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

• Breazeale v. Bradley
  582 F.2d 5· 5th Cir.· 1978-10-10 ·cited 19×
  The court held that a federal habeas corpus petition must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, as the petitioner was in custody in Alabama and not Florida.
• United States v. Hollis
  569 F.2d 199· 3d Cir.· 1977-12-29 ·cited 19×
  The court held that the trial court erred in placing the burden of proving incompetency on the habeas petitioner when the issue of competency was raised but not litigated prior to conviction.
• Clemons v. Comm'r, Ala. Dep't of Corr.
  967 F.3d 1231· 11th Cir.· 2020-07-30 ·cited 18×
  Eugene Clemons, convicted of capital murder of a federal DEA agent, sought federal habeas relief on thirty-two claims after the Supreme Court decided in Atkins v. Virginia that executing intellectually disabled persons violates the Eighth Amendment. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed
• Alvarez v. Attorney Gen. FOR the State of Fla.
  679 F.3d 1257· 11th Cir.· 2012-05-08 ·cited 18×
  Carl Robert Alvarez, convicted in 1991 of first-degree murder, sexual battery, and aggravated child abuse, appealed a district court dismissal of his § 1983 civil rights action challenging Florida's denial of his petition for postconviction DNA testing. The Eleventh Circuit affir
• Young v. Herring
  938 F.2d 543· 5th Cir.· 1991-07-26 ·cited 18×
  The court affirmed the denial of the habeas petition, finding that the petitioner's claims regarding ex parte jury communication, prosecutorial misconduct, and ineffective assistance of counsel were without merit or based on frivolous allegations.
• Duncan v. State OF Ala.
  881 F.2d 1013· 11th Cir.· 1989-08-24 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the petitioner knowingly and intelligently waived his right to conflict-free counsel, affirming the denial of his habeas corpus petition.
• Martens v. Shannon
  836 F.2d 715· 1st Cir.· 1988-01-12 ·cited 18×
  The court held that a federal habeas petition containing both exhausted and unexhausted claims must be dismissed.
• Cook v. Foltz
  814 F.2d 1109· 6th Cir.· 1987-03-31 ·cited 18×
  The court held that ineffective assistance of counsel can constitute cause for a procedural default, but the petitioner's claim of ineffective assistance was meritless.
• United States v. Baker
  807 F.2d 1315· 6th Cir.· 1986-12-29 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the initial commitment under § 4241(d) was valid for only four months, and the subsequent indefinite commitment under § 4246 was invalid due to procedural and due process violations.
• Richardson v. Procunier
  762 F.2d 429· 5th Cir.· 1985-06-10 ·cited 18×
  A Texas inmate seeking federal habeas relief has not exhausted state remedies if they fail to petition the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals for discretionary review of their conviction.
• Harvey and Rebecca Rumbaugh v. Procunier
  753 F.2d 395· 5th Cir.· 1985-02-20 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the determination of competency to waive federal habeas review in a death case is a mixed question of fact and law, not subject to the clearly erroneous standard of review.
• Sockwell v. Maggio
  709 F.2d 341· 5th Cir.· 1983-07-11 ·cited 18×
  The court held that a pro se petitioner's claim of unawareness of new controlling law, like Edwards v. Arizona, can constitute a justifiable reason for filing a successive habeas petition, thus precluding dismissal for abuse of the writ.
• Duvallon v. State
  691 F.2d 483· 11th Cir.· 1982-11-08 ·cited 18×
  A petitioner convicted of a state offense punishable only by a fine is not 'in custody' for federal habeas corpus jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
• Hamlin v. Warren
  664 F.2d 29· 4th Cir.· 1981-11-03 ·cited 18×
  The dissent argues that a state prisoner's claim for damages under § 1983, which does not directly attack the fact or length of confinement, should not require exhaustion of state remedies.
• Hilary Davis v. Page
  640 F.2d 599· 5th Cir.· 1981-03-23 ·cited 18×
  The dissenting judge argues that federal habeas corpus relief is an inappropriate vehicle for addressing state child custody disputes, and that federal courts should defer to state courts in such matters.
• Willeford v. Estelle
  637 F.2d 271· 5th Cir.· 1981-01-29 ·cited 18×·via Federal Habeas Corpus Relief
  The court held that a defendant sentenced under a mandatory statute, when entitled to discretionary sentencing under state law, is denied due process.
• Dominick Codispoti Y-1353 v. Howard
  589 F.2d 135· 3d Cir.· 1978-12-08 ·cited 18×
  A federal court may review a habeas corpus petition when state court delay in ruling on a new trial motion is excessive and effectively denies the petitioner's right to appeal.
