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

• Pineda v. Craven
  424 F.2d 369· 9th Cir.· 1970-03-16 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the right to challenge a search warrant under Aguilar v. Texas was not knowingly waived in this case.
• Efrain Rivera Colon v. E. A. "Doug" Hendry
  408 F.2d 864· 5th Cir.· 1969-03-18 ·cited 12×
  The court held that charging a state prisoner with a more serious felony after he successfully obtained a federal writ of habeas corpus for misdemeanor convictions, solely to make appointed counsel available, impermissibly burdens the right to seek habeas relief.
• Humphries v. LaMoyne Green
  397 F.2d 67· 6th Cir.· 1968-06-12 ·cited 12×
• Wilson v. The Honorable George B. Harris
  378 F.2d 141· 9th Cir.· 1967-05-10 ·cited 12×
  Discovery interrogatories are not authorized in federal habeas corpus proceedings under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or 28 U.S.C. § 2246.
• Boyd v. State OF Okla.
  375 F.2d 481· 10th Cir.· 1967-04-05 ·cited 12×
  A state prisoner must exhaust available state remedies before seeking federal habeas corpus relief, and the mere possibility of an unfavorable outcome in state court does not render the remedy inadequate.
• Potter v. Dowd
  146 F.2d 244· 7th Cir.· 1944-12-08 ·cited 12×·via Federal Habeas Corpus Jurisdiction
  Federal courts should not deny a hearing on habeas corpus petitions alleging denial of federal constitutional rights, even if state remedies exist but are practically unavailable or inadequate.
• Barritt v. Sec'y, Fla. Dep't of Corr.
  968 F.3d 1246· 11th Cir.· 2020-08-04 ·cited 11×·via Federal Habeas Corpus Relief
  The Eleventh Circuit held that the district court did not violate Clisby v. Jones by failing to address an independent coercion claim, as none was clearly presented. It also affirmed the denial of habeas relief on claims of ineffective assistance of counsel regarding prosecutoria
• Lashley v. Armontrout
  957 F.2d 1495· 8th Cir.· 1992-03-04 ·cited 11×
  The court held that the state trial judge's refusal to give a mitigating circumstance instruction, despite the lack of supporting evidence, violated the Eighth Amendment as explained in Lockett.
• Neuschafer v. Harol Whitley
  860 F.2d 1470· 9th Cir.· 1988-11-03 ·cited 11×
  The court ultimately concurs with the majority's decision, despite prior reservations.
• Johnson v. Cabana
  818 F.2d 333· 5th Cir.· 1987-05-19 ·cited 11×
  The court affirmed the denial of habeas corpus relief, finding that the petitioner failed to make a substantial threshold showing of present insanity and that his claims of ineffective counsel lacked merit under the Strickland standard.
• LEE v. Winston
  717 F.2d 888· 4th Cir.· 1983-09-14 ·cited 11×
  The court held that the involuntary surgical removal of a bullet from a suspect's body, under the circumstances presented, would violate the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches. It also held that such a claim is cognizable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, not habea
• United States v. Sisneros
  599 F.2d 946· 10th Cir.· 1979-06-12 ·cited 11×
  A mere technical violation of Rule 11, such as failing to fully advise a defendant of the maximum possible special parole term, does not warrant collateral relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 absent a showing of manifest injustice or exceptional circumstances.
• McNAIR v. McCUNE
  527 F.2d 874· 4th Cir.· 1975-10-20 ·cited 11×·via Federal Habeas Corpus Jurisdiction
  Federal habeas corpus jurisdiction exists for a federal prisoner challenging segregated confinement imposed without due process.
• Miller v. Iverne R. Carter
  434 F.2d 824· 9th Cir.· 1970-10-09 ·cited 11×
  The dissenting judge would affirm the district court's denial of the petition for habeas corpus, finding that the petitioner's counsel deliberately waived objections as a matter of trial strategy.
• Brooks v. Smith
  429 F.2d 1281· 5th Cir.· 1970-07-06 ·cited 11×
  The court held that claims of illegal arrest and improper lineup were insufficient for habeas relief, but the denial of the inadequate counsel claim was vacated for further review.
• Bass v. Dep't OF Corr.
  684 So. 2d 834· Fla. 1st DCA· 1996-12-05 ·cited 10×
  Florida inmates challenged Department of Corrections rules prohibiting preparation of legal documents by those in disciplinary confinement. The court held that the rules unconstitutionally restrict access to federal courts for habeas corpus petitions and civil rights actions, vio
• Smith v. Collins
  964 F.2d 483· 5th Cir.· 1992-06-30 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court's denial of the habeas corpus petition was proper, as the alleged errors did not rise to the level of constitutional violations or were harmless.
