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

• Cobb v. Louie L. Wainwright
  609 F.2d 754· 5th Cir.· 1980-01-09 ·cited 57×
  The court held that even if a prosecutor's argument was inflammatory, it does not automatically constitute a denial of due process required for federal habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
• Caver v. State OF Ala.
  577 F.2d 1188· 5th Cir.· 1978-08-08 ·cited 57×
  The majority incorrectly held that the petitioner had a full and fair opportunity to litigate his Fourth Amendment claim in state court, contrary to precedent.
• Mendiola v. Estelle
  635 F.2d 487· 5th Cir.· 1981-01-29 ·cited 56×
  The court held that the petitioner's claims regarding sentence enhancement, admissibility of prior convictions, and ineffective assistance of appellate counsel did not warrant federal habeas corpus relief.
• Carter v. Estelle
  677 F.2d 427· 5th Cir.· 1982-06-01 ·cited 55×
  The court held that the petitioner had met the requirements of the exhaustion doctrine and that his retrial and conviction for embezzlement violated the double jeopardy clause.
• Harrison Berrier v. Egeler
  583 F.2d 515· 6th Cir.· 1978-08-08 ·cited 54×
  The dissenting judge argued that even if jury instructions were erroneous under state law, federal habeas review was precluded by the petitioner's failure to object at trial, as required by Wainwright v. Sykes, absent a showing of cause and prejudice.
• Gates v. Henderson
  568 F.2d 830· 2d Cir.· 1977-01-12 ·cited 54×
• Brown v. United States
  483 F.2d 116· 4th Cir.· 1973-08-01 ·cited 54×
  The court held that a habeas petitioner is entitled to resentencing if a prior conviction obtained in violation of Gideon was considered by the sentencing judge, even if the prior conviction has not been invalidated in other collateral proceedings.
• Hudson v. Rushen
  686 F.2d 826· 9th Cir.· 1982-09-09 ·cited 53×
  The state trial court's inquiry into the defendant's motion to substitute counsel, though brief, was sufficient under the circumstances, and thus the defendant received effective assistance of counsel.
• Hitchcock v. State
  755 So. 2d 638· Fla.· 2000-03-23 ·cited 52×
  James Ernest Hitchcock appeals his death sentence imposed after a third remand for resentencing in a 1976 murder case. The Florida Supreme Court affirms the death sentence, rejecting all eighteen appellate claims as either procedurally barred or without merit.
• Bisaccia v. The Attorney Gen. of the State of N.J.
  623 F.2d 307· 3d Cir.· 1980-06-12 ·cited 52×
  The court held that using a co-conspirator's guilty plea as evidence of a defendant's guilt violates the Sixth Amendment right to confrontation.
• Mann v. State
  112 So. 3d 1158· Fla.· 2013-04-02 ·cited 50×
  Larry Eugene Mann, a death row inmate with an active execution warrant, appealed the denial of his Rule 3.851 postconviction motion and public records requests, and petitioned for habeas corpus relief. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court's denials on all grounds,
• Nelson v. Estelle
  642 F.2d 903· 5th Cir.· 1981-04-17 ·cited 50×
  The court held that a single error by counsel, even if resulting in a state law conviction reversal, does not render the entire trial fundamentally unfair or constitute ineffective assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment.
• Darrel McMORRIS v. Israel
  643 F.2d 458· 7th Cir.· 1981-03-09 ·cited 50×
  The court held that a prosecutor's unexplained refusal to stipulate to exculpatory polygraph evidence, which is otherwise admissible under state law, violates the defendant's due process rights.
• Cole v. Stevenson
  620 F.2d 1055· 4th Cir.· 1980-05-05 ·cited 50×
  A state prisoner is barred from federal habeas corpus relief if he failed to comply with valid state procedural requirements that independently preclude direct review of the merits.
• Moore v. DeYOUNG
  515 F.2d 437· 3d Cir.· 1975-04-08 ·cited 50×
  The federal court erred in granting a writ of habeas corpus and enjoining ongoing state criminal proceedings. The petitioner failed to exhaust his state court remedies on the merits of his speedy trial claim and did not demonstrate "extraordinary circumstances" that would justify
• Dodd v. United States
  365 F.3d 1273· 11th Cir.· 2004-04-16 ·cited 49×·via Federal Habeas Corpus Relief
  Michael Donald Dodd, a federal prisoner convicted of engaging in a continuing criminal enterprise (CCE) and other drug offenses, appealed the dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 petition challenging his conviction on Sixth Amendment and Due Process grounds based on Richardson v. Un
• Moreno v. W.J. Estelle, Jr.
