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

• Malley v. Manson
  547 F.2d 25· 2d Cir.· 1976-12-20 ·cited 16×
  The appellate court held that while the petitioner was not precluded from raising his constitutional claim due to failure to object, the prosecutor's remarks, viewed in context, did not deprive the defendant of a fair trial.
• Dezso John Lokos v. Capps
  528 F.2d 576· 5th Cir.· 1976-03-12 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court erred in failing to consider all of the petitioner's habeas corpus claims, requiring remand for further proceedings on those claims. The court affirmed the denial of relief on the involuntary confession claim.
• Sherrill v. Wyrick
  524 F.2d 186· 8th Cir.· 1975-10-17 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the petitioner's trial counsel's failure to object to jury instructions or call certain witnesses did not render the trial fundamentally unfair or constitute a miscarriage of justice, thus not violating constitutional rights.
• Austin v. Swenson
  522 F.2d 168· 8th Cir.· 1975-09-19 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the habeas corpus petition on non-exhaustion grounds when new evidence warranted an evidentiary hearing and the state had previously had a chance to address the issue.
• Gardner v. Judge C. Luckey, Jr.
  500 F.2d 712· 5th Cir.· 1974-09-16 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the appellants lacked standing to bring a class action challenging the Florida Public Defender system due to a failure to establish a case or controversy.
• Morris v. Sullivan
  497 F.2d 544· 5th Cir.· 1974-07-19 ·cited 16×
  The court held that petitioners waived their claims of systematic discrimination in jury selection by failing to raise them prior to their federal habeas corpus case, as required by Alabama procedural law and federal precedent.
• Mottram v. Murch
  458 F.2d 626· 1st Cir.· 1972-04-12 ·cited 16×
  The court held that allowing jurors who sat on the first trial to sit on the second trial, after the defendant had testified and invoked the Fifth Amendment, created a likelihood of prejudice that denied the petitioner due process.
• United States ex rel. Edwin A. Goodman v. Kehl
  456 F.2d 863· 2d Cir.· 1972-03-14 ·cited 16×
  The federal court improperly intervened in state proceedings by granting habeas corpus relief before state remedies were exhausted, thus the order granting relief is reversed.
• Perry v. Blackledge
  453 F.2d 856· 4th Cir.· 1971-12-27 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the petitioner was not required to exhaust state remedies because the state's highest court had repeatedly rejected similar claims, making further state court action futile.
• Biggers v. Neil
  448 F.2d 91· 6th Cir.· 1971-08-18 ·cited 16×
  The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's grant of habeas corpus, holding that a prior 4-4 affirmance by the Supreme Court did not preclude federal review of the due process claim and that the identification procedures were indeed violative of due process.
• Jackson v. Turner
  442 F.2d 1303· 10th Cir.· 1971-05-27 ·cited 16×
  Counsel appointed to represent indigent persons on appeal must advise them of their right to appeal, inquire whether they wish to appeal, and perfect an appeal if requested, even if counsel believes the appeal to be frivolous.
• James (Jimmy) FOX v. Dutton
  406 F.2d 123· 5th Cir.· 1968-12-12 ·cited 16×
• Trujillo v. Tinsley
  333 F.2d 185· 10th Cir.· 1964-06-22 ·cited 16×
  The court held that a state prisoner's claims of insufficient evidence and an improper jury instruction on flight are not reviewable on federal habeas corpus unless they rise to the level of a constitutional violation.
• Crow v. United States
  323 F.2d 888· 8th Cir.· 1963-10-28 ·cited 16×·via Federal Habeas Corpus Jurisdiction
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum because no federal criminal proceeding was pending that required the appellant's presence, and the appellant had not demonstrated prejudice from any delay.
• Whitley v. Warden William F. Steiner
  293 F.2d 895· 4th Cir.· 1961-07-26 ·cited 16×
  A state prisoner who fails to avail himself of a state remedy for a constitutional claim, and subsequently loses the opportunity to do so, is barred from seeking federal habeas corpus relief.
• United States ex rel. Harold D. Rogers v. Richmond
  271 F.2d 364· 2d Cir.· 1959-10-28 ·cited 16×
  The dissenting judge argues that the federal court should not be bound by state court findings of fact when reviewing the voluntariness of confessions, especially given coercive police tactics.
