Federal Habeas Corpus Relief

101 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• Conte v. Cardwell
  475 F.2d 698· 6th Cir.· 1972-06-29 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the affidavits were insufficient to support a delayed filing of the motion to reconsider, and the petition to rehear would be denied for untimely filing.
• Earvil Watson v. Althea Camp
  848 F.2d 89· 7th Cir.· 1988-05-31 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the denial of one peremptory challenge to each side, when multiple others were available, does not violate the Constitution by casting doubt on the impartiality of the jury.
• Flowers v. Ill. Dep't of Corr.
  962 F.2d 703· 7th Cir.· 1992-05-07 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the jury instructions violated due process and were not harmless error, entitling the petitioner to habeas relief, but that the double jeopardy claim failed due to jury confusion.
• Hawkins v. Higgins
  898 F.2d 1365· 8th Cir.· 1990-03-26 ·cited 4×
  The court held that state remedies were futile and therefore exhausted, allowing federal habeas corpus review.
• Pinson v. Morris
  830 F.2d 896· 8th Cir.· 1987-10-05 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the panel opinion's reasoning regarding Pinson's knowledge of his appellate rights was incongruous and that the state may have an obligation to explicitly inform indigent defendants of their appellate rights.
• Myers v. State OF Wash.
  702 F.2d 766· 9th Cir.· 1983-03-28 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the majority's interpretation of the Supreme Court's mandate was incorrect and that prior case law regarding constitutional objections was binding.
• Roynell Joshua v. Maggio
  674 F.2d 376· 5th Cir.· 1982-04-26 ·cited 4×
  The court held that even if an identification procedure was impermissibly suggestive, the victims' identifications possessed sufficient indicia of reliability to provide probable cause for arrest and preclude federal habeas relief on Fourth Amendment claims.
• Burrows v. Engle
  545 F.2d 552· 6th Cir.· 1976-12-01 ·cited 4×
  Technical defects in an indictment and claims arising before a guilty plea are generally not grounds for federal habeas corpus relief.
• Bowen v. Sec'y, Fla. Dep't of Corr.
  92 F.4th 1328· 11th Cir.· 2024-02-15 ·cited 3×
  The Eleventh Circuit held that the district court erred in granting habeas relief because reasonable jurists could disagree on whether placing the suspect in a room with another suspect constituted interrogation under Miranda, thus the state court's decision was not an unreasonab
• Norton v. Parke
  892 F.2d 476· 6th Cir.· 1989-12-22 ·cited 3×
  A prisoner must formally invoke the Interstate Agreement on Detainers (IAD) to exhaust state remedies before seeking federal habeas corpus relief.
• Maynard v. A.L. Lockhart
  981 F.2d 981· 8th Cir.· 1992-12-14 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court erred by granting habeas relief without first determining if the claims were barred by procedural default, and that the petitioner failed to demonstrate cause for the defaults.
• Demouchette v. Collins
  972 F.2d 651· 5th Cir.· 1992-09-09 ·cited 2×
  The court denied the motion for a certificate of probable cause and the motion for a stay of execution.
• Valerio Ernest Miranda v. Cooper
  967 F.2d 392· 10th Cir.· 1992-06-17 ·cited 2×
  The court held that Miranda failed to exhaust available state remedies by not fairly presenting his federal constitutional claims to the state courts, and his claims lack merit.
• Henderson v. A.L. Lockhart
  864 F.2d 1447· 8th Cir.· 1989-01-10 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court properly granted the writ of habeas corpus, finding that Henderson was denied effective assistance of counsel in pursuing his appeal, and that the underlying issue had merit.
• Jeffers v. Sargent
  842 F.2d 1008· 8th Cir.· 1988-03-22 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the petitioner has an available unexhausted state court remedy, and therefore, his federal habeas petition must be denied.
• Runnels v. Hess
  713 F.2d 596· 10th Cir.· 1983-07-29 ·cited 2×
  The court should find cause for the procedural default and grant relief, as the circumstances demonstrate a fundamental miscarriage of justice.
• Ramirez v. Estelle
  678 F.2d 604· 5th Cir.· 1982-06-18 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the petitioner waived his constitutional claim by failing to move for a continuance, and the absence of the witness's testimony did not result in prejudice.
• Jones v. Purvis
  646 F.2d 127· 4th Cir.· 1981-04-07 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the sentence imposed was not so disproportionate as to constitute cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment.
• Reddy v. Jones
  572 F.2d 979· 4th Cir.· 1977-11-03 ·cited 2×
  The court, in dissent, argues that the denial of rehearing en banc was improper because the lower court's reasoning regarding the non-disclosure of witness inducements and exculpatory statements violated due process principles.
• Allen v. Ciccone
  425 F.2d 989· 8th Cir.· 1970-05-01 ·cited 2×
  A federal sentence deferred until the expiration of a state sentence begins to run when the prisoner is released from state custody and taken into federal custody, even if the state sentence has not technically expired.