• Williams v. Dixon
  961 F.2d 448· 4th Cir.· 1992-03-24 ·cited 10×
• Evans v. Court OF Common Pleas
  959 F.2d 1227· 3d Cir.· 1992-03-18 ·cited 10×
  The court held that a federal court may not grant habeas corpus relief before a state retrial when the prior conviction was reversed for trial error, as double jeopardy does not bar such a retrial. The court also found that the petitioner had adequately exhausted her federal due
• Skelton v. Whitley
  950 F.2d 1037· 5th Cir.· 1992-01-06 ·cited 10×
  The Court of Appeals held that the Cage v. Louisiana decision announced a "new rule" of constitutional law and therefore could not be applied retroactively to Skelton's case on federal habeas review, as it did not fall within the exceptions to the Teague doctrine.
• Clark A. Bailey v. Gardebring
  940 F.2d 1150· 8th Cir.· 1991-07-26 ·cited 10×
  The dissent argues that the new Minnesota parole regulations constitute a law for ex post facto purposes because they are binding on the agency and lack discretion, unlike federal guidelines. The dissent would find the regulations violate the ex post facto clause.
• Taylor v. Whitley
  933 F.2d 325· 5th Cir.· 1991-06-13 ·cited 10×
  A voluntary and intelligent guilty plea waives the right to collaterally attack convictions on double jeopardy grounds, unless the violation is apparent on the face of the indictment or record.
• Spain v. Rushen
  883 F.2d 712· 9th Cir.· 1989-08-22 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the trial judge's decision to shackle the defendant was not an abuse of discretion that denied due process, considering the specific security risks and the defendant's history.
• Hawkins v. Lynaugh
  862 F.2d 482· 5th Cir.· 1988-12-10 ·cited 10×
  The court vacated the district court's ruling, declined to vacate the stay of execution, and remanded the case for further consideration of the habeas petition and the state's assertion of writ abuse.
• Lane T. Mele v. Fitchburg Dist. Court
  850 F.2d 817· 1st Cir.· 1988-06-15 ·cited 10×
  An issue is not considered fairly presented to the state's highest court for exhaustion purposes unless the applicant has raised it within the application for further appellate review.
• Byrne v. Roemer
  847 F.2d 1130· 5th Cir.· 1988-06-13 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the prisoner was not entitled to a stay of execution because his section 1983 claim, based on the premise that a Louisiana statute unconstitutionally limited his federal right to seek Supreme Court review, lacked merit. The federal statute does not grant the a
• Doucette v. Vose
  842 F.2d 538· 1st Cir.· 1988-03-23 ·cited 10×·via Federal Habeas Corpus Jurisdiction
  The SJC's review of a claimed instructional error under state law, even if referencing federal constitutional issues, does not waive a procedural default for federal habeas review.
• Webb v. Keohane
  804 F.2d 413· 7th Cir.· 1986-10-30 ·cited 10×
  A prisoner waives rights under the Interstate Agreement on Detainers (IAD) anti-shuttling provision by requesting transfer to another facility, and failure to raise issues in state court constitutes a procedural default that federal habeas review cannot excuse without a showing o
• Miller v. Solem
  758 F.2d 144· 8th Cir.· 1985-04-04 ·cited 10×
  A successive federal habeas petition cannot be dismissed as an abuse of the writ under Rule 9(b) unless the petitioner has been given a reasonable opportunity to explain why new grounds were not raised in prior petitions.
• Woodard v. Sargent
  753 F.2d 694· 8th Cir.· 1985-01-31 ·cited 10×
  The Eighth Circuit held that the Grigsby rule, which concerns the impartiality of death-qualified juries on guilt, applies retroactively to cases like Woodard's and that his claim was not procedurally barred in state courts. Therefore, Woodard is entitled to a new trial before an
• Anderson v. Jones
  743 F.2d 306· 5th Cir.· 1984-10-09 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the Andersons are entitled to an evidentiary hearing to determine the sentencing judge's understanding of his sentencing discretion.
• Riley v. Gray
  674 F.2d 522· 6th Cir.· 1982-03-22 ·cited 10×·via Federal Habeas Corpus Relief
  Federal habeas relief is available when a state court's application of a procedural rule, even if facially adequate, frustrates a defendant's opportunity to fully litigate a Fourth Amendment claim.
