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

• Mann v. Dugger
  817 F.2d 1471· 11th Cir.· 1987-05-14
  The court held that the jury was not misled regarding its advisory role in sentencing and that certain claims regarding a prior conviction were procedurally barred.
• Gilmore v. Marks
  799 F.2d 51· 3d Cir.· 1986-08-22
  A state court's determination that a Fourth Amendment violation was harmless error is not reviewable on federal habeas corpus, as it is inseparable from the underlying Fourth Amendment claim and barred by Stone v. Powell.
• Grice v. Mattox
  797 F.2d 686· 8th Cir.· 1986-07-31 ·via Federal Habeas Corpus Jurisdiction
  The court held that it lacks federal habeas corpus jurisdiction because the petitioner has been released from custody and the district court has no jurisdiction over his current custodian.
• Antoine v. Twin Harvesters, Inc.
  517 F. Supp. 7· S.D. Fla.· 1986-07-23
• Davis v. Blackburn
  803 F.2d 807· 5th Cir.· 1986-06-06
  Federal habeas relief is barred for a Fourth Amendment claim if the state provided a full and fair opportunity to litigate it.
• Surace v. Wainwright
  1986 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25988· S.D. Fla.· 1986-05-01
  The court held that the petitioner's claims regarding jury instructions, confession voluntariness, prosecutorial misconduct, and double jeopardy did not rise to the level of constitutional error warranting habeas relief.
• Clark v. State OF Tex. & O.L. McCotter
  788 F.2d 309· 5th Cir.· 1986-04-30
  Federal habeas corpus relief is barred by procedural default when a state prisoner fails to raise issues on direct appeal as required by state law, absent a showing of cause and prejudice.
• Milton v. O.L. McCOTTER
  765 F.2d 434· 5th Cir.· 1985-06-24
  The court held that the petitioner's claims were either successive, constituted abuse of the writ, or lacked merit, and therefore denied his application for a stay of execution and habeas relief.
• Doyle Edward Skillern v. Procunier
  751 F.2d 744· 5th Cir.· 1985-01-14
  The court affirmed the denial of a stay of execution and injunctive relief, finding the petitioner failed to present a substantial case on the merits.
• Sockwell v. Blackburn
  748 F.2d 979· 5th Cir.· 1984-12-17
  The court held that the admission of the inculpatory statement was not a violation of the petitioner's right to counsel, and any potential error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
• Hallmark v. Cartwright
  742 F.2d 584· 10th Cir.· 1984-08-29 ·via Federal Habeas Corpus Relief
  The court held that a defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel does not extend to the presence of counsel at a post-lineup interview between witnesses and police. Therefore, denial of counsel at such an interview does not violate the Sixth Amendment.
• Dixon v. Alexander
  741 F.2d 121· 6th Cir.· 1984-08-21
  The court held that the district court properly dismissed the federal habeas corpus claim for failure to exhaust state remedies and the § 1983 claim as it was subsumed by the habeas claim.
• Valdez v. Winans
  738 F.2d 1087· 10th Cir.· 1984-06-26
  The court held that the exclusion of the confession testimony, based on the attorney-client privilege, did not violate the defendant's constitutional rights, nor did the attorney's actions constitute ineffective assistance of counsel.
• Crick v. Smith
  729 F.2d 1038· 6th Cir.· 1984-03-06
  The court held that the state proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the juvenile court judge would have waived jurisdiction even if apprised of the omission of 'best interest' findings, rendering the due process violation harmless error.
• Long v. Bd. OF Pardons & Paroles OF Tex.
  725 F.2d 306· 5th Cir.· 1984-02-21 ·via Federal Habeas Corpus Relief
  The court held that a voluntary dismissal under Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(a) completely terminates the prior litigation, and a dismissed action cannot be reactivated.
• Curby C. Rife v. W.D. Blankenship
  721 F.2d 983· 4th Cir.· 1983-11-23
  The court held that the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the bullet wound inflicted by the defendant caused the victim's death.
• Grubbs v. Hoyt C. Cupp
  693 F.2d 866· 9th Cir.· 1982-11-29
  The court held that a petitioner must exhaust state remedies by applying to the state's highest court, even if it seems futile, to satisfy federal habeas corpus requirements.
