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

• Baker v. McNeil
  711 F. Supp. 2d 1313· N.D. Fla.· 2010-03-31
  The court held that the exclusion of evidence regarding the complaining witness's prior false accusations of sexual misconduct violated the Confrontation Clause and was not harmless error.
• State of Del. v. Layton
  Del. Super. Ct.· 2009-04-28
  The court denied the defendant's fourth motion for postconviction relief and request for appointment of counsel. The court found that the defendant's claims of actual innocence and ineffective assistance of counsel were barred by procedural rules, as the proffered evidence was no
• Culpepper v. State
  971 So. 2d 259· Fla. 2d DCA· 2008-01-04
  The court held that the defendant's motion for post-conviction relief was untimely and that case law does not currently support his legal theory that a life sentence without parole for a juvenile offender constitutes cruel and unusual punishment.
• Johnson v. Moore
  493 F. Supp. 2d 1236· M.D. Fla.· 2007-03-30
  The court held that the motion to alter or amend the judgment should be denied, as the prior order correctly applied the harmless error standard and properly addressed the sufficiency of the evidence proffer.
• Johnson v. McDonough
  480 F. Supp. 2d 1309· S.D. Fla.· 2007-03-29
  The court held that the federal habeas corpus petition was untimely filed, as it was filed more than one year after the petitioner's conviction became final, and the tolling provisions did not apply.
• Johnson v. McDonough
  480 F. Supp. 2d 1314· S.D. Fla.· 2007-03-29
  The court held that the petitioner's federal habeas petition was untimely because it was filed more than one year after his conviction and sentence became final, and the tolling provisions did not apply.
• Thacker v. Singletary
  145 F. Supp. 2d 1332· S.D. Fla.· 2000-09-19
  The court held that the petitioner's federal habeas corpus claim was not procedurally defaulted because the state courts did not clearly and expressly state that their judgment rested on a state procedural bar for the specific motion filed.
• Turner v. Singletary
  46 F. Supp. 2d 1238· N.D. Fla.· 1999-01-26 ·via One-Year Statute Of Limitations For Federal Habeas Corpus Petitions
  The court held that a pro se prisoner's petition for writ of habeas corpus is not deemed filed until it is received by the clerk of court, and mailing it on the last day of the limitation period does not constitute timely filing. Furthermore, the court found that the petitioner h
• Macks v. Clinton
  733 F. Supp. 78· M.D. Fla.· 1993-11-13
• Kermit Smith, Jr. v. Dixon
  996 F.2d 667· 4th Cir.· 1993-07-23
• Overstreet v. Caspari
  998 F.2d 636· 8th Cir.· 1993-07-20
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the second habeas petition as an abuse of the writ because the petitioner failed to show cause and prejudice for raising new claims.
• Williams v. Whitley
  994 F.2d 226· 5th Cir.· 1993-07-20
• Bonin v. Vasquez
  999 F.2d 425· 9th Cir.· 1993-07-16
  The court held that there is no constitutional right to effective counsel in state post-conviction or federal habeas corpus proceedings, and therefore, the Public Defender's potential ineffectiveness does not constitute cause to excuse the late filing of claims.
• Quinn v. Neal
  998 F.2d 526· 7th Cir.· 1993-07-13
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in limiting cross-examination regarding abuse petitions and the defendant's ongoing relationship with the witness, as no sufficient nexus was shown to demonstrate bias or motive to lie.
• Wilson v. Lindler
  995 F.2d 1256· 4th Cir.· 1993-06-11
  The dissenting judge would reverse the district court's grant of the writ, finding no constitutional error regarding notice and that any error was invited or not prejudicial.
• Nethery v. Collins
  993 F.2d 1154· 5th Cir.· 1993-06-11 ·via Federal Habeas Corpus Relief
  The court held that the jury instructions prevented adequate consideration of mitigating evidence of voluntary intoxication, violating the Eighth Amendment.
• DOW v. Cir. Court OF the First Cir.
  995 F.2d 922· 9th Cir.· 1993-06-10
  Mandatory attendance at an alcohol rehabilitation program constitutes 'custody' for the purposes of federal habeas corpus review under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a).
