· 1972-04-06 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the petitioner's federal claim regarding the denial of his right to appeal due to his counsel's error was fairly presented to the state courts, satisfying the exhaustion requirement.
• Hughes v. Swenson
  452 F.2d 866· 8th Cir.· 1971-12-16 ·cited 28×
  The court held that a valid waiver of Miranda rights can be established by the prosecution showing the defendant was effectively advised of his rights and knowingly and understandingly declined to exercise them, without an express declaration of waiver.
• Wilson v. Phend
  417 F.2d 1197· 7th Cir.· 1969-10-28 ·cited 28×
  The court held that a petitioner alleging ineffective assistance of counsel, even retained counsel, has alleged sufficient facts to compel an evidentiary hearing, as gross unfairness in conviction constitutes state action.
• Pope v. Swenson
  395 F.2d 321· 8th Cir.· 1968-06-10 ·cited 28×
  The court held that a petitioner is bound by his counsel's deliberate strategic waiver of constitutional objections, even if the petitioner himself did not knowingly participate in the decision, precluding federal habeas relief.
• Burnside v. State OF Neb.
  346 F.2d 88· 8th Cir.· 1965-06-03 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any error in the trial court's denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
• Thomas v. Cunningham
  335 F.2d 67· 4th Cir.· 1964-06-23 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the district court had jurisdiction to hear the habeas corpus petition regarding expired sentences and that the petitioner's conviction in Dickenson County was void due to inadequate legal representation, affirming the release order.
• Rose v. Dickson
  327 F.2d 27· 9th Cir.· 1964-01-27 ·cited 28×
  The court affirmed the dismissal of the habeas corpus petition because the appellant had not exhausted his remedies in the state courts.
• Johnson v. Walker
  317 F.2d 418· 5th Cir.· 1963-05-17 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the Civil Rights Statutes do not grant federal jurisdiction for habeas corpus relief without exhausting state remedies.
• United States ex rel. Thomas Kling v. LaVALLEE
  306 F.2d 199· 2d Cir.· 1962-07-11 ·cited 28×
  The court affirmed the disposition of the appeal, but the concurring judge expressed reservations about the strict application of exhaustion rules for federal habeas corpus.
• United States ex rel. Bogish v. Tees
  211 F.2d 69· 3d Cir.· 1954-03-09 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the relator's petition for a writ of habeas corpus was properly denied because he failed to exhaust state remedies and his claims lacked merit. The court treated the petition as a motion in the nature of a writ of error coram nobis, which also failed.
• Sampsell v. People of State of Cal.
  191 F.2d 721· 9th Cir.· 1951-09-18 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the district court did not err in dismissing the habeas corpus petition, as the petitioner failed to demonstrate a violation of federal constitutional rights during his state trial.
• Henry v. State
  134 So. 3d 938· Fla.· 2014-03-14 ·cited 27×
  Robert Henry, a death row inmate with execution scheduled for March 20, 2014, appealed the denial of his second successive motion for postconviction relief, challenging Florida's lethal injection protocol as applied to him, the constitutionality of the amended clemency statute (s
• FOX v. Ira Kelso
  911 F.2d 563· 11th Cir.· 1990-09-07 ·cited 27×
  The court held that the state failed to carry its burden of proving that the petitioner's guilty pleas were knowing and intelligent, and thus the district court properly granted habeas relief.
• In re Lindsey
  875 F.2d 1502· 11th Cir.· 1989-05-01 ·cited 27×
  The court held that neither 21 U.S.C. § 848(q) nor 18 U.S.C. § 3006A entitles a death-sentenced inmate to federally appointed counsel or a psychiatrist for state-court collateral review proceedings, especially when claims are unexhausted.
• Hanson v. Heckel
  791 F.2d 93· 7th Cir.· 1986-05-21 ·cited 27×
  A state prisoner's civil rights action challenging the deprivation of good time credits, which directly impacts the duration of confinement, must be brought as a habeas corpus petition requiring exhaustion of state remedies, even if seeking damages.
• Son H. Fleming v. Kemp
  748 F.2d 1435· 11th Cir.· 1984-11-29 ·cited 27×
  The court held that the petitioner was deprived of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel at a critical stage of his murder prosecution, requiring automatic reversal of his conviction.
• Toney v. Franzen
  687 F.2d 1016· 7th Cir.· 1982-08-30 ·cited 27×
  A state prisoner has exhausted state remedies for federal habeas corpus purposes when the state courts have had a fair opportunity to address the federal constitutional issue, even if the state court's order was not fully adjudicative or if further state proceedings are technical
• Matias v. Masaru Oshiro and Tany S. Hong
  683 F.2d 318· 9th Cir.· 1982-08-03 ·cited 27×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the ineffective assistance of counsel claim without determining if there was cause and prejudice for the procedural default.
• Powell v. James Spalding & Slade Gorton
  679 F.2d 163· 9th Cir.· 1982-06-08 ·cited 27×
  The court held that a district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to allow a habeas petitioner to amend his petition to include an unexhausted claim after the state had already responded.
• Gibson v. Jackson
  578 F.2d 1045· 5th Cir.· 1978-08-23 ·cited 27×
  The court held that the federal district court should have abstained from deciding the case pending the outcome of the state habeas corpus proceedings.
• Young v. Kenny
  907 F.2d 874· 9th Cir.· 1989-10-11 ·cited 26×
  A federal court must stay a prisoner's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim challenging the duration of confinement, rather than dismiss it, to allow exhaustion of state remedies via habeas corpus.
• Gwin v. Snow
  870 F.2d 616· 11th Cir.· 1989-04-19 ·cited 26×
  The court held that Gwin's equal protection claims challenging the Board's parole procedures and denial of compassionate leave are properly brought under section 1983 and do not require exhaustion of state remedies, reversing the district court's dismissal of these claims.
• Branion v. Gramly
  855 F.2d 1256· 7th Cir.· 1988-07-29 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider a second post-judgment motion after a notice of appeal was filed, and that materials not presented to the district court could not be considered on appeal. The court also found that the jury's verdict was supp