• Young v. Hubbard
  673 F.2d 132· 5th Cir.· 1982-04-16
  The court held that Mississippi Code Annotated section 99-35-115, which generally denies bail pending appeal for certain serious offenses like robbery, does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection or due process clauses.
• Lavell Flye v. Parratt
  650 F.2d 152· 8th Cir.· 1981-06-05
  The court affirmed the denial of the habeas corpus petition, finding no sufficient reason for the state court to doubt the petitioner's competency.
• MacLean v. Rouse
  1981 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10512· S.D. Fla.· 1981-01-30
  Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.691(a), which prohibits bail for convicted felons with prior felony convictions pending appeal, does not violate the Due Process or Eighth Amendments.
• Johnson v. Overberg
  639 F.2d 326· 6th Cir.· 1981-01-27
  The court held that a federal due process violation did not occur when a state granted a continuance ex parte, as long as the defendant was later given notice and an opportunity to object and seek dismissal.
• Barnett v. Alford
  635 F.2d 820· 10th Cir.· 1981-01-14 ·via Federal Habeas Corpus Relief
  The court held that the distinction between retained and appointed counsel for Sixth Amendment purposes is invalid, and prior precedent based on such a distinction is overruled.
• THE Florida BAR v. Tifford
  373 So. 2d 919· Fla.· 1979-07-27 ·via Federal Habeas Corpus Relief
  The Florida Bar sought to maintain the suspension of attorney Arthur W. Tifford based on a felony conviction. However, after federal courts granted Tifford habeas corpus relief and vacated his conviction as fundamentally unfair, the Florida Supreme Court terminated his suspension
• Faulk v. Mabry
  600 F.2d 172· 8th Cir.· 1979-06-15
  The dismissal of a direct appeal by the United States Supreme Court for want of a substantial federal question operates as an adjudication on the merits, precluding relitigation of the same issues in a federal habeas corpus proceeding.
• United States ex rel. John Sullivan v. Cuyler
  593 F.2d 512· 3d Cir.· 1979-02-14
  The dissenting judge argues that the panel erred in finding a Sixth Amendment violation based on dual representation without requiring a showing of actual prejudice and without sufficient state action.
• Poulin v. Gunn
  589 F.2d 1024· 9th Cir.· 1978-06-22
  The court held that the case must be remanded to determine if the cause and prejudice test from Wainwright v. Sykes can be met.
• Howell v. Thomas
  566 F.2d 469· 5th Cir.· 1978-01-16
  The court held that the appellant's contentions were insufficient to justify relief in federal court, affirming the denial of his petition.
• Duward X. Williams v. State OF Ohio
  547 F.2d 40· 6th Cir.· 1976-12-21
  Federal habeas corpus relief is unavailable for Fourth Amendment search and seizure claims when the state has provided a full and fair opportunity to litigate them. Statements made by the petitioner were not obtained in violation of Miranda.
• Resendez v. Garrison
  528 F.2d 1310· 4th Cir.· 1975-12-03
  A rational decision not to appeal, made to avoid the risk of a harsher sentence (like the death penalty) upon retrial, does not constitute a deliberate bypass of state remedies that would preclude federal habeas corpus review.
• Ghiz v. Bordenkircher
  519 F.2d 759· 4th Cir.· 1975-07-17
  The Court of Appeals held that despite potentially suggestive pretrial identification procedures, the victim's identification of the defendant was reliable under the totality of the circumstances and therefore did not violate due process.
• Clark v. Hopper
  491 F.2d 1389· 5th Cir.· 1974-04-04 ·via Federal Habeas Corpus Relief
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying federal habeas relief, finding the state proceedings were adequate and the guilty pleas valid.
• Washburn v. Estelle
  476 F.2d 278· 5th Cir.· 1973-04-12
  The court held that the appellant's claims of jury exposure to inadmissible evidence and illegal search were not federally reversible errors, lacking record support.
• Bentley v. Jones
  467 F.2d 906· 5th Cir.· 1972-09-27
  The court held that the district court properly ruled that the petitioner failed to exhaust state remedies before seeking federal habeas corpus relief.
