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

• Dillon v. Peters
  341 F.2d 337· 10th Cir.· 1965-02-13 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the Mapp v. Ohio exclusionary rule applies to convictions that were not final at the time Mapp was decided, and that failure to object to illegally obtained evidence does not constitute a waiver of rights in habeas corpus proceedings.
• United States ex rel. Charles Noia v. FAY
  300 F.2d 345· 2d Cir.· 1962-02-07 ·cited 14×
  The court held that Noia did not waive his constitutional right against conviction based on a coerced confession, and that his failure to appeal did not preclude federal habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 because state remedies were ineffective.
• United States ex rel. Louis Cuomo v. FAY
  257 F.2d 438· 2d Cir.· 1958-07-11 ·cited 14×
  The relator has not exhausted his state remedies as required by 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254, as he failed to properly present his federal claim to the state courts through an available and appropriate procedure.
• Jones v. State OF Ark.
  929 F.2d 375· 8th Cir.· 1991-03-27 ·cited 13×
  Sentencing a defendant under a habitual offender statute that was not in effect at the time of the offense and by its own terms does not apply to the defendant violates the ex post facto clause of the Constitution, denying due process.
• Washington v. Lane
  840 F.2d 443· 7th Cir.· 1988-02-09 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the petitioner forfeited federal habeas review of three of his four claims because he failed to present a federal constitutional claim in the state courts, and the remaining claim regarding a continuance for pre-trial publicity was properly denied on the merit
• Turner v. Compoy
  827 F.2d 526· 9th Cir.· 1987-09-03 ·cited 13×
  A state prisoner is presumed to have exhausted state remedies when the state's highest court denies a hearing without citation or comment, even if the state court has expressed a preference for habeas corpus review of certain claims.
• Huffman v. Ricketts
  750 F.2d 798· 9th Cir.· 1984-12-28 ·cited 13×·via Federal Habeas Corpus Relief
  The court held that the Arizona Court of Appeals did not apply a procedural bar when it addressed the merits of Huffman's federal constitutional claim, and that the jury instructions, when viewed as a whole, did not create an unconstitutional presumption that shifted the burden o
• Lewellyn v. Louie L. Wainwright
  593 F.2d 15· 5th Cir.· 1979-04-13 ·cited 13×
  A guilty plea is invalid if the defendant is not informed of the maximum possible sentence, as this violates due process.
• Kravitz v. Commonwealth OF Pa.
  546 F.2d 1100· 3d Cir.· 1977-02-23 ·cited 13×·via Federal Habeas Corpus Jurisdiction
  The court held that the habeas corpus petition should not have been dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and the declaratory judgment action was properly dismissed because the named defendants could not provide the requested relief.
• United States ex rel. James P. Carafas v. LaVALLEE
  334 F.2d 331· 2d Cir.· 1964-06-22 ·cited 13×
  The court held that a petitioner's failure to object to evidence at trial does not preclude federal habeas corpus relief if the evidence was admissible under the law at the time of trial and the state courts have passed on the merits of the constitutional claim.
• MAY v. Collins
  948 F.2d 162· 5th Cir.· 1992-01-13 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the petitioner's Sixth Amendment claim was a reargument of a previously decided Eighth Amendment claim and thus barred as a successive petition. The court denied the certificate of probable cause and dismissed the petition.
• Fretwell v. A.L. Lockhart
  946 F.2d 571· 8th Cir.· 1991-09-23 ·cited 12×
  The dissenting judge argues that the majority erred in finding ineffective assistance of counsel and in ordering resentencing to life imprisonment.
• Kenley v. Armontrout
  937 F.2d 1298· 8th Cir.· 1991-05-17 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the defendant received ineffective assistance of counsel during the sentencing phase of his capital trial due to counsel's failure to present available mitigating evidence.
• Ford v. Armontrout
  916 F.2d 457· 8th Cir.· 1990-10-11 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the victim's in-court identification was reliable, evidence of other crimes was properly admitted, the speedy trial claim was procedurally barred, and counsel was not ineffective.
• Rivera v. Dir., Dep't OF Corr., State OF Ill.
  915 F.2d 280· 7th Cir.· 1990-09-27 ·cited 12×
  The court held that excluding a co-defendant's confession that exculpated the defendant, solely on the grounds of hearsay and the declarant's unavailability for cross-examination, violated the defendant's due process rights.