• Ward v. Haydee Kort
  762 F.2d 856· 10th Cir.· 1985-05-20 ·cited 15×
  The State of Colorado satisfies the requirements for providing meaningful access to the courts for mental patients committed after being found not guilty by reason of insanity, by providing contract attorneys to counsel them on their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims.
• Martin v. State OF Ala. & Cir. Court of Russell Cnty.
  730 F.2d 721· 11th Cir.· 1984-04-23 ·cited 15×
  The court held that the evidence presented was insufficient to prove a sale of marijuana by the petitioner, as mere presence and an informant placing money in the pocket does not constitute a sale.
• Greenfield v. Gunn
  556 F.2d 935· 9th Cir.· 1977-06-09 ·cited 15×
  The court held that the petitioner was not denied due process regarding competency proceedings or effective assistance of counsel, and pretrial identification was permissible.
• Pinkus v. Pitchess
  429 F.2d 416· 9th Cir.· 1970-06-29 ·cited 15×
• Chadwick D. Banks v. State
  150 So. 3d 797· Fla.· 2014-11-03 ·cited 14×
  Chadwick D. Banks, under a signed death warrant, appealed the circuit court's denial of his second successive motion for postconviction relief and denial of public records requests. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed, rejecting Banks' claims of ineffective postconviction counsel,
• Tukes v. Dugger
  911 F.2d 508· 11th Cir.· 1990-09-07 ·cited 14×
  The court concurs in the result but disagrees with the reasoning that Stone v. Powell does not apply when state appellate courts do not issue opinions.
• Johnson v. Dugger
  911 F.2d 440· 11th Cir.· 1990-08-21 ·cited 14×
  The majority's decision departs from Supreme Court precedent by requiring a petitioner to show only a colorable showing of prejudice, rather than 'actual innocence,' to obtain federal habeas review after procedural default.
• Russell v. Lynaugh
  892 F.2d 1205· 5th Cir.· 1989-12-08 ·cited 14×
  The court affirmed the denial of habeas corpus relief, agreeing that the issue was procedurally barred and that the venireman's exclusion was proper on the merits.
• Nadworny v. Fair
  872 F.2d 1093· 1st Cir.· 1989-04-20 ·cited 14×
  A state prisoner's federal habeas claim is exhausted if the substance of the claim was presented to the state courts in a manner likely to alert them to its federal nature, even if only state precedent was cited.
• Coleman v. State OF Ala.
  827 F.2d 1469· 11th Cir.· 1987-09-21 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the failure to inform a defendant of the potential benefits of the Alabama Youthful Offender Act before accepting a guilty plea violates federal due process, requiring the plea to be set aside.
• Elliott Rod Johnson v. O.L. McCOTTER
  804 F.2d 300· 5th Cir.· 1986-11-12 ·cited 14×
  The court affirmed the denial of federal habeas corpus relief, holding that the trial court's instructions did not violate Enmund v. Florida and that the death penalty was not discriminatorily imposed.
• Mosley v. Captain Moran
  798 F.2d 182· 7th Cir.· 1986-08-04 ·cited 14×·via Federal Habeas Corpus Relief
  The court held that the Illinois statute, as construed, does not require the Prisoner Review Board to review revocations of 'good time' credits, only 'good conduct' credits. Therefore, Mosley's claim for habeas relief based on the lack of such review fails.
• Burdette Woods v. Clusen
  794 F.2d 293· 7th Cir.· 1986-06-25 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the police tactics employed during the interrogation of a juvenile suspect violated his Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights, rendering his confession involuntary.
• Zellers v. Duckworth
  763 F.2d 250· 7th Cir.· 1985-05-17 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the State is estopped from contesting Zellers' assertion of cause for his procedural default due to systemic failures in providing due process rights. The court also found sufficient prejudice to justify a hearing.
• Vail v. Procunier
  747 F.2d 277· 5th Cir.· 1984-11-09 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the appellant's claims were without merit and denied his application for a certificate of probable cause and leave to appeal in forma pauperis.
• Ross v. Amos Reed
  704 F.2d 705· 4th Cir.· 1983-03-31 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the novelty of the constitutional claim at the time of trial constituted cause for failing to raise it on appeal, and prejudice was present, thus satisfying the cause and prejudice exception to the procedural bar rule.
• Lupe Hernandez Silva v. Estelle
  672 F.2d 457· 5th Cir.· 1982-04-05 ·cited 14×
  A confession obtained after a defendant invoked his right to counsel, even if readvised of his rights, is inadmissible.