• United States ex rel. Patrick J. Huffman v. The Commonwealth Court of Dauphin Cnty.
  453 F.2d 1254· 3d Cir.· 1972-01-03
  The court held that the petitioner had not exhausted his state remedies and therefore could not bring a federal habeas corpus petition.
• Taylor v. State OF Minn.
  450 F.2d 1110· 8th Cir.· 1971-11-16
  The court held that a petitioner who raised federal constitutional claims on direct appeal, which were reviewed and rejected by the state's highest court, has exhausted state remedies for federal habeas corpus purposes.
• Shabarekh v. City OF Miami
  443 F.2d 992· 5th Cir.· 1971-06-15 ·via Federal Habeas Corpus Jurisdiction
  The appellate court held that the trial court erred in refusing to grant the City of Miami relief from a habeas corpus judgment without justification.
• Williams v. Oriscello
  441 F.2d 1113· 3d Cir.· 1971-05-12 ·via Federal Habeas Corpus Jurisdiction
  The court held that the appellant had not exhausted his state remedies by filing a habeas corpus petition before his direct appeal was decided.
• Azzaro v. Schneckloth
  443 F.2d 1· 9th Cir.· 1971-05-10
  A petitioner seeking federal habeas relief based on a Fourth Amendment violation must demonstrate a possessory or proprietary interest in the place searched or the evidence seized to have standing.
• Roberts v. Cupp
  428 F.2d 825· 9th Cir.· 1970-08-12
  The court held that the district court correctly dismissed the habeas corpus petition because the state's custody did not violate federal constitutional rights.
• Application of Raymond C. Nielson for a Writ of Habeas Corpus
  430 F.2d 1030· 8th Cir.· 1970-08-04
  The court held that the petitioner had not exhausted his state remedies and had deliberately bypassed available state appellate review, thus precluding federal habeas corpus relief.
• United States ex rel. LeRoy Nash v. Reincke
  418 F.2d 1333· 2d Cir.· 1969-11-12
  The court held that the appellant's arraignment was not a critical stage and he failed to show prejudice from the denial of counsel.
• Hegwood v. Swenson
  417 F.2d 310· 8th Cir.· 1969-10-30
  The court held that the federal district court properly dismissed the habeas corpus petition without prejudice for failure to exhaust state remedies under the amended Missouri Rule 27.26.
• Lynch v. Field
  415 F.2d 776· 9th Cir.· 1969-09-05
• Cranston Carr v. Simpson
  412 F.2d 838· 5th Cir.· 1969-06-05
  A federal district court should not grant a writ of habeas corpus if state remedies are unexhausted, but may hold the application in abeyance.
• Otten v. Hoyt C. Cupp
  405 F.2d 490· 9th Cir.· 1969-01-02
  The court held that the jury instruction, while containing an imprecise statement about presumptions, did not rise to the level of constitutional error and thus did not deprive the appellant of a fair trial.
• Turman v. Beto
  404 F.2d 872· 5th Cir.· 1968-12-16
  The court affirmed the denial of habeas corpus on most grounds but remanded for further state court review on the issue of ineffective assistance of counsel.
• Eldridge v. Crouse
  400 F.2d 94· 10th Cir.· 1968-08-23
  The court held that the appellant must exhaust state post-conviction remedies before pursuing federal habeas corpus relief.
• Fitzpatrick v. Patterson
  373 F.2d 24· 10th Cir.· 1967-02-08
  The court held that the case should be remanded to the trial court to consider constitutional objections that may have been presented to the state court but not reflected in its opinion.
• Nolen v. Wilson
  372 F.2d 15· 9th Cir.· 1967-02-01
  The court held that the appellant's state court conviction did not violate his constitutional right to due process, despite claims of trial errors.
• Adargo v. Patterson
  371 F.2d 822· 10th Cir.· 1967-01-13 ·via Federal Habeas Corpus Jurisdiction
  The court held that the appellant had not exhausted his state remedies because the Colorado Supreme Court had not yet finally determined his writ of error concerning his original conviction.