Federal Habeas Corpus

1,464 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 119 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• Clark v. State
  363 So. 2d 331· Fla.· 1978-07-28 ·cited 590×
  The Florida Supreme Court resolved a conflict between two district courts regarding whether a contemporaneous objection is required to preserve an improper comment on a defendant's right to remain silent as an issue on appeal. The Court held that a timely objection at trial is ne
• Mullaney v. Wilbur
  W.D. Pa.· 1975-06-09 ·cited 447×
  The Court's opinion, which the concurring justice joins, holds that the prosecution must prove every element of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt, but this does not conflict with the principle that a defendant may bear the burden of proving an affirmative defense like insanity.
• Gennero Galtieri v. Louie L. Wainwright
  582 F.2d 348· 5th Cir.· 1978-10-23 ·cited 251×
  The court holds that while generally mixed habeas petitions should be dismissed, district judges may address exhausted grounds when fundamental rights are at stake, and such decisions will be reviewed on the merits.
• Hittson v. GDCP Warden
  759 F.3d 1210· 11th Cir.· 2014-07-09 ·cited 192×
  The concurrence agrees with the majority that the Georgia Superior Court's application of the Brecht harmless-error standard, rather than the Chapman standard, on state collateral review is irrelevant to federal habeas relief under AEDPA. The concurrence emphasizes that AEDPA req
• Washington v. Strickland
  693 F.2d 1243· 5th Cir.· 1982-12-23 ·cited 191×
  The court held that the district court erred in applying the outcome-determinative test for prejudice in a habeas corpus claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. It established a new standard for prejudice, requiring proof that the omitted mitigating evidence would have "subst
• Daye v. Attorney Gen. OF the State OF NEW York & Eugene Le Fevre
  696 F.2d 186· 2d Cir.· 1982-12-09 ·cited 130×
  The court held that a federal court should not grant habeas corpus relief if state remedies have not been exhausted, meaning the federal constitutional claim must have been presented to the state courts.
• Elledge v. Dugger
  823 F.2d 1439· 11th Cir.· 1987-07-20 ·cited 119×
  The court held that shackling a defendant at the sentencing phase of a bifurcated state trial, under specific circumstances including the defendant's status as a convicted violent felon and the absence of a defense request for a hearing, does not violate the Constitution.
• Pye v. Warden, Georgia Diagnostic Prison
  50 F.4th 1025· 11th Cir.· 2022-10-04 ·cited 111×
  Willie James Pye, convicted of murder, kidnapping, rape, and robbery, challenged his death sentence on federal habeas review, arguing that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance during sentencing by failing to investigate and present mitigating evidence of his difficul
• Raleigh Porter v. Louie L. Wainwright
  805 F.2d 930· 11th Cir.· 1986-11-17 ·cited 109×
  The court held that the petitioner failed to allege sufficient facts to warrant an evidentiary hearing on claims of ineffective assistance of counsel due to tactical decisions and potential conflict of interest.
• Houston v. Estelle
  569 F.2d 372· 5th Cir.· 1978-03-13 ·cited 108×
  The court held that prosecutorial arguments implying the defendant sold heroin, when he was only convicted of possession, were so inflammatory and prejudicial as to violate due process, even with curative instructions.
• Thomas v. Zant
  697 F.2d 977· 11th Cir.· 1983-02-10 ·cited 103×
• Branan v. Booth
  861 F.2d 1507· 11th Cir.· 1988-12-20 ·cited 102×
  Federal courts cannot grant habeas relief for issues solely based on state law, even if framed as federal constitutional claims.
• United States ex rel. Robert Phipps v. Foulette
  428 F.2d 912· 2d Cir.· 1970-05-27 ·cited 102×
  The court held that the state court's finding that the suggestive station-house identification did not taint the subsequent in-court identification was supported by the record and binding on federal habeas review.
• McKiver v. Sec'y, Fla. Dep't of Corr.
  991 F.3d 1357· 11th Cir.· 2021-03-25 ·cited 99×
  Luther McKiver appealed his federal habeas petition challenging his Florida drug trafficking conviction, arguing that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate and present witnesses regarding the victim's drug-dealing history and for failing to investigate the
• Louie L. Wainwright v. Simpson
  360 F.2d 307· 5th Cir.· 1966-04-11 ·cited 98×·via Federal Habeas Corpus Jurisdiction
  The court affirmed the judgment but clarified that the exhaustion principle in habeas corpus is a matter of comity, not jurisdiction, and requires exhaustion of state remedies before federal intervention.
• Birt v. Montgomery
  725 F.2d 587· 11th Cir.· 1984-02-13 ·cited 96×
• United States ex rel. Nathaniel Spurlark v. Wolff
  699 F.2d 354· 7th Cir.· 1983-01-28 ·cited 93×
  The court's holding is not explicitly stated in this concurring and dissenting opinion, but it addresses the application of waiver rules to habeas corpus claims.