• Grace v. Butterworth
  586 F.2d 878· 1st Cir.· 1978-11-17 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the state courts' denial of new trial motions, based on newly discovered evidence, did not violate due process because the evidence was found to be cumulative and not credible, and the state courts conducted a full and fair review.
• Kelley v. Estelle
  521 F.2d 238· 5th Cir.· 1975-10-17 ·cited 18×
  The court affirmed the denial of federal habeas corpus relief, finding the in-court identification was independent of any potentially suggestive pretrial photographic identification.
• Mann v. Smith
  488 F.2d 245· 9th Cir.· 1973-07-09 ·cited 18×
  A guilty plea waives all prior constitutional claims, precluding federal habeas corpus review of those claims.
• Freeman v. Page
  443 F.2d 493· 10th Cir.· 1971-05-27 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the appellant's guilty pleas were valid under pre-Boykin standards, and the Boykin decision's procedural rule does not apply retroactively.
• Bloss v. People OF the State OF Mich.
  421 F.2d 903· 6th Cir.· 1970-02-17 ·cited 18×
  A state prisoner has no absolute federal constitutional right to bail pending appeal, and federal courts will not review state court discretion in granting or withholding bail if state remedies have not been exhausted.
• Morton Sobell v. Attorney General OF the United States
  400 F.2d 986· 3d Cir.· 1968-08-16 ·cited 18×
  The court held that a federal prisoner seeking credit for pre-sentence or post-sentence imprisonment must pursue relief in the sentencing court under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, not through a declaratory judgment action.
• Roach v. Bennett
  392 F.2d 743· 8th Cir.· 1968-04-15 ·cited 18×
  A state prisoner is entitled to a federal habeas corpus hearing if the state's fact-finding procedure was inadequate, and the federal court should grant a plenary hearing on claims of mental incompetency and plea involuntariness, potentially requiring appointment of counsel.
• Ganger v. Peyton
  379 F.2d 709· 4th Cir.· 1967-05-30 ·cited 18×
  The court held that a federal court should not vacate a state court conviction for ineffective counsel without the prisoner first exhausting state remedies. However, a conviction obtained when the prosecuting attorney had a conflict of interest, representing the victim in a relat
• MAY v. Collins
  955 F.2d 299· 5th Cir.· 1992-02-26 ·cited 17×
  The court granted the certificate of probable cause to appeal, finding the issue debatable among jurists of reason, but ultimately affirmed the district court's denial of the writ, holding the state court's 'paper hearing' was adequate for § 2254(d) presumption of correctness.
• Hardin v. Black
  845 F.2d 953· 11th Cir.· 1988-05-23 ·cited 17×
  The court held that the district court erred in applying a procedural bar to seventeen claims, which must be reconsidered on the merits, and affirmed the denial of other claims.
• Davis v. Dugger
  829 F.2d 1513· 11th Cir.· 1987-09-28 ·cited 17×
  The court held that the petitioner was not guilty of deliberate delay that would support dismissal under Rule 9(a), and exhaustion of state remedies was achieved before final action by the district court.
• Dickerson v. State OF La.
  816 F.2d 220· 5th Cir.· 1987-05-13 ·cited 17×
  Pre-trial federal habeas corpus relief is not available to adjudicate a state prisoner's speedy trial or due process claims when those issues can be resolved through pending state court proceedings.
• Thigpen v. Cory
  804 F.2d 893· 6th Cir.· 1986-10-27 ·cited 17×
  The court held that the state's identification procedures did not violate due process, as the trial court's factual determination of reliability was entitled to a presumption of correctness under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).
• Tooten v. Shevin
  493 F.2d 173· 5th Cir.· 1974-04-25 ·cited 17×
  A pretrial application for a writ of prohibition to a state supreme court does not satisfy the exhaustion requirement for federal habeas corpus relief.
• United States ex rel. Juan Cruz v. LaVALLEE
  448 F.2d 671· 2d Cir.· 1971-09-13 ·cited 17×
  Failure to object to a coerced confession at trial, when done as a deliberate trial strategy to bypass state procedures, precludes a federal habeas corpus hearing on the confession's voluntariness, even if the trial occurred before Jackson v. Denno.
• Woods v. Whitley
  933 F.2d 321· 5th Cir.· 1991-06-12 ·cited 16×
  A federal habeas corpus petitioner must demonstrate cause and prejudice for failing to raise claims in a prior petition, or show a fundamental miscarriage of justice, to avoid dismissal for abuse of the writ.
• Young v. Herring
  917 F.2d 858· 5th Cir.· 1990-11-06 ·cited 16×
  The dissent argues that the majority misapplies the 'plain statement' rule from Harris v. Reed, improperly expanding federal habeas review by disregarding an adequate and independent state procedural ground.