• Sneed v. Donahue
  993 F.2d 1239· 6th Cir.· 1993-05-24 ·via Federal Habeas Corpus Jurisdiction
  Automatic revocation of parole under Kentucky law upon incarceration for a new crime does not violate the Due Process Clause when the statute mandates revocation and the parole authority has no discretion.
• Hull v. Freeman
  991 F.2d 86· 3d Cir.· 1993-04-19
  The court held that a federal court should dismiss a habeas petition without prejudice when a petitioner raises a colorable claim for waiver of procedural default under state law, allowing the petitioner to assert this claim in state court first.
• Claudio v. Scully
  982 F.2d 798· 2d Cir.· 1992-12-28 ·via Federal Habeas Corpus Jurisdiction
  The court held that the failure of appellate counsel to raise a meritorious state constitutional claim regarding ineffective assistance of counsel constitutes a violation of the Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel.
• GEE v. Shillinger
  979 F.2d 176· 10th Cir.· 1992-11-02
  The court held that the appellant's third federal habeas corpus petition was properly dismissed as a successive petition because he failed to demonstrate cause and prejudice or a fundamental miscarriage of justice.
• Smith v. Black
  970 F.2d 1383· 5th Cir.· 1992-08-20
  The court held that the Mississippi Supreme Court's procedural bars were not strictly or regularly followed, allowing federal habeas review of the 'especially heinous' aggravating circumstance claim. The death sentence was unconstitutional due to the improper use of this circumst
• Maula v. Freckleton
  972 F.2d 27· 2d Cir.· 1992-08-06
  The court held that the defendant's failure to object to the non-submission of certain charges to the jury constituted consent, thereby waiving any double jeopardy claim regarding reprosecution on those charges.
• Byrnes v. Vose
  969 F.2d 1306· 1st Cir.· 1992-07-17
  The court held that the petitioner failed to exhaust state remedies and the futility exception did not apply, affirming the dismissal of his federal habeas corpus petition.
• Frink v. The State OF Iowa
  968 F.2d 734· 8th Cir.· 1992-07-06
  The court held that a state prisoner's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel at trial, on appeal, and in post-conviction proceedings were without merit and did not warrant federal habeas corpus relief.
• Williamson v. Parke
  963 F.2d 863· 6th Cir.· 1992-05-07
  The court held that the district court's decision could be reversed using McNeil v. Wisconsin, as Teague v. Lane does not bar its application in this context, or alternatively, by applying existing Sixth Circuit precedent in Boles v. Foltz.
• Thomas v. Gunter
  962 F.2d 1477· 10th Cir.· 1992-04-28
  The court held that admitting videotaped depositions of child victims did not violate the appellant's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation, as the procedures met the standards set forth in Maryland v. Craig.
• Olan Randle Robison v. Maynard
  958 F.2d 1013· 10th Cir.· 1992-03-12
  The court affirmed the dismissal of the appellant's second and third federal habeas corpus petitions and the denial of his Rule 60(b) motion, finding he failed to meet the standards for successive or abusive claims.
• Worthen v. Kaiser
  952 F.2d 1266· 10th Cir.· 1992-01-03
  The court held that the petitioner abused the writ by failing to raise new claims in his first federal habeas petition without adequate cause.
• Wilson v. A.L. Lockhart
  949 F.2d 1051· 8th Cir.· 1991-11-27
  The court held that a prisoner challenging parole eligibility must pursue federal habeas corpus and exhaust state remedies, even if state law does not recognize habeas corpus for this purpose.
• Daniels v. Jones
  944 F.2d 429· 8th Cir.· 1991-09-11
  The court held that the appellant had procedurally defaulted on claims that could have been raised in state court and were not, and that no state remedies remained available to him.
• Jones v. Whitley
  938 F.2d 536· 5th Cir.· 1991-07-20
  The court held that the petitioner's second federal habeas corpus petition constituted an abuse of the writ because he failed to demonstrate cause and prejudice for not raising his claims in the first petition, and the claims did not present a fundamental miscarriage of justice.
• Burton v. Collins
  937 F.2d 131· 5th Cir.· 1991-07-18 ·via Federal Habeas Corpus Relief
  The court held that the defendant's request to represent himself was not clear and unequivocal, and therefore, the district court did not err in dismissing his habeas corpus petition.
