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

• Asper v. W.J. Estelle, Jr.
  709 F.2d 356· 5th Cir.· 1983-07-11 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the state trial judge's refusal to credit the petitioner's testimony regarding his indigency was not constitutional error, and thus federal habeas relief was properly denied.
• Payne v. Janasz
  711 F.2d 1305· 6th Cir.· 1983-06-22 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the cumulative effect of trial errors, including the injection of an unnecessary 'lawful seizure' element and the admission of unreliable hearsay, rendered the trial fundamentally unfair and a denial of due process.
• Myers v. State OF Wash.
  702 F.2d 766· 9th Cir.· 1983-03-28 ·cited 4×·via Federal Habeas Corpus Relief
  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.
• Minor v. Lucas
  697 F.2d 697· 5th Cir.· 1983-02-07 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a federal habeas petitioner must present constitutional claims to state courts in a constitutional framework, not just state law grounds, to satisfy the exhaustion requirement.
• Grimsley v. Dodson
  696 F.2d 303· 4th Cir.· 1982-12-15 ·cited 4×
  The Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule does not apply to state probation revocation hearings when the state has provided an opportunity for full and fair litigation of the Fourth Amendment claim.
• Ramirez v. Jones
  683 F.2d 712· 2d Cir.· 1982-06-30 ·cited 4×
  A petitioner's failure to object at trial does not preclude federal habeas review if the state appellate court considered the merits, but the failure to object remains a factor in the federal court's analysis.
• Roynell Joshua v. Maggio
  674 F.2d 376· 5th Cir.· 1982-04-26 ·cited 4×·via Federal Habeas Corpus Relief
  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.
• Angel v. Overberg
  664 F.2d 1052· 6th Cir.· 1981-11-25 ·cited 4×
• Pfaff v. Wells
  648 F.2d 689· 10th Cir.· 1981-05-06 ·cited 4×
  The pendency of a federal habeas corpus proceeding in the demanding state does not justify granting relief in a federal habeas proceeding in the asylum state to bar extradition.
• Soap v. Carter
  632 F.2d 872· 10th Cir.· 1980-10-24 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a prosecutor's racially prejudicial remarks in closing argument, which appealed to stereotypes and created a probability of jury impairment, violated the petitioner's due process rights.
• Conquest v. Mitchell
  618 F.2d 1053· 4th Cir.· 1980-04-08 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the defendant's Fifth Amendment rights were not violated by the admission of testimony from a psychiatrist who examined him at the request of his own lawyer.
• United States v. Palumbo
  608 F.2d 529· 3d Cir.· 1979-10-31 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a federal prisoner cannot relitigate issues already fully and fairly adjudicated at trial and on direct appeal, absent specific exceptions like newly discovered evidence or incompetent counsel.
• Tippett v. Roberts
  587 F.2d 373· 8th Cir.· 1978-11-08 ·cited 4×
  The court affirmed the dismissal of the habeas corpus petition, finding that federal inquiry into the Fourth Amendment claim was limited by Stone v. Powell, as the issue was fully litigated in state courts.
• Piercy v. Parratt
  579 F.2d 470· 8th Cir.· 1978-06-28 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the federal district court should retain jurisdiction but stay its hand pending the outcome of the appellant's current state court action, with a provision for the federal court to proceed if the state courts do not rule within ninety days.
• Gaines v. Ricketts
  554 F.2d 1346· 5th Cir.· 1977-06-30 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a federal habeas corpus petitioner's claims of an involuntary guilty plea, ineffective assistance of counsel, and improper sentencing were without merit.
• Burrows v. Engle
  545 F.2d 552· 6th Cir.· 1976-12-01 ·cited 4×·via Federal Habeas Corpus Relief
  Technical defects in an indictment and claims arising before a guilty plea are generally not grounds for federal habeas corpus relief.
• Reese v. Ricketts
  534 F.2d 1180· 5th Cir.· 1976-07-12 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the petitioner deliberately bypassed the jury selection procedures, barring him from raising the issue in a habeas petition.
