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

• Johnson v. DYE
  175 F.2d 250· 3d Cir.· 1949-05-17 ·cited 30×·via Federal Habeas Corpus Jurisdiction
  The court held that the petitioner was subjected to cruel and unusual punishment by the State of Georgia, violating the Fourteenth Amendment, and therefore must be discharged from custody.
• In re Hill
  715 F.3d 284· 11th Cir.· 2013-04-22 ·cited 29×
  The dissenting opinion argues that the state of Georgia should not be allowed to execute Warren Lee Hill, a mentally retarded individual, despite procedural bars under AEDPA. The dissent emphasizes that the Eighth Amendment categorically prohibits the execution of mentally retard
• Parker v. Parratt
  662 F.2d 479· 8th Cir.· 1981-10-28 ·cited 29×
  The court held that neither defendant demonstrated an actual conflict of interest arising from joint representation, and therefore, neither is entitled to federal habeas corpus relief.
• United States ex rel. Harry Craig v. Myers
  329 F.2d 856· 3d Cir.· 1964-04-02 ·cited 29×
  The court held that the denial of counsel to an indigent defendant, even if the conviction predates Gideon v. Wainwright, violates due process and requires invalidation of the conviction.
• Dolan Darling v. State
  45 So. 3d 444· Fla.· 2010-07-01 ·cited 28×
  Dolan Darling, a death-row inmate, challenged Florida's lethal injection protocol, the constitutionality of statutes prohibiting disclosure of executioners' identities, and whether Capital Collateral Regional Counsel (CCRC) attorneys could represent him in federal section 1983 cl
• Grooms v. J.C. Keeney
  826 F.2d 883· 9th Cir.· 1987-09-01 ·cited 28×
  The court held that a suspect's confession was admissible despite invoking the right to silence earlier, as fresh Miranda warnings were given, and that the Oregon aggravated murder statute does not violate due process or equal protection.
• Uresti v. James
  821 F.2d 1099· 5th Cir.· 1987-07-17 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the petitioner's guilty plea was voluntary and counsel was not ineffective, and that the indictment was sufficient and the confession claim was unsupported.
• Clover Hayes v. Maggio
  699 F.2d 198· 5th Cir.· 1983-02-07 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the district court clearly erred in finding the plea bargain did not include a promise of parole eligibility, reversing the denial of habeas corpus relief.
• Odell Hargrow Hill v. Estelle
  653 F.2d 202· 5th Cir.· 1981-08-10 ·cited 28×
  A state prisoner's claim of illegal sentencing under a new penal code, absent prejudice, does not raise a federal constitutional issue cognizable in habeas corpus.
• Rice v. McKENZIE
  581 F.2d 1114· 4th Cir.· 1978-08-22 ·cited 28×
  A federal judge must recuse himself from a federal habeas corpus case if he previously participated in the state supreme court's adjudication of the same claims, as this objectively raises reasonable questions about his impartiality under 28 U.S.C.A. § 455(a).
• United States ex rel. Thomas Kling v. LaVALLEE
  306 F.2d 199· 2d Cir.· 1962-07-11 ·cited 28×
  The court affirmed the disposition of the appeal, but the concurring judge expressed reservations about the strict application of exhaustion rules for federal habeas corpus.
• Lopez v. United States
  186 F.2d 707· 9th Cir.· 1950-12-22 ·cited 28×·via Federal Habeas Corpus Jurisdiction
• In re Lindsey
  875 F.2d 1502· 11th Cir.· 1989-05-01 ·cited 27×
  The court held that neither 21 U.S.C. § 848(q) nor 18 U.S.C. § 3006A entitles a death-sentenced inmate to federally appointed counsel or a psychiatrist for state-court collateral review proceedings, especially when claims are unexhausted.
• Son H. Fleming v. Kemp
  748 F.2d 1435· 11th Cir.· 1984-11-29 ·cited 27×
  The court held that the petitioner was deprived of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel at a critical stage of his murder prosecution, requiring automatic reversal of his conviction.
• Gibson v. Jackson
  578 F.2d 1045· 5th Cir.· 1978-08-23 ·cited 27×
  The court held that the federal district court should have abstained from deciding the case pending the outcome of the state habeas corpus proceedings.
• Jackson v. State OF Ala.
  530 F.2d 1231· 5th Cir.· 1976-04-30 ·cited 27×
  The dissenting judge argues that denying credit for pre-sentence and post-sentence detention to indigent defendants solely because of their inability to make bail constitutes unconstitutional discrimination based on wealth.
• United States ex rel. Charles F. Scott v. Mancusi
  429 F.2d 104· 2d Cir.· 1970-07-06 ·cited 27×
  A guilty plea induced by defense counsel's good-faith, but erroneous, sentence estimate or misstatement of law regarding withdrawal does not render the plea involuntary, absent evidence of government inducement.