• Boyd v. Puckett
  905 F.2d 895· 5th Cir.· 1990-07-17 ·cited 12×
  A federal habeas court cannot grant relief based solely on newly discovered evidence that is relevant only to the guilt or innocence of a state prisoner.
• Arnulfo Mieles v. United States
  895 F.2d 887· 2d Cir.· 1990-02-06 ·cited 12×
  A federal prisoner is not entitled to credit against their sentence for time spent on bail prior to conviction and sentencing.
• Ross v. Petsock George
  868 F.2d 639· 3d Cir.· 1989-02-28 ·cited 12×
  The court should remand the case to the district court for reconsideration of the ineffective assistance of counsel claim, as the district court failed to review the state record to determine if the claim was fairly presented.
• Giarratano v. Murray
  847 F.2d 1118· 4th Cir.· 1988-06-03 ·cited 12×
  The court, in a concurring opinion, expresses doubt about the plaintiffs' standing to prosecute their case due to the consistent provision of counsel in state post-conviction proceedings.
• Farese v. Story
  823 F.2d 975· 6th Cir.· 1987-07-21 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the Sentencing Reform Act's amendments do not apply retroactively to the petitioner's sentence and that the Act's provisions for parole determination are not yet effective for him.
• Thompson v. Lynaugh
  821 F.2d 1080· 5th Cir.· 1987-07-07 ·cited 12×
  The court held that a federal court must deny habeas relief due to procedural default, even if the state court considered the merits of the claim, absent a showing of cause and prejudice.
• Ortega v. O.L. McCOTTER
  808 F.2d 406· 5th Cir.· 1987-01-23 ·cited 12×
  The court held that while some prosecutorial remarks were improper, they did not render the trial so fundamentally unfair as to deny due process, and thus habeas corpus relief was not warranted.
• Burnett v. Municipality OF Anchorage
  806 F.2d 1447· 9th Cir.· 1986-12-30 ·cited 12×·via Federal Habeas Corpus Relief
  The court held that individuals arrested for DWI have no constitutional right to refuse a breathalyzer test, and criminalizing such refusal does not violate the Fourth or Fourteenth Amendments.
• Wojtczak v. Fulcomer
  800 F.2d 353· 3d Cir.· 1986-09-09 ·cited 12×
  Inordinate delay by the state in processing post-conviction relief can excuse the federal habeas corpus exhaustion requirement.
• Harllel B. Jones v. Shankland
  800 F.2d 77· 6th Cir.· 1986-09-02 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the appellant's civil rights claims were time-barred by the applicable one-year statute of limitations and that county prosecutors were absolutely immune from suit.
• United States v. Thieret
  791 F.2d 543· 7th Cir.· 1986-05-23 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the district court correctly denied federal habeas corpus relief on Fourth and Fifth Amendment claims and that the prosecutor's remarks did not render the trial fundamentally unfair.
• Amadeo v. Kemp
  773 F.2d 1141· 11th Cir.· 1985-09-27 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the case must be remanded for an evidentiary hearing to determine if the petitioner had sufficient cause to overcome a procedural default in challenging jury composition.
• Norman v. O.L. McCOTTER
  765 F.2d 504· 5th Cir.· 1985-07-15 ·cited 12×·via Federal Habeas Corpus Relief
  The court held that while the district court erred in converting a motion to dismiss to summary judgment without notice, the error was harmless. The court affirmed the denial of the habeas corpus petition, finding no reversible error in the petitioner's claims.
• Parker v. Procunier
  763 F.2d 665· 5th Cir.· 1985-04-16 ·cited 12×
  The evidence presented at trial was sufficient to sustain the defendant's murder conviction, and therefore a writ of habeas corpus should not issue.
• Christian v. McKASKLE
  731 F.2d 1196· 5th Cir.· 1984-05-14 ·cited 12×
  The court affirmed the dismissal of the habeas corpus petition, finding that the Fourth Amendment claim was barred by Stone v. Powell and the Sixth Amendment claim lacked merit because a motion to suppress would have failed.
• Price v. King
  714 F.2d 585· 5th Cir.· 1983-09-16 ·cited 12×
  The Supreme Court's Doyle rule, prohibiting impeachment by post-Miranda silence, applies to cases on direct review when Doyle was decided.
• Baker v. W.J. Estelle, Jr.
  711 F.2d 44· 5th Cir.· 1983-08-01 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the petitioner was not subjected to double jeopardy and affirmed the denial of his habeas corpus petition.