• Hillegas v. Sams
  349 F.2d 859· 5th Cir.· 1965-08-16 ·cited 2×
  The court held that deliberate, purposeful use of state criminal machinery to deny constitutional rights constitutes an "extraordinary" case justifying pre-trial federal habeas relief, despite prior rulings to the contrary.
• Nguyen v. Florida
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-04-11
  The court held that the petitioner's claims were procedurally barred or failed to meet the Strickland standard for ineffective assistance of counsel, and thus federal habeas relief was denied.
• Delapena v. Fla. Dep't of Corr.
  S.D. Fla.· 2025-02-21
  The court held that the petitioner failed to demonstrate that the state court's ruling on his ineffective assistance of counsel claims was contrary to federal law or based on an unreasonable determination of facts.
• Perez v. Sec'y Dep't of Corr.
  N.D. Fla.· 2024-12-10
  The court held that the federal habeas petition was untimely because it was filed more than one year after the petitioner discovered or should have discovered the factual predicates for his claims.
• Griffiin v. Inch
  M.D. Fla.· 2023-09-25
  A federal court rejected Jonas Tramell Griffin's habeas corpus petition challenging his conviction for robbery with a firearm and other felonies related to a 2014 Family Dollar store robbery in Florida. The court found that Griffin failed to exhaust one claim, and all remaining c
• Durham v. Sec'y, Fla. Dep't of Corr.
  M.D. Fla.· 2023-08-24
  Joseph Durham, convicted of sexual battery of a child and other crimes, sought federal habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, claiming his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance in eight ways, including failing to file a motion to recuse the trial judge, neglecting to hire
• Campbell v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr. (Lee County)
  M.D. Fla.· 2022-05-03
  Tyrone Campbell, convicted of second-degree murder in Florida, filed a federal habeas petition raising eight ineffective assistance of counsel claims under the Antiterrorism Effective Death Penalty Act. The district court found all claims either procedurally defaulted or lacking
• Oliver v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr.
  M.D. Fla.· 2020-03-18
  The court held that a petitioner released from custody is not eligible for federal habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 unless they demonstrate continuing collateral consequences.
• Luc Termitus, JR. v. State
  Fla. 5th DCA· 2019-09-12
  Appellant appealed the denial of a 3.800(a) motion to correct an illegal sentence after one of his two attempted robbery convictions was vacated due to a double jeopardy violation. The court reversed, holding that Appellant had an absolute right to be resentenced with a corrected
• Wilson v. Lindler
  995 F.2d 1256· 4th Cir.· 1993-06-11
  The dissenting judge would reverse the district court's grant of the writ, finding no constitutional error regarding notice and that any error was invited or not prejudicial.
• Nethery v. Collins
  993 F.2d 1154· 5th Cir.· 1993-06-11
  The court held that the jury instructions prevented adequate consideration of mitigating evidence of voluntary intoxication, violating the Eighth Amendment.
• Burton v. Collins
  937 F.2d 131· 5th Cir.· 1991-07-18
  The court held that the defendant's request to represent himself was not clear and unequivocal, and therefore, the district court did not err in dismissing his habeas corpus petition.
• Ellis v. Lynaugh
  883 F.2d 363· 5th Cir.· 1989-09-15
  The court held that a defendant's plea of 'true' to prior felony convictions for sentence enhancement purposes waives any prior complaints about those convictions, and that ineffective assistance of counsel claims must meet the Strickland standard.
• Compton v. Butler
  883 F.2d 27· 5th Cir.· 1989-09-12
  The court held that the appellant's claims regarding disproportionate sentencing and lack of judicial awareness of sentencing alternatives were without merit.
• Donahue v. Armontrout
  820 F.2d 971· 8th Cir.· 1987-06-15
  The court held that a state prisoner seeking federal habeas corpus relief was not denied due process when a plea bargain was not strictly adhered to, because the prisoner was aware of the deviation and remained silent.
• Hallmark v. Cartwright
  742 F.2d 584· 10th Cir.· 1984-08-29
  The court held that a defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel does not extend to the presence of counsel at a post-lineup interview between witnesses and police. Therefore, denial of counsel at such an interview does not violate the Sixth Amendment.
• Long v. Bd. OF Pardons & Paroles OF Tex.
  725 F.2d 306· 5th Cir.· 1984-02-21
  The court held that a voluntary dismissal under Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(a) completely terminates the prior litigation, and a dismissed action cannot be reactivated.
• Barnett v. Alford
  635 F.2d 820· 10th Cir.· 1981-01-14
  The court held that the distinction between retained and appointed counsel for Sixth Amendment purposes is invalid, and prior precedent based on such a distinction is overruled.
• THE Florida BAR v. Tifford
  373 So. 2d 919· Fla.· 1979-07-27
  The Florida Bar sought to maintain the suspension of attorney Arthur W. Tifford based on a felony conviction. However, after federal courts granted Tifford habeas corpus relief and vacated his conviction as fundamentally unfair, the Florida Supreme Court terminated his suspension
• Clark v. Hopper
  491 F.2d 1389· 5th Cir.· 1974-04-04
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying federal habeas relief, finding the state proceedings were adequate and the guilty pleas valid.