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

• Talavera v. Louie L. Wainwright
  547 F.2d 1238· 5th Cir.· 1977-03-02 ·cited 3×
  The court held that a Fourth Amendment claim on federal habeas corpus requires remand if the record is unclear as to whether the state provided a full and fair opportunity to litigate the claim.
• McBRIDE v. Estelle
  507 F.2d 903· 5th Cir.· 1975-02-07 ·cited 3×
  The court held that while McBride's pro se brief satisfied the jurisdictional requirements for federal habeas corpus review, the district court's dismissal is affirmed on grounds of comity.
• James v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr.
  130 F.4th 1291· 11th Cir.· 2025-03-13 ·cited 2×
  The court denied the motion to stay execution, finding no substantial likelihood of success on the merits for the petitioner's claims regarding the denial of his Rule 60(b) motion and his post-judgment motion to amend.
• Ferguson v. Comm'r, Ala. Dep't of Corr.
  69 F.4th 1243· 11th Cir.· 2023-06-07 ·cited 2×
  Thomas Dale Ferguson, an Alabama death row inmate, challenged his death sentence by arguing that he was intellectually disabled under *Atkins v. Virginia* and that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance in violation of the Sixth Amendment. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed
• COX v. State
  5 So. 3d 659· Fla.· 2009-03-12 ·cited 2×
  Allen Ward Cox, a death row inmate, appealed the circuit court's denial of his successive motion for postconviction relief challenging Florida's lethal injection protocol and related statutes. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the denial, rejecting Cox's constitutional challenge
• Schwab v. McDonough
  521 F. Supp. 2d 1338· M.D. Fla.· 2007-11-14 ·cited 2×
  The court granted the motion to stay execution, pending the Supreme Court's decision in Baze v. Rees, due to the significant possibility of success on the merits of the lethal injection challenge.
• Blair v. Delo
  999 F.2d 1219· 8th Cir.· 1993-07-20 ·cited 2×
  The court granted a temporary stay of execution because the petitioner's claim, though questionable, was not "frivolous and entirely without merit" given the differing opinions in a relevant Supreme Court case.
• Hoversten v. State OF Iowa
  998 F.2d 614· 8th Cir.· 1993-07-13 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the use of a one-way mirror to shield a child witness from the defendant violated the defendant's Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause rights because no case-specific finding of necessity was made, and this error was not harmless.
• United States v. Foster
  985 F.2d 466· 9th Cir.· 1993-02-03 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a prosecutor's questioning of a defendant about her post-arrest silence, despite a timely objection and the court's instruction to answer, violated the Fifth Amendment and was not harmless error, requiring reversal of her conviction.
• Hawkins v. Collins
  980 F.2d 975· 5th Cir.· 1992-12-23 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the petitioner's claims are barred by the abuse of the writ doctrine because they were not raised in his prior federal habeas petitions and no sufficient legal cause was shown for the failure to do so.
• Manlove v. Tansy
  981 F.2d 473· 10th Cir.· 1992-12-16 ·cited 2×
  The court should not grant a writ of habeas corpus based on a defense strategy not presented to the trial court.
• Maynard v. A.L. Lockhart
  981 F.2d 981· 8th Cir.· 1992-12-14 ·cited 2×·via Federal Habeas Corpus Relief
  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.
• Jeffries v. Blodgett
  974 F.2d 1179· 9th Cir.· 1992-09-09 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying the habeas corpus petition, affirming the denial of relief.
• 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.
• Emile Pierre Duhamel v. Collins
  955 F.2d 962· 5th Cir.· 1992-03-02 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court erred in finding ineffective assistance of counsel and in commuting the death sentence, as the petitioner failed to prove prejudice from alleged attorney errors and the court lacked authority to commute the sentence.
• Gross v. Heikien
  957 F.2d 531· 8th Cir.· 1992-02-20 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a state court's decision on constitutional claims has collateral estoppel effect in a subsequent federal § 1983 action, even if the state proceedings were required by comity considerations for federal habeas corpus.
• Bennett v. Armontrout
  949 F.2d 1017· 8th Cir.· 1991-11-26 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the appellant's federal habeas claims are procedurally barred because he failed to demonstrate cause and prejudice for his default in state court.