• Thompson v. State
  619 So. 2d 261· Fla.· 1993-04-01 ·cited 91×
  William Lee Thompson appealed his death sentence imposed after remand for resentencing in a 1976 kidnapping-murder case. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the death penalty, finding harmless error regarding the admission of autopsy photographs and the use of the 'cold, calculate
• United States ex rel. John McGRATH v. LaVALLEE
  319 F.2d 308· 2d Cir.· 1963-06-12 ·cited 91×
  The court held that a judge's conversation with a defendant about a guilty plea, even if potentially coercive, does not automatically constitute a denial of due process; the specific content and effect must be considered. The 'unless clearly erroneous' rule applies to factual inf
• Wydell Evans v. Sec'y, Dep't OF Corr., Attorney Gen. of Fla.
  703 F.3d 1316· 11th Cir.· 2013-01-04 ·cited 90×
  The dissenting judge concluded that the Florida Supreme Court's decision denying federal habeas relief was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts and an unreasonable application of federal law. Therefore, the defendant is entitled to federal habeas relief.
• Murrell Toby Hockenbury, III v. Sowders
  620 F.2d 111· 6th Cir.· 1980-04-17 ·cited 86×
  The Sixth Circuit held that the District Court erred in granting habeas corpus relief by independently assessing 'plain error' instead of deferring to the state court's application of its contemporaneous objection rule, absent a showing of cause and prejudice.
• Whatley v. Warden
  927 F. 3d 1150· 11th Cir.· 2020-04-10 ·cited 82×
  The court denied a petition for rehearing en banc.
• Spencer v. Zant
  715 F.2d 1562· 11th Cir.· 1983-09-30 ·cited 82×
• Paprskar v. Estelle
  612 F.2d 1003· 5th Cir.· 1980-03-03 ·cited 82×
  The district court erred in dismissing petitioner's second federal habeas corpus petition as a successive petition constituting an 'abuse of the writ'.
• Windom v. State
  886 So. 2d 915· Fla.· 2004-05-06 ·cited 81×
  Curtis Windom challenges his conviction for three counts of first-degree murder and death sentence by appealing the denial of post-conviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 and filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus. The Florida Supreme Court affirms t
• O'Berry v. Louie L. Wainwright
  546 F.2d 1204· 5th Cir.· 1977-02-11 ·cited 79×
  A federal court is precluded from considering a state prisoner's Fourth Amendment claims on habeas corpus if the state provided an opportunity for full and fair litigation of those claims, even if the state court resolved the claim on procedural grounds.
• Palmes v. Louie L. Wainwright
  725 F.2d 1511· 11th Cir.· 1984-02-17 ·cited 78×
  The court held that the appellant's confession was voluntary and admissible, and that his claims of ineffective assistance of counsel were without merit.
• O'Bryan v. W.J. Estelle, Jr.
  714 F.2d 365· 5th Cir.· 1983-08-26 ·cited 75×
  The Fifth Circuit should apply the same standard of review in Witherspoon cases as in other habeas corpus matters, giving deference to state court factual findings unless clearly erroneous, and remanding for evidentiary hearings when the record is unclear.
• Presnell v. Kemp
  835 F.2d 1567· 11th Cir.· 1988-01-11 ·cited 74×
  The court held that the cause and prejudice standard from Wainwright v. Sykes applies to claims barred by a state's successive petition rule, and the petitioner bears the burden of proving cause and prejudice.
• Hall v. Louie L. Wainwright
  733 F.2d 766· 11th Cir.· 1984-05-16 ·cited 74×
  The court held that a defendant may waive their right to be present at critical stages of a capital trial, and the specific circumstances of the defendant's absence during voir dire require further inquiry into knowing and voluntary waiver.
• McCRAY v. Burrell
  516 F.2d 357· 4th Cir.· 1975-04-10 ·cited 70×
  The court held that the appellate court cannot discard a district judge's inferences, which are part of the findings of fact. The court also discussed the evolving doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies in prisoner § 1983 cases.
• Sweet v. Sec'y, Dep't OF Corr., Attorney Gen., State of Fla.
  467 F.3d 1311· 11th Cir.· 2006-10-23 ·cited 68×
  William Earl Sweet, convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death for a 1990 shooting that killed one person and wounded three others, appealed the dismissal of his federal habeas petition as untimely under the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA). Swe
• Johnson v. Singletary
  938 F.2d 1166· 11th Cir.· 1991-07-25 ·cited 68×
  Marvin Edwin Johnson, a Florida death row inmate, appealed the district court's denial of his second federal habeas corpus petition challenging his death sentence for a 1978 pharmacy robbery and murder. The panel majority had concluded Johnson was entitled to an evidentiary heari
• Word v. State OF N.C.
