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

• Don v. Stinson
  545 F.2d 485· 5th Cir.· 1977-01-14 ·cited 8×
• United States ex rel. John B. Adams v. Bensinger
  507 F.2d 390· 7th Cir.· 1974-12-10 ·cited 8×·via Federal Habeas Corpus Relief
  The court held that the petitioner did not waive his claim of an involuntary confession and that the confession was indeed involuntary due to the totality of the circumstances.
• McNEARY v. Stone
  482 F.2d 804· 9th Cir.· 1973-07-12 ·cited 8×·via Federal Habeas Corpus Relief
  The court held that the pretrial photographic identification procedures and the warrantless search of the vehicle did not violate the petitioner's constitutional rights.
• Stone v. Louie L. Wainwright
  478 F.2d 390· 5th Cir.· 1973-04-19 ·cited 8×
• Merlon S. Hines v. Beto
  473 F.2d 1034· 5th Cir.· 1973-02-08 ·cited 8×
  The court held that even if an out-of-court identification procedure was suggestive, relief is not warranted if the in-court identification was independent and untainted.
• Dudley Lewis LEE v. Louie L. Wainwright
  468 F.2d 809· 5th Cir.· 1972-10-25 ·cited 8×
  Failure to petition the Florida Supreme Court for certiorari after denial of state post-conviction relief does not bar federal habeas corpus relief for failure to exhaust state remedies.
• Turnbow v. Beto
  464 F.2d 527· 5th Cir.· 1972-07-07 ·cited 8×
  The court held that a new ground for habeas relief was raised, requiring remand to determine if it was deliberately withheld.
• Henderson v. Tollett
  459 F.2d 237· 6th Cir.· 1972-04-20 ·cited 8×
  A guilty plea does not waive the right to challenge a grand jury indictment based on systematic racial exclusion if neither the defendant nor counsel knew of this right at the time of the plea.
• Cockerham v. Louie L. Wainwright
  444 F.2d 438· 5th Cir.· 1971-06-21 ·cited 8×·via Federal Habeas Corpus Relief
• Utsler v. Erickson
  440 F.2d 140· 8th Cir.· 1971-04-05 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court correctly denied the habeas corpus petition because the petitioner's claims did not rise to the level of constitutional violations.
• Hackathorn v. J. E. (Bill) Decker
  438 F.2d 1363· 5th Cir.· 1971-02-17 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the appellant is entitled to a post-conviction hearing on the voluntariness of his confessions and relief under Witherspoon v. Illinois due to improper jury selection.
• Berald Herlin Andry v. Henderson
  429 F.2d 26· 5th Cir.· 1970-07-06 ·cited 8×
  A defendant is denied effective assistance of counsel if counsel fails to advise him of his right to appeal or obtain his informed consent to forego that right.
• Cleophus Young v. State OF Ala.
  427 F.2d 177· 5th Cir.· 1970-05-12 ·cited 8×
  A federal habeas corpus petitioner who has presented a claim to the highest state court has exhausted state remedies, even if the claim was raised on direct appeal rather than in a collateral proceeding.
• United States ex rel. Albert LaMOLINARE v. Duggan
  415 F.2d 730· 3d Cir.· 1969-07-25 ·cited 8×
  The dissenting judge would have remanded the case for an evidentiary hearing to determine if the right to challenge the search and seizure was waived and, if not, whether the search was valid.
• United States ex rel. Charles Kenny v. Hon. Harold W. Follette
  410 F.2d 1276· 2d Cir.· 1969-03-25 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the petitioner deliberately abandoned his right to challenge the validity of his prior conviction by failing to utilize available state procedures, despite being informed of his right to do so.
• Drews v. State OF Minn.
  407 F.2d 1307· 8th Cir.· 1969-03-10 ·cited 8×
  The court held that while the federal district court erred in finding procedural waiver under state law, there is no federal constitutional right to pretrial disclosure of prosecution witnesses, thus affirming the denial of habeas corpus.
• Pope v. Harper
  407 F.2d 1303· 9th Cir.· 1969-02-25 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the state court's prior determination that prosecutorial comment on the defendant's failure to testify was harmless error was incorrect, and that the federal district court properly granted habeas corpus relief.
• Cotner v. Henry
  394 F.2d 873· 7th Cir.· 1968-04-17 ·cited 8×
  The dissenting judge would affirm the district court's decision, disagreeing with the majority's grant of relief.