• McKINNEY v. Parsons
  513 F.2d 264· 5th Cir.· 1975-05-23 ·cited 4×·via Federal Habeas Corpus Jurisdiction
  The court held that the defendant's conviction for violating the Birmingham obscenity ordinance was constitutional, even though the ordinance was not authoritatively construed until after his conviction, because the ordinance as construed did not violate due process or First Amen
• Lipscomb v. Estelle
  507 F.2d 708· 5th Cir.· 1975-01-30 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the prosecutor's jury argument was not an unconstitutional comment on the defendant's failure to testify and that the overall trial was not fundamentally unfair.
• Collier v. Estelle
  506 F.2d 22· 5th Cir.· 1975-01-09 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court's finding that the petitioner knowingly and intelligently waived his right to appeal was not clearly erroneous and affirmed that finding.
• Hayward v. Stone
  496 F.2d 844· 9th Cir.· 1974-05-09 ·cited 4×
  The court held that an application to recall the remittitur, when used appropriately to raise a federal claim, can satisfy the exhaustion requirement for federal habeas corpus petitions.
• Turnbow v. Beto
  477 F.2d 1151· 5th Cir.· 1973-04-18 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the petitioner was adequately advised of his right to appellate counsel and that his claim regarding lack of counsel at sentencing was not exhausted in state courts.
• LEE v. Wash. Parish
  476 F.2d 285· 5th Cir.· 1973-04-09 ·cited 4×
  An appeal from the denial of a state prisoner's habeas petition cannot be taken without a certificate of probable cause.
• Elvin Emmett Moore v. Park J. Anderson
  474 F.2d 1118· 10th Cir.· 1973-03-16 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the written plea form and accompanying questions were sufficient to establish a voluntary and knowing plea, even without a full transcript of oral advisement.
• Terry v. Wingo
  454 F.2d 694· 6th Cir.· 1972-02-08 ·cited 4×
  Federal habeas corpus relief may be granted without requiring exhaustion of state remedies if circumstances render the state corrective process ineffective.
• Imhoff v. Sheriff Clarence Jones
  453 F.2d 894· 5th Cir.· 1972-01-14 ·cited 4×
  The order denying a petition for habeas corpus without prejudice to reapply after exhausting state remedies is affirmed.
• Weaver v. State OF Tex.
  453 F.2d 1226· 5th Cir.· 1972-01-05 ·cited 4×
  Federal habeas corpus is not available to challenge the validity of a state conviction after the sentence has been completely served unless the petitioner proves they are under some form of restraint by virtue of the conviction.
• Meacham v. Beto
  451 F.2d 187· 5th Cir.· 1971-11-11 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a federal habeas corpus petition may be dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust state remedies on all claims, even if some claims have been exhausted.
• Calhoun v. Smith
  447 F.2d 1356· 5th Cir.· 1971-09-09 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a state prisoner must exhaust available state remedies, including perfecting an appeal to the state supreme court, before seeking federal habeas corpus relief.
• United States ex rel. Joseph Randazzo v. Hon. Harold W. Follette
  444 F.2d 625· 2d Cir.· 1971-06-17 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the petitioner is not required to show prejudice to have his appeal reinstated and that the case must be remanded for a hearing on whether his appeal was improperly frustrated due to indigency or ineffective assistance of counsel.
• Albertson v. Johnson
  440 F.2d 1201· 6th Cir.· 1971-04-23 ·cited 4×
  A Michigan state prisoner must exhaust state court remedies, including a delayed appeal to the Michigan Supreme Court, before filing a federal habeas corpus action.
• Walker v. Smith
  439 F.2d 392· 5th Cir.· 1971-03-04 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court erred in denying federal habeas corpus relief without a hearing, as the record did not support a finding of deliberate bypass of state appellate remedies or an adequate state hearing.
• Perry v. Jones
  437 F.2d 758· 5th Cir.· 1971-01-05 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the petitioner has not exhausted state remedies, as the Texas appellate courts have not yet ruled on his allegations of error.
• Boone v. COX
  433 F.2d 343· 4th Cir.· 1970-10-20 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the search of the automobile was lawful, even though the affidavit for the search warrant was deficient, because probable cause existed independently of the warrant.
