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

• Moore v. Zant
  885 F.2d 1497· 11th Cir.· 1989-09-28 ·cited 36×
• Williams v. Duckworth
  724 F.2d 1439· 7th Cir.· 1984-01-05 ·cited 36×
  A federal court may not consider a habeas claim that a state prisoner has waived by failing to raise it in state court proceedings, absent a showing of 'cause' for the failure and 'prejudice' resulting therefrom.
• Graham v. Mabry
  645 F.2d 603· 8th Cir.· 1981-04-03 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the petitioner failed to establish sufficient cause for not challenging a juror for cause or using a peremptory challenge, and thus could not raise the issue on federal habeas corpus. The court also held that the pretrial publicity did not render the jury impa
• Goodloe v. Parratt
  605 F.2d 1041· 8th Cir.· 1979-08-28 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the conviction for operating a motor vehicle to avoid arrest was obtained in violation of due process due to a fundamentally unfair trial stemming from lack of notice regarding the essential elements of the offense. The court abstained from ruling on the doubl
• Rodriguez v. McGINNIS
  456 F.2d 79· 2d Cir.· 1972-01-25 ·cited 36×
  The court affirmed the district court's orders releasing petitioners, holding that their claims for good behavior time credit were properly considered under the habeas corpus statute, which requires exhaustion of state remedies.
• United States ex rel. Edwin Gockley v. Myers
  411 F.2d 216· 3d Cir.· 1969-04-30 ·cited 36×
  The court held that exceptional circumstances, including significant delay and prior federal court involvement, warranted the District Court deciding the voluntariness of the petitioner's confessions, despite the general rule of exhausting state remedies.
• Smith v. State OF Kan.
  356 F.2d 654· 10th Cir.· 1966-02-07 ·cited 36×
  The court held that inordinate delay in adjudicating a state post-conviction remedy can constitute a denial of due process, entitling a petitioner to federal habeas corpus relief.
• Hunt v. Warden, Maryland Penitentiary
  335 F.2d 936· 4th Cir.· 1964-08-03 ·cited 36×
  The court held that while the exhaustion doctrine is rooted in comity, federal courts must intervene when state remedies are demonstrably ineffective or absent. A petitioner's failure to appeal a state court denial, especially when acting without counsel or under a misunderstandi
• Bundy v. Louie L. Wainwright
  808 F.2d 1410· 11th Cir.· 1987-01-15 ·cited 35×
  The district court erred in denying the habeas corpus petition and stay of execution, and its judgment must be reversed and remanded for proper consideration of the constitutional issues.
• Ross v. Kemp
  756 F.2d 1483· 11th Cir.· 1985-03-25 ·cited 35×
• Leonard v. Louie L. Wainwright
  601 F.2d 807· 5th Cir.· 1979-08-29 ·cited 35×
  The court held that a federal habeas corpus petition was properly dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust state remedies, as indicated by the petitioner's own response on the application form.
• Chavez v. Sec'y, Fla. Dep't OF Corr.
  742 F.3d 940· 11th Cir.· 2014-02-10 ·cited 34×
  Juan Carlos Chavez, a death row inmate scheduled for execution, appealed the district court's denial of his request for appointment of counsel to investigate and litigate claims based on Martinez v. Ryan. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the denial, holding that Martinez creates onl
• Stacey v. Warden, Apalachee Corr. Inst.
  854 F.2d 401· 11th Cir.· 1988-09-02 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the petitioner's escape does not automatically waive his right to federal habeas review for claims not reviewable on direct appeal, and that the state court's denial of coram nobis on the merits, not procedural grounds, means the federal court can review the c
• Drake v. Francis
  727 F.2d 990· 11th Cir.· 1984-02-29 ·cited 34×
• Miller v. State OF N.C.
  583 F.2d 701· 4th Cir.· 1978-09-29 ·cited 34×
  The court held that a prosecutor's racially inflammatory remarks during closing arguments in a rape trial so infected the proceedings with unfairness as to deny the defendants due process of law.
• United States ex rel. Theodore Geisler v. Walters
  510 F.2d 887· 3d Cir.· 1975-02-05 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the petitioner had exhausted his state remedies, either through prior rulings or due to circumstances rendering the state process ineffective, and thus was entitled to federal habeas corpus relief.
• Wolfs v. Britton
  509 F.2d 304· 8th Cir.· 1975-01-31 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the denial of a continuance, which prevented defense counsel from adequately preparing for trial, amounted to a denial of the Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel.
