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

• Cooper v. Sowders
  837 F.2d 284· 6th Cir.· 1988-01-21 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the cumulative effect of trial errors, including improper expert testimony, bolstering of an informant's credibility, and judicial comments, rendered the petitioner's trial fundamentally unfair and a violation of due process.
• Wells v. Murray
  831 F.2d 468· 4th Cir.· 1987-10-13 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a "reasonable likelihood" of prejudice, not a "strong possibility," is the standard for determining if a defendant is entitled to voir dire when events outside the trial may have biased the jury.
• McCORQUODALE v. Kemp
  832 F.2d 543· 11th Cir.· 1987-09-08 ·cited 6×
  The district court did not err in dismissing the jury instruction claim as an abuse of the writ, and therefore the judgment denying relief is affirmed.
• Ezra Davis, Jr. v. Butler
  825 F.2d 892· 5th Cir.· 1987-08-27 ·cited 6×
  A guilty plea may be involuntary if based on a broken promise of a pardon by counsel, and specific allegations of such a promise warrant an evidentiary hearing. However, claims that the plea was involuntary due to lack of understanding of the charges are refuted by the record.
• Sterling Rault, Sr. v. Butler
  826 F.2d 299· 5th Cir.· 1987-08-19 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the petitioner failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a federal right, and therefore denied his application for a certificate of probable cause and stay of execution.
• Andrade v. O.L. McCOTTER
  805 F.2d 1190· 5th Cir.· 1986-12-01 ·cited 6×·via Federal Habeas Corpus Relief
  The court held that the prisoner failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a federal right, thus denying his request for a certificate of probable cause and a stay of execution.
• Wilkerson v. Wyrick
  806 F.2d 161· 8th Cir.· 1986-11-24 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the defendant had sufficient notice that he could be convicted of second-degree murder, even though he was charged with first-degree murder, due to Missouri's statutory scheme and case law.
• Liles v. Reagan
  804 F.2d 493· 8th Cir.· 1986-11-04 ·cited 6×
  A state court judge is entitled to absolute immunity from civil damages actions for judicial acts performed within their jurisdiction, even if those acts are later found to be erroneous or in excess of jurisdiction.
• Elliott Rod Johnson v. O.L. McCOTTER
  794 F.2d 1011· 5th Cir.· 1986-07-18 ·cited 6×
  The court granted a certificate of probable cause and a stay of execution, finding that a jury instruction issue presented a debatable question among jurists of reason.
• Rodriguez v. Scully
  788 F.2d 62· 2d Cir.· 1986-04-09 ·cited 6×
  The court affirmed the denial of the habeas corpus petition, but held that the district court should not have reached the merits due to procedural default.
• Rose v. Duckworth
  769 F.2d 402· 7th Cir.· 1985-07-29 ·cited 6×·via Federal Habeas Corpus Relief
  The court held that the prosecutor's elicitation of improper testimony, even if careless or reckless, did not impermissibly influence the jury's determination of guilt, and thus federal habeas corpus relief was not warranted.
• Doyle J. Williams v. Wyrick
  763 F.2d 363· 8th Cir.· 1985-06-06 ·cited 6×
  The court held that motions to recall the mandate are not an adequate or appropriate means of exhausting state remedies for all claims in a federal habeas petition.
• Songer v. Louie L. Wainwright
  756 F.2d 800· 11th Cir.· 1985-02-05 ·cited 6×
  A stay of execution is granted pending further court orders.
• Ruiz v. A.L. Lockhart
  754 F.2d 254· 8th Cir.· 1985-01-31 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the appellants' argument regarding a death-qualified jury was preserved on the merits by the Arkansas Supreme Court, thus bypassing the need to show cause and prejudice for federal habeas review.
• Peek v. Kemp
  746 F.2d 672· 11th Cir.· 1984-10-26 ·cited 6×
• Hosea Lorenzo Williams v. Melton
  733 F.2d 1492· 11th Cir.· 1984-06-07 ·cited 6×·via Federal Habeas Corpus Relief
  The admission of hearsay statements identifying the driver of a car, lacking adequate indicia of reliability, violated the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation and was not harmless error.