• Spring v. Caldwell
  692 F.2d 994· 5th Cir.· 1982-12-06 ·cited 26×
• Lehman v. Lycoming Cnty. Child's. Servs. Agency
  648 F.2d 135· 3d Cir.· 1981-03-31 ·cited 26×
  The district court erroneously dismissed the habeas corpus petition for lack of jurisdiction.
• Tyler v. Phelps
  622 F.2d 172· 5th Cir.· 1980-07-24 ·cited 26×
  The court held that a jury charge creating a presumption that a defendant intends the natural and probable consequences of his acts, when intent is a disputed element, unconstitutionally shifts the burden of proof. This unconstitutionality requires habeas relief even if the defen
• Bowles v. Tennant
  613 F.2d 776· 9th Cir.· 1980-02-19 ·cited 26×
  The Parole Commission did not violate due process by failing to provide advance notice of factors considered or by failing to disclose information used to rate the severity of the offense.
• Chavez v. Rodriguez
  540 F.2d 500· 10th Cir.· 1976-08-26 ·cited 26×
  Federal habeas corpus relief is not available for Fourth Amendment claims when the state has provided an opportunity for full and fair litigation of that claim.
• McGARRY v. Fogliani
  370 F.2d 42· 9th Cir.· 1966-12-14 ·cited 26×
  The court held that a claim regarding prior convictions affecting punishment is not a separate offense and that the judge's determination of prior convictions does not violate the Constitution. Furthermore, failure to perfect an appeal is not a ground for federal habeas corpus wi
• Berghuis v. Thompkins
  6th Cir.· 2010-06-01 ·cited 25×
  The Court held that an uncoerced statement following Miranda warnings establishes an implied waiver of the right to remain silent, and that a suspect must unambiguously invoke this right to cease questioning.
• Stewart v. Dugger
  877 F.2d 851· 11th Cir.· 1989-06-27 ·cited 25×
  The court affirmed the denial of the federal habeas petition, finding no merit in the petitioner's claims regarding the trial judge's comments, improper juror exclusion, ineffective assistance of counsel, or racial discrimination in sentencing.
• Miller v. A.A. Stagner and R.L. Pulley
  757 F.2d 988· 9th Cir.· 1985-04-08 ·cited 25×
  The court held that the defendant's constitutional right to be present at critical stages of the trial was violated when he was excluded from an in camera juror disqualification hearing.
• Brown v. Wolff
  706 F.2d 902· 9th Cir.· 1983-04-21 ·cited 25×·via Federal Habeas Corpus Relief
  A violation of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers (IAD) timely trial provisions constitutes an exceptional circumstance requiring federal habeas corpus relief, but the prisoner waived his rights by agreeing to continuances.
• DeBENEDICTIS v. Louie L. Wainwright & the Attorney Gen. of the State of Fla.
  674 F.2d 841· 11th Cir.· 1982-04-26 ·cited 25×
  The court held that the petitioners' habeas corpus petitions were properly denied because the information was not fatally defective and the admission of certain testimony did not violate their constitutional rights.
• Jess Cancino v. Craven
  467 F.2d 1243· 9th Cir.· 1972-10-03 ·cited 25×
  A district court's denial of a habeas petition without an evidentiary hearing was erroneous if it rested on legal errors rather than factual merits, and the ends of justice require reaching the merits of a subsequent petition.
• United States ex rel. John McGRATH v. LaVALLEE
  348 F.2d 373· 2d Cir.· 1965-07-14 ·cited 25×
  The court held that the guilty plea was voluntary and not the product of coercion, and that a new claim regarding sentencing based on an allegedly erroneous probation report was not yet ripe for federal adjudication due to failure to exhaust state remedies.
• Broderick W. Monlyn v. State
  894 So. 2d 832· Fla.· 2004-12-02 ·cited 24×
  Broderick Monlyn appeals the denial of his motion for postconviction relief and petitions for habeas corpus following his 1993 conviction for first-degree murder, armed robbery, and armed kidnapping, and subsequent death sentence. The Florida Supreme Court addresses his ineffecti
• Booker v. Dugger
  922 F.2d 633· 11th Cir.· 1991-01-14 ·cited 24×
  The court affirmed the district court's grant of habeas corpus, holding that the petitioner's death sentence was imposed in violation of Hitchcock v. Dugger because the sentencing court was precluded from considering nonstatutory mitigating evidence, and this error was not harmle
• Case v. Eloy Mondragon
  887 F.2d 1388· 10th Cir.· 1989-10-25 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the state trial court did not violate Case's constitutional rights by refusing to conduct a post-verdict voir dire of the jury based on equivocal allegations of misconduct. The court also held that the denial of a continuance for a witness whose testimony was
• Hobbs v. A.L. Lockhart
  791 F.2d 125· 8th Cir.· 1986-05-22 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the admission of evidence of other crimes, the denial of a change of venue due to pretrial publicity, the composition of the jury panel, the prosecutor's voir dire questions, and testimony regarding the defendant's invocation of his rights were either procedur
• Liner v. Phelps
  731 F.2d 1201· 5th Cir.· 1984-05-14 ·cited 24×
  A conviction based on a short-form indictment, authorized by state law and upheld by the state's highest court, does not violate due process, even if it doesn't specify every element, as long as the defendant received adequate notice through a bill of particulars.