  406 F.2d 352· 4th Cir.· 1969-01-15 ·cited 68×
  The dissent argues that under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2241 and controlling precedent like Ahrens v. Clark, habeas corpus jurisdiction is limited to the district where the petitioner is physically present and in custody.
• Meadows v. Lon Evans
  550 F.2d 345· 5th Cir.· 1977-04-08 ·cited 67×
  The court held that a federal civil rights action for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 cannot be used to relitigate the voluntariness of a guilty plea that has already been affirmed on direct appeal and denied on collateral attack in state court. The exhaustion requirement of 28 U.
• Whippler v. Balkcom
  342 F.2d 388· 5th Cir.· 1965-03-03 ·cited 66×
  A state prisoner is not required to pursue state remedies if Georgia law is settled against post-conviction review of newly raised constitutional claims.
• Sullivan v. Louie L. Wainwright
  695 F.2d 1306· 11th Cir.· 1983-01-17 ·cited 65×·via Federal Habeas Corpus Jurisdiction
  The concurring judge believes the majority misapplied Sykes by deciding the cause prong on the merits without a factual determination.
• Guss Maggitt v. Wyrick
  533 F.2d 383· 8th Cir.· 1976-04-07 ·cited 64×
  The court held that the exclusion of evidence of the decedent's prior armed robbery conviction and the prosecutor's improper closing argument did not rise to the level of constitutional error warranting federal habeas corpus relief.
• Chavez v. Dickson
  280 F.2d 727· 9th Cir.· 1960-06-16 ·cited 64×
  The court held that the state court's construction of California Penal Code sections did not deprive appellants of federal rights, and that the district court did not err in denying relief on most grounds, but must remand for a hearing on the accuracy of transcribed statements us
• Knight v. Dugger
  863 F.2d 705· 11th Cir.· 1988-12-08 ·cited 62×
• Doyle Edward Skillern v. W.J. Estelle, Jr.
  720 F.2d 839· 5th Cir.· 1983-12-05 ·cited 62×
  The court held that the petitioner's contentions regarding the Enmund issues, denial of an evidentiary hearing, and evidentiary error at the sentencing hearing did not warrant federal habeas relief.
• Gladden v. Unsworth
  396 F.2d 373· 9th Cir.· 1968-05-01 ·cited 62×
  The court held that the admission of Unsworth's written statement without a prior judicial determination of voluntariness, and the admission of his oral statements made while grossly intoxicated, constituted a denial of due process.
• Davidson J. James v. Singletary
  957 F.2d 1562· 11th Cir.· 1992-03-30 ·cited 60×
  Davidson James, a Florida death row inmate convicted of first-degree murder, attempted murder, and armed robbery, petitioned for federal habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The Eleventh Circuit held that James's Brady claim regarding withheld evidence failed because he d
• Spencer v. Kemp
  781 F.2d 1458· 11th Cir.· 1986-01-23 ·cited 60×
  The petitioner is entitled to federal habeas review of his jury selection claim because he presented the objection seasonably to the trial court.
• Collins v. A.L. Lockhart
  754 F.2d 258· 8th Cir.· 1985-01-31 ·cited 60×
  The court held that while the conviction was valid, the death sentence must be vacated because the 'pecuniary gain' aggravating circumstance duplicated an element of the underlying capital felony murder charge (robbery), thus failing to narrow the class of eligible defendants as
• DeBERRY v. Wolff
  513 F.2d 1336· 8th Cir.· 1975-04-11 ·cited 60×·via Federal Habeas Corpus Jurisdiction
  A claim regarding a trial court's refusal to instruct on a lesser included offense is not cognizable in federal habeas corpus unless it rises to the level of a constitutional violation. Allegations of knowing use of false testimony or suppression of evidence were not supported by
• Milton v. Procunier
  744 F.2d 1091· 5th Cir.· 1984-10-10 ·cited 58×
  The court, through a concurring opinion, suggests that while counsel's failure to present mitigating evidence may not meet the Sixth Amendment's Strickland standard for ineffective assistance, it could still violate Eighth Amendment concerns regarding arbitrary capital sentencing
• Wallace v. A.L. Lockhart
  701 F.2d 719· 8th Cir.· 1983-03-07 ·cited 58×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying the habeas corpus petition, as the petitioner's claims were either procedurally barred, lacked merit, or failed to demonstrate prejudice or a constitutional violation.
• Park v. H. T. (Tommy) Huff
  506 F.2d 849· 5th Cir.· 1975-01-20 ·cited 58×
  The majority opinion misunderstands the Confrontation Clause by allowing hearsay statements from unavailable witnesses to be admitted against the defendant.
• Cartwright v. Maynard
  822 F.2d 1477· 10th Cir.· 1987-06-22 ·cited 57×
  Reliance on an unconstitutionally vague or overbroad statutory aggravating circumstance requires vacating the death sentence, especially when the state courts do not reweigh circumstances on appeal.