• Couch v. Jabe
  951 F.2d 94· 6th Cir.· 1991-11-01 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the case should be remanded to determine if the presumption of procedural default under Ylst v. Nunnemaker is rebutted, and to allow consolidation of all claims.
• Junior Brown v. Collins
  937 F.2d 175· 5th Cir.· 1991-08-02 ·cited 2×
  A technical violation of state law requiring evidence to conform to the jury charge's specific theory of culpability does not rise to the level of a constitutional violation cognizable in federal habeas corpus, especially when the evidence is sufficient to prove the substantive e
• James v. Whitley
  926 F.2d 1433· 5th Cir.· 1991-03-12 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the state did not violate the petitioner's constitutional rights by withholding exculpatory evidence, as the evidence was either disclosed or not material, and the jury instructions regarding sentencing were not unconstitutional.
• Simpson v. Camper
  927 F.2d 392· 8th Cir.· 1991-03-04 ·cited 2×·via Federal Habeas Corpus Jurisdiction
  The court held that the appeal would be held in abeyance pending a determination by the Missouri Court of Appeals on whether a state remedy is available to the petitioner.
• Bedford v. Attorney Gen. OF the State OF Ala. & Charlie E. Jones
  924 F.2d 203· 11th Cir.· 1991-02-19 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the defendant's claim was not procedurally barred because the state court's dismissal was not a clear and express statement of reliance on a procedural default, and the state failed to show particularized prejudice from the delay.
• Lahay v. Armontrout
  923 F.2d 578· 8th Cir.· 1991-01-09 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the habeas petition without an evidentiary hearing, as circumstances cast doubt on the reliability of state court findings.
• Gutierrez v. Moriarty
  922 F.2d 1464· 10th Cir.· 1991-01-07 ·cited 2×
  The majority's conclusion that the New Mexico procedural bar rule is not adequate for speedy trial claims is incorrect because it misinterprets state case law and presumes state courts are not faithful to their rules.
• R.B. Smith v. A.L. Lockhart
  921 F.2d 154· 8th Cir.· 1990-12-07 ·cited 2×
  The court affirmed the dismissal of the habeas corpus petition, finding the guilty plea was voluntary and counsel was not ineffective.
• Manning v. Alexander
  912 F.2d 878· 6th Cir.· 1990-08-31 ·cited 2×
  The Sixth Circuit held that Manning adequately presented his ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claim to the Supreme Court of Ohio, thus exhausting his state remedies.
• Hamblen v. Dugger
  748 F. Supp. 1497· M.D. Fla.· 1990-07-16 ·cited 2×
  The court held that it never had jurisdiction over the original habeas petition because the 'next friend' did not establish standing, rendering a Rule 60(b) motion unnecessary and unavailable.
• Hafley v. Sowders
  902 F.2d 480· 6th Cir.· 1990-05-15 ·cited 2×
  The court held that one claim was exhausted and meritorious, while the remaining six ineffective assistance of counsel claims were unexhausted. The court affirmed dismissal of unexhausted claims and dismissal of the exhausted claim on its merits.
• Epps v. State of Iowa
  901 F.2d 1481· 8th Cir.· 1990-05-02 ·cited 2×
  The court affirmed the denial of the habeas petition, finding no constitutional violation regarding the change of venue and no ineffective assistance of counsel.
• Radislaw Blazic v. Henderson
  900 F.2d 534· 2d Cir.· 1990-04-02 ·cited 2×
  The court held that while New York law likely warranted a justification charge based on the evidence of an accidental shooting during a struggle, the omission of such a charge did not violate due process because it would not have affected the jury's verdict.
• Whittlesey v. Cir. Court FOR Baltimore Cnty.
  897 F.2d 143· 4th Cir.· 1990-02-28 ·cited 2×
  A federal habeas corpus petitioner who escapes from state prison and commits crimes in another state, thereby preventing the state courts from having a full and fair opportunity to consider his claims, has not exhausted state remedies.
• Satterwhite v. Lynaugh
  886 F.2d 90· 5th Cir.· 1989-09-11 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the appellant had not exhausted his state remedies because his claims were not fairly presented to the state courts.
• Mayo v. Lynaugh
  883 F.2d 358· 5th Cir.· 1989-09-01 ·cited 2×
  The court denied the petition for rehearing, finding the record insufficient to support a claim based on Penry v. Lynaugh, despite the Supreme Court's decision potentially impacting prior circuit precedent.