• Brown v. Cuyler
  669 F.2d 155· 3d Cir.· 1982-01-29 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the petitioner failed to exhaust state remedies by not fairly presenting the Miranda waiver issue to the state courts.
• Delk v. Atkinson
  665 F.2d 90· 6th Cir.· 1981-11-25 ·cited 24×
  A federal court may grant habeas corpus relief to prevent retrial if a state appellate court, despite finding evidence sufficient, reversed a conviction on other grounds, and the defendant raises a double jeopardy claim based on insufficiency.
• Drake v. Wyrick
  640 F.2d 912· 8th Cir.· 1981-02-18 ·cited 24×
  The court affirmed the district court's denial of habeas corpus relief, finding that the petitioner's claims of newly discovered evidence, ineffective assistance of counsel, and a chilled right to testify were without merit or unexhausted.
• Gayle v. LeFEVRE
  613 F.2d 21· 2d Cir.· 1980-01-11 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the appellant failed to exhaust state remedies because federal constitutional claims were raised for the first time in federal court, not presented to the state courts.
• Rhinehart v. Gunn
  598 F.2d 557· 9th Cir.· 1979-06-13 ·cited 24×
  The court held that a federal court must independently review the state court record when considering a state prisoner's habeas corpus petition on self-representation grounds.
• Moffett v. Louie L. Wainwright
  512 F.2d 496· 5th Cir.· 1975-04-30 ·cited 24×
  A confession obtained after an illegal arrest, without proper warnings or opportunity to consult counsel, is tainted and inadmissible as 'fruit of the poisonous tree'. Evidence seized during a warrantless search lacking clear and convincing proof of valid consent is also inadmiss
• Marlin v. State
  489 F.2d 702· 5th Cir.· 1974-02-15 ·cited 24×
  The court held that a federal habeas petitioner is precluded from attacking jury composition due to failure to timely object, construing such failure as a waiver.
• Will Allen Smith v. State OF Miss.
  478 F.2d 88· 5th Cir.· 1973-05-07 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the trial judge's declaration of a mistrial due to a juror's premature comment about the defendant's sanity, after a careful inquiry, was supported by manifest necessity and did not violate the petitioner's Fifth Amendment double jeopardy rights.
• United States ex rel. Clay Thomas v. State OF NEW Jersey
  472 F.2d 735· 3d Cir.· 1973-01-23 ·cited 24×·via Federal Habeas Corpus Jurisdiction
  The district court had the power to order a state prisoner's release pending appeal from a habeas corpus grant, but lacked authority to direct state courts to fix bail or accept recognizance.
• Curry v. Wilson
  405 F.2d 110· 9th Cir.· 1968-12-13 ·cited 24×
  A defendant's counsel can waive constitutional objections as a matter of trial strategy, and this waiver binds the defendant, even if the state court initially considered the merits of the waived claims.
• Sanders v. United States
  205 F.2d 399· 5th Cir.· 1953-06-18 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the district court erred in denying a hearing on the motion to vacate sentence, as the record did not conclusively show the prisoner was entitled to no relief.
• Bell v. Duckworth
  861 F.2d 169· 7th Cir.· 1988-11-08 ·cited 23×·via Federal Habeas Corpus Jurisdiction
  Procedural errors committed during a state criminal trial are not grounds for federal habeas corpus relief unless they rise to the level of constitutional error.
• Hutchins v. Garrison
  724 F.2d 1425· 4th Cir.· 1983-12-29 ·cited 23×·via Federal Habeas Corpus Relief
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying the habeas corpus petition, affirming the denial of relief to the state prisoner.
• Anderson v. Singletary
  111 F.3d 801· 11th Cir.· 1997-04-18 ·cited 22×
  The Eleventh Circuit held that the filing fee requirements of the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 do not apply to habeas corpus proceedings under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2254 and 2255. Although habeas corpus proceedings are technically civil in nature, they are hybrid actions sui gener
• Collins v. Zant
  892 F.2d 1502· 11th Cir.· 1990-01-08 ·cited 22×
  The court held that both the Sandstrom and Jackson claims must be dismissed under Rule 9(b) as successive petitions, and the district court's denial of relief is affirmed.