• Phillips v. Smith
  632 F.2d 1019· 2d Cir.· 1980-09-26 ·cited 14×
  The dissenting judge believes the majority improperly expanded federal habeas corpus powers by granting relief based on prosecutorial misconduct without a showing of actual prejudice to the defendant.
• Rowell v. Oesterle
  626 F.2d 437· 5th Cir.· 1980-09-24 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court had subject matter jurisdiction to entertain the petition and that Florida was not obligated to provide free legal counsel in this civil custody dispute.
• Reggie C. Madeley v. Estelle
  606 F.2d 560· 5th Cir.· 1979-11-14 ·cited 14×
  The court held that procedural defaults, under state law, bar federal habeas review of the merits unless cause and prejudice are shown.
• Jones v. Morris
  590 F.2d 684· 7th Cir.· 1979-01-19 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court did not err in granting summary judgment for the state on the speedy trial claim and in denying the motion for appointment of counsel.
• Nordskog v. Louie L. Wainwright
  546 F.2d 69· 5th Cir.· 1977-01-27 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court correctly dismissed the habeas corpus petition, affirming the denial of relief based on search and seizure claims and the admission of prior bad acts evidence.
• Akridge v. Hopper
  545 F.2d 457· 5th Cir.· 1977-01-13 ·cited 14×
  A guilty plea entered with the advice of counsel, which advice was within the range of competency demanded of attorneys in criminal cases, is not subject to federal habeas corpus intervention.
• Sterling C. Corley v. Cardwell
  544 F.2d 349· 9th Cir.· 1976-08-09 ·cited 14×
  The court affirmed the dismissal of the habeas corpus petition, finding no constitutional violations in the state court proceedings.
• Young v. State OF Ark.
  533 F.2d 1079· 8th Cir.· 1976-04-22 ·cited 14×
  The court held that a federal habeas petition must be dismissed if the petitioner has not exhausted available state remedies for the claims raised.
• Loyd Jasper Ange, Jr. v. Paderick
  521 F.2d 1066· 4th Cir.· 1975-07-23 ·cited 14×
  The court held that a district court's recommendation for a federal prisoner to serve his sentence in a state facility has no legal effect and does not entitle the prisoner to credit for the period between the recommendation and actual transfer. However, a claim for credit on a s
• Roscoe R. Riser v. Craven
  501 F.2d 381· 9th Cir.· 1974-07-17 ·cited 14×
  A state prisoner is entitled to federal habeas relief if trial counsel failed to protect his right to appeal, without requiring a showing of prejudice or specific lost points.
• United States ex rel. James L. Worlow v. Pate
  437 F.2d 909· 7th Cir.· 1971-01-25 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district judges did not err in denying habeas corpus petitions after independently reviewing the state court record, as the petitioners' counsel failed to request further proceedings or argument and the record substantiated a full and fair hearing.
• Mathis v. The People OF the State of Colo. & Wayne K. Patterson
  425 F.2d 1165· 10th Cir.· 1970-05-01 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the prisoner's constitutional rights were not violated by the admission of evidence from a warrantless car search or an in-jail statement, and that the sufficiency of evidence is not generally subject to federal habeas review.
• United States ex rel. Joseph Hughes v. Hon. Daniel McMANN
  405 F.2d 773· 2d Cir.· 1968-11-14 ·cited 14×
  The court remands the case to the trial judge for further factual exploration regarding the voluntariness of a confession.
• Nance v. Baker
  400 F.2d 864· 10th Cir.· 1968-09-16 ·cited 14×
  The court affirmed the denial of the federal writ of habeas corpus, finding no violation of constitutional rights and sufficient evidence for conviction.
• United States ex rel. Albert Ackerman v. Russell
  388 F.2d 21· 3d Cir.· 1968-01-10 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court erred in denying the petition for habeas corpus without an evidentiary hearing, as the state court's fact-finding procedure was inadequate.
• Worley v. Swenson
  386 F.2d 186· 8th Cir.· 1967-11-22 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court should stay proceedings pending a renewed application for relief under the new Missouri Supreme Court Rule 27.26, as the appellant may not have fully exhausted state remedies.
• Wilson v. Bailey
  375 F.2d 663· 4th Cir.· 1967-03-22 ·cited 14×
  A state prisoner's knowing and intelligent decision to withdraw his appeal, even if based on counsel's advice about potential consequences, does not constitute a "deliberate bypass" of state remedies that would bar federal habeas corpus review, but failure to object at trial to i