• Adail v. Wyrick
  671 F.2d 1218· 8th Cir.· 1982-03-11 ·cited 10×·via Federal Habeas Corpus Relief
  The court held that the petitioner had exhausted state remedies for direct appeal issues and affirmed the dismissal of ineffective assistance of counsel and jury selection claims.
• Lincoln Isaac v. Engle
  646 F.2d 1122· 6th Cir.· 1980-02-08 ·cited 10×
  The court held that Ohio's contemporaneous objection rule could not be used to deny the retroactive benefit of the Robinson decision, as doing so violated due process.
• United States ex rel. Lawrence Williams v. Morris
  594 F.2d 614· 7th Cir.· 1979-03-13 ·cited 10×
  The court held that petitioners failed to demonstrate the futility of pursuing available state remedies for their claims regarding the lack of admonishment about mandatory parole periods.
• Harned v. Henderson
  588 F.2d 12· 2d Cir.· 1978-11-21 ·cited 10×
  A guilty plea is not voluntary in a constitutional sense if the defendant did not receive real notice of the true nature of the charge against him.
• Bentura Flores v. Estelle
  578 F.2d 80· 5th Cir.· 1978-08-08 ·cited 10×
  A federal court need not hold an evidentiary hearing if a full and fair state hearing was held and the federal judge can adjudicate the case without repeating the process.
• Spratlin v. Solem
  577 F.2d 56· 8th Cir.· 1978-06-08 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the jury instruction on agency, while potentially confusing, did not rise to the level of constitutional error required for federal habeas relief.
• Bell v. State OF N.C.
  576 F.2d 564· 4th Cir.· 1978-05-01 ·cited 10×
  A guilty plea is not rendered involuntary by the failure to advise a defendant of potential parole eligibility, as this is not a direct consequence of the plea.
• Quillian P. Strickland v. Hopper
  571 F.2d 275· 5th Cir.· 1978-04-13 ·cited 10×
  The court held that a state court's denial of a new trial motion due to the petitioner's fugitive status is a valid procedural default that can be recognized in federal habeas proceedings.
• Holmberg v. Parratt
  548 F.2d 745· 8th Cir.· 1977-02-01 ·cited 10×
  Federal courts cannot grant habeas corpus relief on Fourth Amendment claims if the state provided a full and fair opportunity to litigate the claim.
• Rigsbee v. Parkinson
  545 F.2d 56· 8th Cir.· 1976-11-19 ·cited 10×
  Federal courts should not grant habeas corpus relief for Fourth Amendment claims if the state provided an opportunity for full and fair litigation of those claims.
• Chance v. Garrison
  537 F.2d 1212· 4th Cir.· 1976-06-10 ·cited 10×
  The court held that a state court's interpretation of state statutes regarding in-custody interrogations does not present a federal question for habeas corpus review unless it infringes upon a federally protected right.
• Kibbe v. Henderson
  534 F.2d 493· 2d Cir.· 1976-04-08 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the trial judge's jury instruction on causation, while potentially lacking detail, did not rise to the level of constitutional error requiring federal habeas relief.
• Glenn v. Reubin O'D. Askew
  513 F.2d 61· 5th Cir.· 1975-05-21 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the appellee failed to exhaust his state court remedies before seeking federal habeas corpus relief.
• Hamilton v. State OF NEW Mexico
  479 F.2d 343· 10th Cir.· 1973-05-31 ·cited 10×
  A state prisoner has no absolute federal constitutional right to bail pending appeal, and federal courts do not review state court discretion in denying bail.
• United States ex rel. William J. Johnson v. Cavell
  468 F.2d 304· 3d Cir.· 1972-10-03 ·cited 10×·via Federal Habeas Corpus Jurisdiction
  The court held that federal habeas corpus relief should be withheld pending a state court determination of whether the petitioner knowingly and deliberately waived his right to appeal.
• United States ex rel. Milton Wilson v. Rowe
  454 F.2d 585· 7th Cir.· 1971-12-02 ·cited 10×
  The court held that a federal court should not grant a writ of habeas corpus when the petitioner has not exhausted state remedies, even if state appellate procedures are slow, absent a showing that state processes are ineffective to protect rights.
• United States ex rel. Nester Roldan v. Follette
  450 F.2d 514· 2d Cir.· 1971-10-28 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the appellant failed to demonstrate a basis for ordering an evidentiary hearing on his alleged deprivation of federal constitutional rights regarding the right to appeal from a guilty plea.
• Smith v. Follette
  445 F.2d 955· 2d Cir.· 1971-07-08 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the applications were essentially habeas corpus petitions requiring exhaustion of state remedies.