• Earnest Smith v. A.L. Lockhart
  882 F.2d 331· 8th Cir.· 1989-08-16 ·cited 2×
  The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the habeas petition, finding that grounds for relief were either procedurally barred due to failure to demonstrate cause and prejudice, or without merit.
• Hemon v. Off. OF Pub. Guardian
  878 F.2d 13· 1st Cir.· 1989-06-22 ·cited 2×·via Federal Habeas Corpus Jurisdiction
  Federal habeas corpus jurisdiction does not extend to state court guardianship disputes, as these matters fall under the traditional purview of state domestic relations law and implicate federalism and finality concerns.
• Parron v. Quick
  869 F.2d 87· 2d Cir.· 1989-02-21 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the petitioner's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel was not exhausted because the state appellate division likely affirmed on procedural grounds, not the merits of the underlying speedy trial claim.
• Henderson v. A.L. Lockhart
  864 F.2d 1447· 8th Cir.· 1989-01-10 ·cited 2×·via Federal Habeas Corpus Relief
  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.
• Bova v. Dugger
  858 F.2d 1539· 11th Cir.· 1988-11-01 ·cited 2×
  Denying a criminal defendant the right to consult with counsel during a court recess violates the Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel.
• Pacheco v. Dugger
  850 F.2d 1493· 11th Cir.· 1988-08-02 ·cited 2×
  The court affirmed the denial of the petition, finding no merit in the claims of improper sentencing guidelines, ex post facto violation, or ineffective assistance of appellate counsel.
• Bryant v. State OF Md.
  848 F.2d 492· 4th Cir.· 1988-06-08 ·cited 2×
  The court held that claims of error in state post-conviction proceedings cannot serve as a basis for federal habeas corpus relief, and a parole statute not creating a legitimate expectation of release does not implicate due process.
• Jeffers v. Sargent
  842 F.2d 1008· 8th Cir.· 1988-03-22 ·cited 2×·via Federal Habeas Corpus Relief
  The court held that the petitioner has an available unexhausted state court remedy, and therefore, his federal habeas petition must be denied.
• Buford v. Dugger
  841 F.2d 1057· 11th Cir.· 1988-03-18 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the petitioner's claim regarding jury instructions was procedurally barred because it was not raised on direct appeal, and even if considered on the merits, it would fail.
• Major Melvin Johnson v. R.M. Muncy
  830 F.2d 508· 4th Cir.· 1987-09-22 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the Virginia Supreme Court's shift in procedural rules regarding habeas corpus review, as established in Slayton v. Parrigan, does not bar the petitioner from seeking federal habeas corpus relief in this case. However, the case is remanded for a harmless error
• Dremann v. Francis
  828 F.2d 6· 9th Cir.· 1987-09-18 ·cited 2×
  A state court sentence originally requiring only a fine, even if the individual refuses to pay and faces potential incarceration, does not meet the 'in custody' requirement for federal habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
• Breeze v. Trickey
  824 F.2d 653· 8th Cir.· 1987-07-27 ·cited 2×
  The court held that challenging an Indiana sentence in Missouri courts does not satisfy the exhaustion of state remedies requirement for federal habeas corpus petitions.
• Evans v. Cabana
  821 F.2d 1065· 5th Cir.· 1987-07-06 ·cited 2×
  The court denied the application for a certificate of probable cause and a stay of execution, finding no substantial showing of the denial of a federal right.
• Cikora v. Wainwright
  661 F. Supp. 813· S.D. Fla.· 1987-04-07 ·cited 2×
  The Court held that the photographic lineup was not impermissibly suggestive and the identification was reliable under the totality of the circumstances, thus denying the petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
• Algar Ferguson v. Judge James A. Knight
  809 F.2d 1239· 6th Cir.· 1987-01-27 ·cited 2×
  The court should not affirm the judgment because the majority improperly considered a prior conviction as evidence of guilt, which was not presented to or relied upon by state courts.
• Woolls v. O.L. McCOTTER
  798 F.2d 695· 5th Cir.· 1986-08-14 ·cited 2×
  The court denied the appellant's motion for a certificate of probable cause, finding no substantial showing of the denial of a federal right, and dismissed the appeal.