• Rodger Wyley v. Warden, Maryland Penitentiary
  372 F.2d 742· 4th Cir.· 1967-01-10 ·cited 8×
  The court held that Maryland's constitutional provision allowing juries to be judges of law as well as fact, despite its perceived unwisdom, does not violate the federal constitution's due process or equal protection clauses.
• Cade v. Balkcom
  361 F.2d 212· 5th Cir.· 1966-05-17 ·cited 8×
  Federal habeas corpus relief is not available for claims that do not violate fundamental liberties or for ineffective assistance of counsel unless egregious misconduct is proven, and state remedies must be exhausted.
• Henderson v. Heinze
  349 F.2d 67· 9th Cir.· 1965-07-14 ·cited 8×
  The court held that a petitioner claiming a Fourth Amendment violation in a federal habeas proceeding waives the attorney-client privilege regarding communications about the deliberate by-passing of state remedies.
• Bailey v. Henslee
  264 F.2d 744· 8th Cir.· 1959-04-03 ·cited 8×·via Federal Habeas Corpus Jurisdiction
  The court held that the appellant waived his constitutional right to compulsory process by failing to raise the issue on direct appeal and that habeas corpus cannot serve as a substitute for an appeal.
• Arsenault v. Gavin
  248 F.2d 777· 1st Cir.· 1957-10-30 ·cited 8×
  The court held that federal habeas corpus relief is unavailable because the petitioner failed to exhaust state remedies by not presenting his federal constitutional claims to the state courts.
• Morris v. Sec'y, Fla. Dep't of Corr.
  991 F.3d 1351· 11th Cir.· 2021-03-25 ·cited 7×
  The Eleventh Circuit held that the petitioner's amended state post-conviction motion related back to his initial filing, tolling the AEDPA statute of limitations. Therefore, his federal habeas petition was timely.
• Bishop v. Ira D. Kelso
  914 F.2d 1468· 11th Cir.· 1990-10-15 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the evidence, though minimal, was sufficient to support a finding of proximate cause for the victim's death beyond a reasonable doubt under the Jackson standard for federal habeas review.
• Feldman v. Perrill
  902 F.2d 1445· 9th Cir.· 1990-05-11 ·cited 7×
  A prisoner is 'in custody' under an expired conviction only if the conviction is currently being used to enhance a subsequent sentence, not merely if it had collateral consequences. A motion to vacate a sentence based on reliance on an invalid conviction requires proof of relianc
• Hall v. Wainwright
  565 F. Supp. 1222· M.D. Fla.· 1983-05-18 ·cited 7×
  The court held that certain claims were procedurally defaulted and precluded from federal habeas review absent a showing of cause and prejudice, which the petitioner failed to demonstrate. Other claims were either exhausted or could be considered on their merits.
• Arnold v. Louie L. Wainwright
  516 F.2d 964· 5th Cir.· 1975-08-04 ·cited 7×
  Failure to timely challenge jury composition under state procedural rules constitutes a waiver of the right to federal habeas corpus relief, absent a showing of cause for the failure or actual prejudice.
• Holstein v. State
  205 So. 2d 6· Fla. 1st DCA· 1967-12-19 ·cited 7×
  Gary Holstein, a prisoner serving multiple consecutive sentences imposed by different courts, sought to collaterally attack a sentence not yet being served under Criminal Procedure Rule I. The Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed that Rule I requires a petitioner to be in cu
• Jefferson v. Upton
  11th Cir.· 2010-05-24 ·cited 6×
  The Court of Appeals did not err in its application of 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) and the issue decided by the Supreme Court was not raised by the parties below.
• Derden v. Sheriff Sammie McNEEL & Attorney Gen. - State of Miss.
  978 F.2d 1453· 5th Cir.· 1992-12-16 ·cited 6×
• Markham Duff-Smith v. Collins
  973 F.2d 1175· 5th Cir.· 1992-09-17 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a federal habeas petitioner is not entitled to relief based on claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, procedural default, insufficient evidence, or improper use of evidence, as these claims were either procedurally barred, lacked merit, or were based on
• Selvage v. Collins
  972 F.2d 101· 5th Cir.· 1992-08-27 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the petitioner's Penry claims did not implicate actual innocence of the death sentence and were therefore foreclosed by precedent, requiring affirmance of the district court's dismissal.
• Roberts v. Singletary
  794 F. Supp. 1106· S.D. Fla.· 1992-06-05 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the exclusion of evidence regarding the victim's prior sexual history was not a constitutional violation because the defense theory was not presented at trial and the defendant denied making the statement at issue. The court also found no ineffective assistanc
• White v. Collins
  959 F.2d 1319· 5th Cir.· 1992-04-21 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the petitioner failed to make a substantial showing of a denial of a federal right or a likelihood of success on the merits, thus denying his motions for a certificate of probable cause and a stay of execution.