• Gregory v. Wyrick
  730 F.2d 542· 8th Cir.· 1984-03-26 ·cited 6×
• Rodriguez v. McKASKLE
  724 F.2d 463· 5th Cir.· 1984-02-06 ·cited 6×
  A federal court must dismiss a habeas corpus petition if the petitioner has not exhausted all available state remedies, even if an evidentiary hearing has been held in federal court and the merits of the petition have been briefed.
• Oliver v. Zimmerman
  720 F.2d 766· 3d Cir.· 1983-11-03 ·cited 6×·via Federal Habeas Corpus Relief
  The court concurred in the judgment, finding that even if a constitutional violation occurred, the overwhelming evidence of guilt rendered it non-prejudicial.
• Williams v. King
  719 F.2d 730· 5th Cir.· 1983-10-23 ·cited 6×
  The court granted a certificate of probable cause and a stay of execution pending further review, but affirmed the district court's denial of habeas corpus relief on all claims.
• Browne v. W.J. Estelle, Jr.
  712 F.2d 1003· 5th Cir.· 1983-08-26 ·cited 6×
  The court held that improperly sentencing a defendant under a mandatory statute, thereby depriving him of the discretion afforded by state law, violates due process and is cognizable in federal habeas corpus.
• Williams v. Louie L. Wainwright
  712 F.2d 1375· 11th Cir.· 1983-08-22 ·cited 6×
  A state court's refusal to allow a defendant to present an insanity defense, due to a lack of substantial evidence, does not violate the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments, even if defense counsel concedes the defendant cannot meet the legal standard.
• Prado McGEE, Jr. v. W.J. Estelle, Jr.
  704 F.2d 764· 5th Cir.· 1983-05-09 ·cited 6×
• Hammer v. Meachum
  691 F.2d 958· 10th Cir.· 1982-10-27 ·cited 6×
  A state prisoner's knowing and informed bypass of state procedures, including failure to appeal, precludes federal habeas corpus relief.
• Logan v. Marshall
  680 F.2d 1121· 6th Cir.· 1982-06-18 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the state trial court's evidentiary ruling excluding evidence of the victim's gonorrhea did not violate the defendant's constitutional rights and was not grounds for federal habeas corpus relief.
• Hubbard v. Jeffes
  653 F.2d 99· 3d Cir.· 1981-07-07 ·cited 6×
• Palmigiano v. Houle
  618 F.2d 877· 1st Cir.· 1980-04-08 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the petitioner was afforded a full and fair opportunity to litigate his Fourth Amendment claims in state court, despite a misallocation of the burden of proof, and thus federal habeas corpus relief was barred.
• Thompson v. White
  591 F.2d 441· 8th Cir.· 1979-01-23 ·cited 6×
  The court held that while the jury selection claim was properly dismissed for failure to exhaust state remedies, other claims should be remanded for further proceedings on the merits after state courts began addressing them.
• DiPAOLA v. Riddle
  581 F.2d 1111· 4th Cir.· 1978-08-21 ·cited 6×
  The Fourth Circuit held that the defendant had an opportunity to litigate his 'no knock' entry claim in state court, foreclosing federal habeas corpus review under Stone v. Powell.
• United States v. Maggard
  573 F.2d 926· 6th Cir.· 1978-04-17 ·cited 6×
  A federal court need not retry the constitutional validity of a prior state felony conviction in a prosecution for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, absent facial invalidity.
• Jordan v. Estelle
  551 F.2d 612· 5th Cir.· 1977-04-27 ·cited 6×
  The Supreme Court's decision in Stone v. Powell, which limits federal habeas review of Fourth Amendment claims when a state has provided a full and fair opportunity to litigate, applies retroactively and bars federal habeas relief in this case.
• Ball v. Wyrick
  547 F.2d 78· 8th Cir.· 1977-01-04 ·cited 6×
  The court held that alleged evidentiary errors and prosecutorial remarks did not rise to the level of constitutional violations or a denial of due process, and were therefore harmless.