  717 F.2d 171· 5th Cir.· 1983-10-14 ·cited 49×
  The court held that the petitioner's Sixth Amendment claims regarding self-representation and ineffective assistance of counsel, as well as his Eighth Amendment claim regarding sentence proportionality, lacked merit, and affirmed the denial of habeas corpus relief.
• Amos Lumpkin v. Ricketts
  551 F.2d 680· 5th Cir.· 1977-05-02 ·cited 49×
  A state prisoner who failed to timely challenge grand jury composition under state law must show both cause and prejudice for federal habeas review, and ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to advise of appeal rights does not constitute cause for failing to challenge the
• Garrison v. Maggio
  540 F.2d 1271· 5th Cir.· 1976-10-22 ·cited 49×
  The court held that the undisclosed police report, useful only for impeachment, did not meet the stricter materiality standard required for a new trial, and thus did not violate due process.
• United States v. Yeager
  476 F.2d 613· 3d Cir.· 1973-03-30 ·cited 49×
  The court held that a prosecutor's comment on a defendant's consultation with an attorney after a crime, which suggests guilt, constitutes a violation of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel, and such error is not harmless when the defendant's credibility is central to the case.
• Cochran v. Herring
  43 F.3d 1404· 11th Cir.· 1995-01-10 ·cited 48×
  The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of habeas relief, holding that the petitioner's Batson claim was not procedurally barred from federal review because Alabama courts have not consistently applied a procedural bar in similar cases. The court further held tha
• Alvon O'Neal Haley v. Estelle
  632 F.2d 1273· 5th Cir.· 1980-12-17 ·cited 48×
  The district court erred in dismissing the second habeas corpus petition under Rule 9(b) for abuse of the writ.
• Luna v. Beto
  395 F.2d 35· 5th Cir.· 1968-05-07 ·cited 48×
• Tafero v. Louie L. Wainwright
  796 F.2d 1314· 11th Cir.· 1986-07-28 ·cited 47×
  The court held that the Florida Supreme Court's finding on direct appeal satisfied the Enmund requirement, and that Tafero's other claims, including ineffective assistance of counsel and disparate sentencing, were without merit.
• Henry v. Louie L. Wainwright
  686 F.2d 311· 5th Cir.· 1982-09-20 ·cited 47×
  The court reinstated its prior judgment, holding that the state courts did not decide the constitutional claim on procedural grounds, thus federal habeas review of the merits is proper.
• Knight v. Fla. Dep't of Corr.
  936 F.3d 1322· 11th Cir.· 2019-08-30 ·cited 46×
  The Eleventh Circuit held that the Supreme Court's decision in Hurst v. Florida does not apply retroactively to cases that became final before Hurst was decided, and therefore Knight cannot obtain federal habeas relief on that basis. The court also found that the Florida Supreme
• Moran v. Estelle
  607 F.2d 1140· 5th Cir.· 1979-12-07 ·cited 46×
  The court held that a state court's adjudication of a constitutional claim on its merits, despite a procedural default, allows federal habeas review, and that a simple minute entry is insufficient to prove a knowing and intelligent waiver of counsel.
• Willeford v. Estelle
  538 F.2d 1194· 5th Cir.· 1976-09-20 ·cited 46×
  The court held that the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals' reformation of a sentence, even if erroneous under state law, is a matter of state law and not a federal constitutional issue cognizable on federal habeas corpus.
• Latham v. Crouse
  320 F.2d 120· 10th Cir.· 1963-07-10 ·cited 46×
  The court held that the petitioners' constitutional rights were not violated by the denial of counsel before the preliminary examination or by the admission of their confessions.
• United States ex rel. Joseph Marcial v. FAY
  247 F.2d 662· 2d Cir.· 1957-08-16 ·cited 46×·via Federal Habeas Corpus Jurisdiction
  Federal courts should not intervene in state criminal proceedings unless there's a clear showing of fundamental unfairness or injustice, even if the defendant lacked counsel.
• McKEEVER v. Israel
  689 F.2d 1315· 7th Cir.· 1982-09-29 ·cited 44×
  The dissenting judge disagrees with the majority's decision to reverse the dismissal and remand for appointment of counsel and reconsideration of other issues, arguing the majority erred in directing counsel appointment and in its approach to prisoner civil rights cases.
• Gonzales v. Stone
  546 F.2d 807· 9th Cir.· 1976-10-19 ·cited 44×
  A federal court must decline to decide any issues in a habeas corpus petition until all claims raised have been exhausted in state court, absent specific mitigating circumstances.