• High v. Zant
  916 F.2d 1507· 11th Cir.· 1990-10-23 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying High's motion for Rule 60(b)(6) relief because there was no supervening change in law and the jury's erroneous perception was not of constitutional dimension.
• Rogers-Bey v. Lane
  896 F.2d 279· 7th Cir.· 1990-02-22 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the Illinois appellate court's finding of waiver was an independent and adequate basis for decision, even though it also analyzed the issue for plain error.
• Jackson v. Elton F. James
  839 F.2d 1513· 11th Cir.· 1988-03-17 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel was violated because he did not knowingly and intelligently waive his right to counsel and did not clearly assert his right to self-representation.
• Matthews v. Butler
  833 F.2d 1165· 5th Cir.· 1987-12-15 ·cited 16×·via Federal Habeas Corpus Relief
  The court held that the petitioner's habeas petition was properly dismissed under Rule 9(b) for abuse of the writ, as he failed to provide a sufficient excuse for not raising the claims in a prior petition.
• Amadeo v. Kemp
  816 F.2d 1502· 11th Cir.· 1987-04-30 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the introduction of 'other crimes' evidence did not deny the petitioner a fair trial, and the petitioner failed to establish sufficient cause to excuse his procedural default in challenging jury composition.
• Gardner v. Ponte
  817 F.2d 183· 1st Cir.· 1987-04-29 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the petitioner's claims were procedurally barred due to failure to object at trial, and even if considered, did not demonstrate ineffective assistance of counsel or prejudice.
• Haki Sekou v. Blackburn
  796 F.2d 108· 5th Cir.· 1986-08-06 ·cited 16×·via Federal Habeas Corpus Relief
  The Double Jeopardy Clause does not bar successive prosecutions for felony-murder and an underlying felony if the underlying felony is not the sole basis for the felony-murder prosecution, nor is it implicated by considering a crime as an aggravating circumstance during sentencin
• Patterson v. Austin
  728 F.2d 1389· 11th Cir.· 1984-04-02 ·cited 16×·via Federal Habeas Corpus Relief
  The dissenting judge would affirm the district court's denial of habeas corpus relief, finding the jury instruction constitutional and the defendant not prejudiced by any alleged defect.
• Phillips v. Smith
  717 F.2d 44· 2d Cir.· 1983-09-02 ·cited 16×
  Explicit state court reliance on a procedural default bars federal habeas review of the forfeited claim absent a showing of cause and prejudice, regardless of whether the state court also ruled on the merits.
• Tarpley v. W.J. Estelle, Jr.
  703 F.2d 157· 5th Cir.· 1983-04-18 ·cited 16×
  The court held that jury instructions that allowed conviction for an offense not charged in the indictment violated the defendant's Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment right to notice of charges, warranting habeas corpus relief.
• Thomas v. Wyrick
  687 F.2d 235· 8th Cir.· 1982-08-20 ·cited 16×
  The court affirmed the denial of habeas corpus relief, holding that the petitioner's procedural failures, including the provisional nature of the trial court's ruling and the failure to make an offer of proof, precluded a constitutional review of the exclusion of character witnes
• Wiggins v. NEW Mexico State Supreme Court Clerk
  664 F.2d 812· 10th Cir.· 1981-11-24 ·cited 16×
  The court held that a prisoner's pro se civil rights complaint alleging constitutional deprivations should not be dismissed unless it appears beyond doubt that no relief can be granted.
• Alburquerque v. Bara
  628 F.2d 767· 2d Cir.· 1980-07-31 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the state's procedural requirements for raising a federal constitutional claim were not satisfied in a way that would bar federal habeas review, and that the appellant's trial jury was sworn after the date of Taylor v. Louisiana, making the ruling applicable.
• Bergman v. Honorable Louis J. Lefkowitz
  569 F.2d 705· 2d Cir.· 1977-12-19 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the Special Prosecutor did not breach the plea agreement by his conduct or recommendations, and therefore, the petitioner was not entitled to habeas corpus relief.
• ST. John v. Estelle
  563 F.2d 168· 5th Cir.· 1977-11-17 ·cited 16×
  The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, sitting en banc, reversed the district court's grant of a writ of habeas corpus. The majority held that the petitioner's failure to comply with the Texas contemporaneous objection rule barred federal habeas review of his claim that the prosecut
• Hines v. Auger
  550 F.2d 1094· 8th Cir.· 1977-03-01 ·cited 16×·via Federal Habeas Corpus Relief
  The Eighth Circuit held that the petitioner was provided an opportunity for full and fair litigation of his Fourth Amendment claim in state court, precluding federal habeas relief under Stone v. Powell.