• Daegele v. Crouse
  429 F.2d 503· 10th Cir.· 1970-06-10 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the petitioner had not exhausted state remedies because he had a direct appeal pending in the Kansas Supreme Court regarding his resentencing.
• Taylor v. State OF Ariz.
  424 F.2d 271· 9th Cir.· 1970-03-31 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the habeas petition without a proper harmless error analysis and potentially without determining exhaustion of state remedies.
• Kalec v. Adamowski
  406 F.2d 536· 7th Cir.· 1969-01-10 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the complaint as a substitute for habeas corpus, but affirmed the dismissal because the complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
• Huffman v. Sigler
  352 F.2d 370· 8th Cir.· 1965-11-10 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the appeal presented no substantial question for review and was therefore dismissed.
• Lucious Boyd v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr.
  114 F.4th 1232· 11th Cir.· 2024-08-28 ·cited 3×
  A district court lacks jurisdiction to grant a motion to amend a federal habeas petition after a final judgment has been entered and an appeal is pending, as such a motion is properly characterized as a second or successive petition requiring prior authorization from the court of
• Bowen v. Sec'y, Fla. Dep't of Corr.
  92 F.4th 1328· 11th Cir.· 2024-02-15 ·cited 3×·via Federal Habeas Corpus Relief
  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
• Williams v. Dixon
  N.D. Fla.· 2024-02-12 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the case should be dismissed because the claims are barred by the statute of limitations and the plaintiff failed to fully disclose his litigation history.
• Ingram v. Warden, Holman Correctional Facility
  80 F.4th 1304· 11th Cir.· 2023-09-06 ·cited 3×
  The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the denial of federal habeas corpus relief, holding that the state court's determination that the petitioner failed to demonstrate prejudice from his attorneys' alleged ineffective assistance was not an unreasonable application of Supreme Court prece
• Wilfredo A. Zelaya v. Sec'y, Fla. Dep't OF Corr., Warden, Okeechobee Corr. Inst.
  798 F.3d 1360· 11th Cir.· 2015-08-24 ·cited 3×
  Wilfredo Zelaya, a Honduran citizen convicted of illegal reentry after deportation under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(2), filed a pro se habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his conviction on the ground that his deportation order was unlawful. The Eleventh Circuit affirm
• Thomas v. McDonough
  2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 68770· M.D. Fla.· 2006-09-25 ·cited 3×
  The court held that attorney negligence or miscalculation does not constitute extraordinary circumstances for equitable tolling of the one-year federal habeas limitations period, and petitioners are responsible for timely filing.
• Ramseur v. Beyer
  983 F.2d 1215· 3d Cir.· 1992-12-31 ·cited 3×
  The court did not definitively rule on whether a new indictment can cure a prior constitutionally defective indictment, leaving the question open for future cases.
• Campbell v. Blodgett
  997 F.2d 512· 9th Cir.· 1992-12-24 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the third federal habeas petition as successive and abusive, with the exception of the claim regarding appellate review, which was improperly characterized by the district court.
• Norton v. Parke
  892 F.2d 476· 6th Cir.· 1989-12-22 ·cited 3×·via Federal Habeas Corpus Relief
  A prisoner must formally invoke the Interstate Agreement on Detainers (IAD) to exhaust state remedies before seeking federal habeas corpus relief.
• Rappsodi R. ALI v. State
  777 F.2d 1489· 11th Cir.· 1985-12-11 ·cited 3×
  A federal habeas corpus petition must be dismissed if the petitioner has failed to exhaust available state remedies, and remand is futile if the state asserts exhaustion as a defense.
• Tijerina v. Estelle
  682 F.2d 504· 5th Cir.· 1982-08-13 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the record must clearly show service of the magistrate's report to bar appellate review for failure to object.
• Reuben Tackno v. Blackburn
  571 F.2d 1383· 5th Cir.· 1978-04-28 ·cited 3×
  Federal courts need not consider Fourth Amendment claims on habeas corpus if the state provided an opportunity for full and fair litigation of the claim.