• ROY v. Hall
  521 F.2d 120· 1st Cir.· 1975-08-11 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the state appellate court erred in applying the harmless error doctrine to the admission of the second statement, as it could not be deemed harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. However, the court also found that the second statement was not improperly admitted
• Haggard v. State OF Ala.
  494 F.2d 1187· 5th Cir.· 1974-06-03 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the appellant's pro se habeas corpus petitions were too unintelligible to decide on the merits, requiring remand for clarification and appointment of counsel.
• Favis Clay Martin v. Estelle
  492 F.2d 1120· 5th Cir.· 1974-04-19 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the denial of an appeal from a preliminary competency trial does not violate constitutional rights, as Texas law does not provide such an appeal and all similarly situated defendants are treated alike.
• United States ex rel. Lonnie Davis v. Johnson
  495 F.2d 335· 3d Cir.· 1974-03-20 ·cited 6×·via Federal Habeas Corpus Relief
  The court held that the defendant was not denied effective assistance of counsel when entering his guilty plea, and therefore the plea was voluntary.
• Thomas v. Estelle
  486 F.2d 224· 5th Cir.· 1973-10-25 ·cited 6×
  The court affirmed the denial of federal habeas relief to the state prisoner applicant.
• United States ex rel. John Smith v. Twomey
  486 F.2d 736· 7th Cir.· 1973-09-18 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the petitioner failed to allege a constitutional violation regarding delays in his state appellate process, and thus, federal intervention was not warranted.
• Conte v. Cardwell
  475 F.2d 698· 6th Cir.· 1972-06-29 ·cited 6×·via Federal Habeas Corpus Relief
  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.
• Eugene v. Ross
  451 F.2d 298· 5th Cir.· 1971-11-22 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court erred in denying habeas corpus relief without an evidentiary hearing, as the petitioner's allegations regarding misleading advice about his guilty plea were not conclusively refuted by the record.
• Schram v. Hoyt C. Cupp
  436 F.2d 692· 9th Cir.· 1970-11-25 ·cited 6×
  The dissenting judge believes the majority erred by not granting a hearing to assess the credibility of the petitioner's assertion of non-knowing waiver of counsel.
• Donlavey v. Smith
  432 F.2d 940· 5th Cir.· 1970-09-28 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the petitioner did not effectively present his claim of denial of counsel at the preliminary hearing to the state courts, and therefore has not exhausted his state remedies.
• Williams v. Nelson
  431 F.2d 932· 9th Cir.· 1970-08-18 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court correctly denied the petition for a writ of habeas corpus because the appellant failed to exhaust his state remedies.
• Hudson v. Crouse
  420 F.2d 416· 10th Cir.· 1970-01-21 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the petitioner has failed to exhaust his state court remedies, and therefore his federal habeas corpus motion must be dismissed as premature.
• Daniels v. Nelson
  415 F.2d 323· 9th Cir.· 1969-08-14 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a state prisoner's federal habeas corpus petition is premature while his direct appeal in the state court is still pending.
• Hill v. Beto
  412 F.2d 831· 5th Cir.· 1969-06-10 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the state trial court erred in allowing the prosecutor to cross-examine the petitioner regarding the truth or falsity of his confession when determining its admissibility.
• United States ex rel. Orville Waldron v. Pate
  380 F.2d 94· 7th Cir.· 1967-06-22 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court properly dismissed the habeas corpus petition for failure to exhaust state remedies, as the petitioner had not presented his newly asserted constitutional claims to the state courts.
• Rambo v. Peyton
  380 F.2d 363· 4th Cir.· 1967-06-21 ·cited 6×
  The court affirmed the dismissal of the federal habeas corpus petition, finding no merit in the petitioner's contentions.
• Wilson v. Blabon
  370 F.2d 997· 9th Cir.· 1967-01-06 ·cited 6×
  The dissenting judge would affirm the district court's decision, finding the appellee's confinement based on an invalid conviction to be unjust and lacking jurisdictional foundation.
• Thornton v. United States
  368 F.2d 822· D.C. Cir.· 1966-10-06 ·cited 6×
  28 U.S.C. § 2255 is available to federal prisoners to challenge the introduction of unlawfully obtained evidence, but claims previously litigated or deliberately bypassed on appeal may be dismissed.