• United States ex rel. David M. Levy v. Hon. Daniel McMANN
  394 F.2d 402· 2d Cir.· 1968-05-09 ·cited 34×
  Federal courts must consider exhausted claims in habeas corpus petitions even if unexhausted claims are also present, especially if the unexhausted claims are unrelated or frivolous.
• Kuhl v. United States
  370 F.2d 20· 9th Cir.· 1966-11-18 ·cited 34×
  A federal prisoner who, through counsel, intentionally bypasses orderly procedures for raising a Fourth Amendment search and seizure claim at trial or on direct appeal, waives that claim and cannot raise it in a subsequent Section 2255 motion.
• Thomas v. Attorney Gen., State of Fla.
  992 F.3d 1162· 11th Cir.· 2021-03-31 ·cited 33×
  William Greg Thomas, a Florida death row inmate, challenged the timeliness of his federal habeas petition, which was filed nearly nine months after AEDPA's one-year deadline expired because his appointed counsel, Mary Catherine Bonner, deliberately delayed filing to use his case
• Sawyer v. Whitley
  945 F.2d 812· 5th Cir.· 1991-10-10 ·cited 33×
  The court held that a petitioner seeking to raise successive or abusive habeas claims must demonstrate actual innocence of the death penalty, which requires showing a fair probability that a rational trier of fact would have entertained a reasonable doubt as to the existence of t
• Perez v. Louie L. Wainwright
  640 F.2d 596· 5th Cir.· 1981-03-23 ·cited 33×
  The failure of retained counsel to file a promised appeal constitutes a Sixth Amendment violation, entitling the defendant to an out-of-time appeal.
• Meyer v. Estelle
  621 F.2d 769· 5th Cir.· 1980-07-16 ·cited 33×
  The court held that the petitioner's claims for federal habeas relief based on alleged trial errors, including improper evidence admission, prosecutorial misconduct, and suggestive identification procedures, were without merit.
• Petition of Lloyd Clifton for a Writ of Habeas Corpus v. COX
  549 F.2d 722· 9th Cir.· 1977-03-04 ·cited 33×·via Federal Habeas Corpus Jurisdiction
  The dissenting judge would reverse the lower court's decision, arguing that the federal agent's actions were not authorized by federal law due to explicit Bureau regulations.
• Long v. Sec'y, Dep't OF Corr., Warden, Fla. State Prison, John Does, as designee of Barry Reddish, and/or Mark S. Inch
  924 F.3d 1171· 11th Cir.· 2019-05-22 ·cited 32×
• Smith v. Lanson Newsome and Michael Bowers
  876 F.2d 1461· 11th Cir.· 1989-06-19 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in its handling of potential conflicts of interest regarding joint representation and that faulty jury instructions on intent were harmless error given the facts of the case.
• Witt v. Louie L. Wainwright
  714 F.2d 1069· 11th Cir.· 1983-09-16 ·cited 32×
  Johnny Paul Witt was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death for the 1973 killing of an 11-year-old boy. On federal habeas review, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's rejection of Witt's challenges to the admission of his confession, the Florida Sup
• Vaughan v. Estelle
  671 F.2d 152· 5th Cir.· 1982-03-25 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the habeas petition as an abuse of the writ without affording the petitioner a reasonable opportunity to explain his failure to raise claims in a prior petition.
• Hines v. Enomoto
  658 F.2d 667· 9th Cir.· 1981-10-05 ·cited 32×
  The majority's conclusion that the state's inadvertent provision of fewer peremptory challenges than statutorily required violates the Due Process Clause is foreclosed by Supreme Court precedent.
• Runnels v. Hess
  653 F.2d 1359· 10th Cir.· 1981-07-13 ·cited 32×
  The court held that enforcement of Oklahoma's contemporaneous objection rule in this case fails to serve a legitimate state interest and should not bar review of the federal question.
• Lincoln Isaac v. Engle
  646 F.2d 1129· 6th Cir.· 1980-12-12 ·cited 32×
• Bufalino v. Reno
  613 F.2d 568· 5th Cir.· 1980-03-13 ·cited 32×
  A federal court should dismiss a habeas petition containing only unexhausted claims, even if the district court erroneously reached the merits, to allow the state courts the first opportunity to address the claims.
• Green v. Loggins
  614 F.2d 219· 9th Cir.· 1980-02-25 ·cited 32×
  An accidental pre-trial encounter between an accused and a witness can support a federal habeas corpus claim if the encounter was unnecessarily suggestive and undermined the reliability of the subsequent identification.
• Minor v. Black
  527 F.2d 1· 6th Cir.· 1975-12-08 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the prosecutor's cross-examination and closing argument regarding the petitioner's post-arrest silence, after being advised by counsel, violated his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent and was constitutional error.