• Lucio G. Rivera v. Collins
  934 F.2d 658· 5th Cir.· 1991-06-28
  The court held that the petitioner's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and violations of his rights of silence and counsel due to psychiatric examinations were without merit, and thus affirmed the denial of his habeas corpus petition.
• Bernard v. Garraghty
  934 F.2d 52· 4th Cir.· 1991-05-28 ·via Federal Habeas Corpus Jurisdiction
  A prisoner serving consecutive sentences is considered 'in custody' for purposes of federal habeas corpus challenge against any of those sentences, even if the sentence for the challenged conviction has technically expired.
• Johnson v. Lewis
  929 F.2d 460· 9th Cir.· 1991-03-22
  The court held that the petitioner was not procedurally barred from seeking collateral review of his federal constitutional claim under Arizona law because the record did not show he knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived the claim, and he had not previously litigated i
• Mills v. Collins
  924 F.2d 89· 5th Cir.· 1991-02-19
  The Sixth Amendment does not require a defendant's consent to proceed with an eleven-member jury in a state criminal trial when state law permits it due to juror disability.
• Ivey v. Myers
  919 F.2d 1074· 5th Cir.· 1990-12-28
  A petitioner satisfies the exhaustion requirement for federal habeas corpus if they have fairly presented their claims to the state's highest court, even if that presentation was via a petition for discretionary review after an intermediate appellate court ruled on the merits.
• Evans v. Muncy
  916 F.2d 163· 4th Cir.· 1990-10-16
  The court held that a federal court cannot grant habeas relief based on a 'new rule' that does not fall under Teague v. Lane exceptions, and that claims based on post-conviction conduct are matters for executive clemency, not federal habeas corpus.
• Wickham v. Denis Dowd
  914 F.2d 1111· 8th Cir.· 1990-09-24
  The court held that the district court announced a new constitutional rule and applied it retroactively, violating the Teague v. Lane precedent.
• Velasquez v. Leonardo
  898 F.2d 7· 2d Cir.· 1990-03-07
  Federal habeas review is precluded when a state court explicitly relies on a procedural default, even if it also rules on the merits.
• Birr v. Shillinger
  894 F.2d 1160· 10th Cir.· 1990-01-22
  The court held that a federal habeas court must defer to a state court's determination that the state legislature intended cumulative punishments, thus finding no double jeopardy violation.
• Allen v. B.J. Bunnell
  891 F.2d 736· 9th Cir.· 1989-12-11
  The court held that the rule established in Carter v. McCarthy, requiring defendants to be informed of mandatory parole terms as a direct consequence of a guilty plea, should not be applied retroactively to pleas entered before Carter was decided.
• Mader v. City of St. Petersburg
  291 F. App'x 57· M.D. Fla.· 1989-10-10
• Ellis v. Lynaugh
  883 F.2d 363· 5th Cir.· 1989-09-15 ·via Federal Habeas Corpus Relief
  The court held that a defendant's plea of 'true' to prior felony convictions for sentence enhancement purposes waives any prior complaints about those convictions, and that ineffective assistance of counsel claims must meet the Strickland standard.
• Compton v. Butler
  883 F.2d 27· 5th Cir.· 1989-09-12 ·via Federal Habeas Corpus Relief
  The court held that the appellant's claims regarding disproportionate sentencing and lack of judicial awareness of sentencing alternatives were without merit.
• Eutzy v. Tesar
  880 F.2d 1010· 8th Cir.· 1989-08-03
  The court held that the right to expunge state records is not a federal constitutional right and habeas corpus is the exclusive federal remedy for attacking state court convictions.
• Singleton v. Thigpen
  856 F.2d 126· 11th Cir.· 1988-09-12
  The court held that the denial of an evidentiary hearing was proper because the petitioner failed to establish cause and prejudice to overcome a procedural bar on his claim of diminished capacity to waive Miranda rights.
• Smith v. Armontrout
  825 F.2d 182· 8th Cir.· 1987-08-03
  The court denied the warden's motion to vacate the stay of execution, affirming the district court's decision to grant the stay pending federal habeas corpus review.
• Donahue v. Armontrout
  820 F.2d 971· 8th Cir.· 1987-06-15
  The court held that a state prisoner seeking federal habeas corpus relief was not denied due process when a plea bargain was not strictly adhered to, because the prisoner was aware of the deviation and remained silent.