• Ellis v. Collins
  956 F.2d 76· 5th Cir.· 1992-03-03 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a petitioner seeking federal habeas relief based on newly discovered evidence of actual innocence must demonstrate that a constitutional violation prevented them from presenting this evidence earlier, and that claims not raised in the first federal habeas peti
• Tart v. Commonwealth OF Mass.
  949 F.2d 490· 1st Cir.· 1991-11-15 ·cited 6×
  The court affirmed the district court's rejection of Tart's collateral challenges, finding his Fourth Amendment claim and preemption claim meritless, and his jury instruction claim procedurally barred.
• Jennison v. B.D. Goldsmith
  940 F.2d 1308· 9th Cir.· 1991-08-08 ·cited 6×
  A petitioner must exhaust all available state remedies, including discretionary review by the state supreme court, before seeking federal habeas corpus relief, even if the state supreme court has declared such review unnecessary for exhaustion purposes.
• Britz v. Thieret
  940 F.2d 226· 7th Cir.· 1991-08-06 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a state trial court's failure to conduct individual voir dire to determine if prospective jurors were aware of the defendant's prior conviction does not violate the Sixth Amendment, as the Constitution does not mandate a presumption of prejudice in such cases
• Brewer v. Aiken
  935 F.2d 850· 7th Cir.· 1991-06-14 ·cited 6×·via Federal Habeas Corpus Jurisdiction
  The court held that there is a reasonable probability that the jury would have recommended against the death penalty had they known of Brewer's limited intellect and passive personality.
• Buxton v. Collins
  925 F.2d 816· 5th Cir.· 1991-02-25 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the petitioner's claims were procedurally barred due to failure to object at trial, and that he failed to demonstrate cause and prejudice for the default. The court denied the application for a certificate of probable cause and a stay of execution.
• Webb v. Lane
  922 F.2d 390· 7th Cir.· 1991-01-08 ·cited 6×
  The admission of the victim's statements, identified as 'Little Gage,' did not violate the Confrontation Clause because they qualified as excited utterances and a dying declaration, which are firmly rooted hearsay exceptions.
• Turner v. Armontrout
  922 F.2d 492· 8th Cir.· 1991-01-07 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a motion for a certificate of probable cause, filed by a pro se petitioner within the time limits, can serve as the functional equivalent of a notice of appeal, thus conferring jurisdiction.
• Jewell v. Cnty. OF Nassau
  917 F.2d 738· 2d Cir.· 1990-10-30 ·cited 6×·via Federal Habeas Corpus Relief
  A dismissal without prejudice to allow exhaustion of state remedies would time-bar a § 1983 claim if the statute of limitations has run, and a judicial stay, not dismissal, is the proper mechanism to avoid the limitations bar.
• Clark v. Commonwealth OF Pa.
  892 F.2d 1142· 3d Cir.· 1989-12-27 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the 1974 convictions, obtained without a required juvenile certification hearing, were constitutionally infirm and should not have been considered in sentencing for the 1979 conviction.
• Harrison v. Dahm
  880 F.2d 999· 8th Cir.· 1989-07-27 ·cited 6×·via Federal Habeas Corpus Jurisdiction
  The court held that the exclusion of defense witness testimony and the refusal to give jury instructions on the "excited utterance" exception and lack of motive did not constitute constitutional error warranting federal habeas corpus relief.
• Lewis v. Borg
  879 F.2d 697· 9th Cir.· 1989-07-14 ·cited 6×
  A federal habeas claim is not barred by procedural default if the state court adjudicates the claim on the merits, even with a summary denial.
• Myron Mann v. Hendrian
  871 F.2d 51· 7th Cir.· 1989-03-02 ·cited 6×
  A plaintiff lacks standing to sue a judge for injunctive relief regarding alleged constitutional violations in a past contempt proceeding if the likelihood of facing the same judge in a future, similar proceeding is speculative.
• Alford v. Rolfs
  867 F.2d 1216· 9th Cir.· 1989-02-09 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the petitioner's claims regarding the habitual criminal finding, right to counsel, and Eighth Amendment challenge to his life sentence lacked merit.
• Scott v. Dugger
  686 F. Supp. 1488· S.D. Fla.· 1988-05-26 ·cited 6×
  The court denied the petition for writ of habeas corpus, finding no basis for federal relief and lifting the stay of execution.