• Donald v. Dumont
  513 F.2d 793· 5th Cir.· 1975-05-30 ·cited 32×
  The court held that a procedural waiver of a challenge to grand jury composition under state law, absent a showing of cause and actual prejudice, bars federal habeas corpus relief, even if the law at the time of trial was unfavorable to the claim.
• Wansley v. Slayton
  487 F.2d 90· 4th Cir.· 1973-11-08 ·cited 32×
  The Court of Appeals reversed the District Court's grant of habeas relief, finding no constitutional violation regarding pre-trial publicity, admission of evidence, or grand jury composition.
• Stinson v. Turner
  473 F.2d 913· 10th Cir.· 1973-02-27 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the record affirmatively showed the guilty plea was intelligent and voluntary, satisfying due process requirements.
• Von Perry v. State OF Tex.
  456 F.2d 879· 5th Cir.· 1972-03-23 ·cited 32×
  The court affirmed the denial of habeas corpus relief, finding that the witness's identification was based on direct observation and not tainted by suggestive lineups, and that the appellant was not entitled to a free transcript for a pro se appeal.
• James v. Warden, Holman Correctional Facility
  957 F.3d 1184· 11th Cir.· 2020-04-28 ·cited 31×
  The court held that the petitioner failed to show prejudice from his counsel's alleged ineffective assistance because he did not demonstrate a reasonable probability that he would have allowed mitigation evidence to be presented, even if it had been discovered.
• Cummings v. Dugger
  862 F.2d 1504· 11th Cir.· 1989-01-12 ·cited 31×·via Federal Habeas Corpus Relief
  The court held that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in conducting voir dire, and that the denial of the second change of venue motion was not a violation of the petitioner's constitutional rights to an impartial jury.
• Cooper v. Louie L. Wainwright
  807 F.2d 881· 11th Cir.· 1986-12-19 ·cited 31×
  The court held that the doctrine of Wainwright v. Sykes and Murray v. Carrier does not bar review of the petitioner's claim that the trial court unconstitutionally excluded mitigating evidence.
• Hobbs v. Blackburn
  752 F.2d 1079· 5th Cir.· 1985-02-14 ·cited 31×
  A guilty plea is valid if entered voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently, even if the state trial judge fails to explain all elements or lesser included offenses, provided the defendant understood the charge and consequences.
• Woodard v. Sargent
  806 F.2d 153· 8th Cir.· 1986-11-20 ·cited 30×
  The Court held that while the conviction for capital felony murder stands, the death sentence must be set aside due to an unconstitutional aggravating circumstance and ineffective assistance of counsel during the penalty phase.
• Ivie Clay v. Dir., Juv. Div., Dep't OF Corr.
  749 F.2d 427· 7th Cir.· 1984-11-16 ·cited 30×
  The court held that a lawyer's decision not to appeal is not automatically ineffective assistance of counsel, especially when an appeal would be futile or incur significant costs.
• McCOWN v. Callahan
  726 F.2d 1· 1st Cir.· 1984-01-27 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the petitioner's claims were procedurally barred under Wainwright v. Sykes, and that his statements were not obtained in violation of Miranda rights because he was not in custody.
• Goode v. Louie L. Wainwright
  704 F.2d 593· 11th Cir.· 1983-05-02 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the trial court adequately addressed the appellant's competence to stand trial and to waive counsel, and that the appellant knowingly and intelligently waived his right to counsel. However, the court found merit in the claim that the trial court improperly rel
• Sylvander v. NEW England Home FOR Little Wanderers
  584 F.2d 1103· 1st Cir.· 1978-09-29 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the § 1983 claim was barred by res judicata and collateral estoppel, and that federal habeas corpus jurisdiction does not extend to state child custody disputes.
• United States ex rel. James Allum v. Twomey
  484 F.2d 740· 7th Cir.· 1973-08-20 ·cited 30×
  A deliberate tactical decision by competent counsel not to object to the admission of evidence at trial can waive the client's right to claim constitutional error, even if the decision was an oversight by counsel.
• Smith v. Spina
  477 F.2d 1140· 3d Cir.· 1973-04-24 ·cited 30×
  The court held that a state tort claim, even if arising from the same facts as a federal civil rights claim, is governed by state law and requires proper pleading for federal jurisdiction. The court also found no reversible error in the trial court's evidentiary rulings or jury i
• Alverez v. Turner
  422 F.2d 214· 10th Cir.· 1970-02-20 ·cited 30×
  The court held that parole revocation hearings do not require the full due process rights afforded in criminal trials, such as confrontation, cross-examination, or compulsory process, but equal protection may be violated by discretionary practices regarding witnesses.