• In re Henry
  757 F.3d 1151· 11th Cir.· 2014-06-17 ·cited 43×·via Federal Habeas Corpus Jurisdiction
  John Ruthell Henry, a Florida death row inmate scheduled for execution, sought leave to file a second or successive federal habeas corpus petition based on the Supreme Court's recent decision in Hall v. Florida, which held that states cannot execute persons whose IQ test scores f
• Jones v. Butler
  864 F.2d 348· 5th Cir.· 1988-12-21 ·cited 43×
  A contemporaneous objection to the use of peremptory challenges to exclude jurors based on race is a necessary predicate for later raising a Batson claim, even in federal habeas corpus proceedings.
• United States ex rel. Johnnie L. Savory v. Lane
  832 F.2d 1011· 7th Cir.· 1987-10-30 ·cited 43×
  The court held that even though constitutional errors occurred during the trial, they were harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because the evidence of guilt was overwhelming.
• Klein v. Harris
  667 F.2d 274· 2d Cir.· 1981-12-15 ·cited 43×
  A state court's constitutional error at trial can warrant federal habeas relief, even considering principles of comity and finality.
• Dietz v. Warden
  640 F.2d 126· 8th Cir.· 1981-01-30 ·cited 43×
  A jury instruction creating a burden-shifting presumption of intent violates due process and requires federal habeas relief, even if not objected to at trial, provided the petitioner can show cause for the failure to object.
• Murphy v. Beto
  416 F.2d 98· 5th Cir.· 1969-09-26 ·cited 43×·via Federal Habeas Corpus Relief
  The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of habeas corpus relief, finding no federal constitutional grounds for the petitioner's claims.
• Mungin v. Sec'y, Fla. Dep't of Corr.
  89 F.4th 1308· 11th Cir.· 2024-01-08 ·cited 42×
  The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the denial of Mungin's habeas petition, holding that two ineffective assistance of counsel claims failed on the merits and two were barred by the statute of limitations.
• Johnson v. W.J. Estelle, Jr.
  704 F.2d 232· 5th Cir.· 1983-05-06 ·cited 42×·via Federal Habeas Corpus Relief
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel without an evidentiary hearing, as the allegations, if true, could establish a constitutional violation.
• Martin v. Commonwealth OF Va.
  349 F.2d 781· 4th Cir.· 1965-08-05 ·cited 42×
  A prisoner denied parole eligibility due to subsequent convictions is considered 'in custody' for federal habeas corpus purposes, allowing a collateral attack on those convictions.
• Davis v. Campbell
  608 F.2d 317· 8th Cir.· 1979-11-02 ·cited 41×
  The court held that claims not exhausted in state courts must be remanded for dismissal, while claims previously decided on direct appeal and found not to raise constitutional issues are affirmed.
• Hillery Preston v. Maggio
  705 F.2d 113· 5th Cir.· 1983-05-16 ·cited 40×
  The court held that the district court erred in denying habeas corpus relief without considering the merits, as the petitioner may be able to show cause and prejudice for his failure to raise a jury composition claim at trial.
• Pleas v. Wainwright
  441 F.2d 56· 5th Cir.· 1971-04-15 ·cited 40×
  The court held that evidentiary rulings, jury instructions, and sufficiency of evidence claims do not present constitutional issues cognizable on federal habeas corpus review.
• Whiddon v. Dugger
  894 F.2d 1266· 11th Cir.· 1990-02-20 ·cited 38×
  A petitioner's failure to file a state collateral relief petition within the time limit constitutes a procedural default, requiring a showing of cause and prejudice to consider federal habeas claims.
• Bennie E. Demps v. Dugger
  874 F.2d 1385· 11th Cir.· 1989-03-28 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the record was insufficient to determine if Hitchcock error was harmless, and thus, a remand for an evidentiary hearing was necessary.
• Wheat v. Thigpen
  793 F.2d 621· 5th Cir.· 1986-06-27 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the Mississippi Supreme Court's procedural bar was not adequate and independent, allowing federal review of the Eighth Amendment claim, and that the petitioner was competent to stand trial.
• United States v. Vernice Garrett
  565 F.2d 1065· 9th Cir.· 1977-11-08 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the district court correctly conducted an independent inquiry into the constitutional validity of a state search warrant, irrespective of prior state court rulings, and that the affidavit supporting the warrant met constitutional standards. The court also foun
• Newman v. Henderson
  496 F.2d 896· 5th Cir.· 1974-06-28 ·cited 38×
  Federal courts must apply state procedural waiver rules in habeas corpus proceedings unless the petitioner demonstrates actual prejudice from the alleged constitutional violation.
• Application of Larry Buffalo Chief v. State OF S.D. & Don R. Erickson
  425 F.2d 271· 8th Cir.· 1970-04-30 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the issue of whether a conflict of interest arose during trial, depriving the petitioner of effective counsel, had not been fully and fairly presented to the South Dakota courts and therefore remanded for further proceedings in the state court.