• Fabian v. Reed
  707 F.2d 147· 5th Cir.· 1983-05-31 ·cited 12×
  The court held that it lacks jurisdiction to hear an appeal from a federal habeas corpus petition dismissal without a certificate of probable cause and will remand for the district court to consider granting one.
• Escobedo v. Estelle
  650 F.2d 70· 5th Cir.· 1981-07-06 ·cited 12×
  A state prisoner has exhausted state remedies for federal habeas corpus purposes when the federal claim has been fairly presented to the highest state court, even if that court did not explicitly address the claim in its opinion.
• Hussong v. Warden, Wis. State Reformatory
  623 F.2d 1185· 7th Cir.· 1980-06-06 ·cited 12×
• Ogle v. Estelle
  592 F.2d 1264· 5th Cir.· 1979-04-10 ·cited 12×·via Federal Habeas Corpus Relief
  The court held that the petitioner had sufficiently exhausted state remedies for his federal habeas corpus claims, as the state appellate court had a fair opportunity to consider them.
• Bryan v. Louie L. Wainwright
  588 F.2d 1108· 5th Cir.· 1979-02-05 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the jury instruction on 'depraved mind' in a second-degree murder case, while potentially subject to improvement, did not render the trial fundamentally unfair or violate constitutional rights.
• Graves v. Estelle
  556 F.2d 743· 5th Cir.· 1977-07-27 ·cited 12×
  The court held that while the petitioner had exhausted state remedies, his Fourth Amendment claim could not be granted on federal habeas review because the state courts provided a full and fair opportunity to litigate the claim, as required by Stone v. Powell.
• Barrington B. Bell v. State OF Ga.
  554 F.2d 1360· 5th Cir.· 1977-07-01 ·cited 12×·via Federal Habeas Corpus Relief
  The court held that the petitioner's conviction was constitutionally infirm due to denial of effective assistance of counsel.
• Roach v. Parratt
  541 F.2d 772· 8th Cir.· 1976-09-17 ·cited 12×
  Federal habeas corpus relief is not available for Fourth Amendment claims if the state provided a full and fair opportunity to litigate them.
• Edmunds v. Chang
  509 F.2d 39· 9th Cir.· 1975-01-02 ·cited 12×
  A person fined by a state court is not considered "in custody" for federal habeas corpus purposes unless confinement is imminent or actual.
• Crowe v. State OF S.D.
  484 F.2d 1359· 8th Cir.· 1973-10-04 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the appellant failed to establish reversible error in the acceptance of his guilty plea or denial of effective assistance of counsel.
• Gibson v. Blair
  467 F.2d 842· 5th Cir.· 1972-09-26 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the state court failed to afford the appellant a full and fair evidentiary hearing on his claim of unconstitutional jury exclusion.
• Smith v. Hoyt C. Cupp
  457 F.2d 1098· 9th Cir.· 1972-02-29 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the district court correctly dismissed the petition for habeas corpus relief, affirming the denial of all five arguments presented by the petitioner.
• McCLUSTER v. Louie L. Wainwright
  453 F.2d 162· 5th Cir.· 1972-01-05 ·cited 12×
  A federal habeas corpus petitioner who has had claims considered by the highest state court on direct appeal has exhausted state remedies and is not required to present claims again in a collateral proceeding.
• Sanchez v. Nelson
  446 F.2d 849· 9th Cir.· 1971-07-22 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the district court erred in rejecting the ineffective assistance of counsel claim based solely on the consistency of defenses, and that the issue requires further examination.
• Weaver v. State OF Tex.
  441 F.2d 388· 5th Cir.· 1971-04-12 ·cited 12×
  The court held that a general allegation of a coerced guilty plea is insufficient to warrant federal habeas relief without specific factual allegations and exhaustion of state remedies.
• Makarewicz v. Palmer C. Scafati
  438 F.2d 474· 1st Cir.· 1971-02-24 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the petitioner's confession was voluntary and admissible, affirming the denial of his habeas corpus petition.
• United States ex rel. William R. Liss v. Mancusi
  427 F.2d 225· 2d Cir.· 1970-06-01 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the petitioner's confessions were voluntary and that he received a full and fair hearing in the state courts, thus affirming the denial of his federal habeas corpus petition.
• Mattox v. Carson
  424 F.2d 202· 5th Cir.· 1970-03-25 ·cited 12×