Habeas Corpus Petition

4,117 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 4,089 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• Smith v. A.L. Lockhart
  946 F.2d 1392· 8th Cir.· 1991-10-17 ·cited 2×·via Petition For Habeas Corpus Relief
  The court held that the appellant's counsel was not ineffective for failing to seek a new trial because the jury's verdict was a valid compromise and would not have been overturned.
• Elcock v. Henderson
  947 F.2d 1004· 2d Cir.· 1991-10-17 ·cited 2×
  The court held that while a due process violation occurred due to appellate delay, unconditional release was not warranted without a showing of prejudice to the appeal's outcome. The Sixth Amendment claim based on attorney conflict of interest required further factual findings.
• Lewis v. Erickson
  946 F.2d 1361· 8th Cir.· 1991-10-15 ·cited 2×
  The court held that newly discovered evidence, specifically the victim's recantation of her identification of Lewis's co-assailant, would likely produce an acquittal on retrial and thus warrants habeas relief.
• Griffin v. Delo
  946 F.2d 1356· 8th Cir.· 1991-10-11 ·cited 2×
  The court affirmed the denial of the habeas corpus petition, finding no constitutional error in the admission of evidence, ineffective assistance of counsel, or prosecutorial misconduct.
• Dante Todaro # AJ-1779 v. Fulcomer
  944 F.2d 1079· 3d Cir.· 1991-09-10 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the state trial court's fact-finding procedure afforded the defendant a full and fair hearing, and the district court did not err in denying an evidentiary hearing on the habeas corpus petition.
• Shore v. Warden, Stateville Prison
  942 F.2d 1117· 7th Cir.· 1991-08-30 ·cited 2×
  The district court erred in granting habeas corpus relief because it improperly applied the standard of review and disregarded the law of the case doctrine.
• Chestnut v. Magnusson
  942 F.2d 820· 1st Cir.· 1991-08-29 ·cited 2×
  A state's failure to provide good-time credits for pretrial detention, while allowing them for sentenced prisoners, does not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
• Fitzgerald v. Thompson
  943 F.2d 463· 4th Cir.· 1991-08-26 ·cited 2×·via Habeas Corpus Relief
  The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the habeas corpus petition, finding no error in the conviction or sentencing.
• Coy Arthur Hill v. Reynolds
  942 F.2d 1494· 10th Cir.· 1991-08-23 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the state's significant delay in adjudicating the petitioner's direct criminal appeal violates his due process rights and excuses him from the requirement to exhaust state remedies before seeking federal habeas corpus relief.
• Derick Peterson v. Murray
  949 F.2d 704· 4th Cir.· 1991-08-22 ·cited 2×
  The court vacated the district court's temporary stay of execution, finding the petitioner's claims procedurally defaulted and barred by doctrines concerning successive petitions and new rules.
• Girtman v. A.L. Lockhart
  942 F.2d 468· 8th Cir.· 1991-08-08 ·cited 2×
  The court held that while the conviction is affirmed, the sentence as a habitual offender must be reversed and remanded because the trial court may have unconstitutionally failed to hold a hearing before transferring the juvenile Girtman to adult court.
• Jones v. A.L. Lockhart
  940 F.2d 378· 8th Cir.· 1991-08-05 ·cited 2×
  The court affirmed the district court's denial of habeas relief but remanded to allow the petitioner to amend his petition to include a new claim regarding ineffective assistance of counsel for misadvice on parole eligibility.
• Young v. Puckett
  938 F.2d 562· 5th Cir.· 1991-07-26 ·cited 2×
  The court held that because the prior conviction was not constitutionally infirm, the petitioner's claim that he was forced to testify due to a tainted conviction is meritless, and the petition is affirmed as successive.
• Swift v. State
  582 So. 2d 146· Fla. 3d DCA· 1991-07-09 ·cited 2×·via Writ Of Habeas Corpus
  The court affirmed the trial court's denial of habeas corpus relief because the appellant's motion for post-conviction relief challenging ineffective assistance of counsel was filed more than three years after the statutory deadline under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850.
• Mata v. Ricketts
  937 F.2d 467· 9th Cir.· 1991-07-01 ·cited 2×
  The admission of a nontestifying codefendant's confession was harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt, and therefore, habeas corpus relief is denied.
• Ballard v. Estelle
  937 F.2d 453· 9th Cir.· 1991-06-26 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the appellant's sentence enhancement for firearm use was consistent with California law and did not violate due process, and that California law permits gun use findings to attach to all counts arising from a single criminal transaction where a firearm was per
• Burt v. Puckett
  933 F.2d 350· 5th Cir.· 1991-06-17 ·cited 2×
  A fifteen-year sentence for uttering a forged check, imposed under a habitual offender statute, does not violate the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment when compared to Supreme Court precedent.
• Bird v. Collins
  934 F.2d 629· 5th Cir.· 1991-06-16 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the petitioner did not present a substantial legal question regarding actual innocence of a death sentence to warrant further review.
• Boudreaux v. Dugger
  579 So. 2d 918· Fla. 1st DCA· 1991-06-03 ·cited 2×·via Writ Of Habeas Corpus
• Sherley v. Seabold
  929 F.2d 272· 6th Cir.· 1991-05-24 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the admission of hearsay testimony violated the petitioner's Sixth Amendment confrontation clause rights because the prosecution failed to demonstrate the witness's unavailability with a good-faith effort and the hearsay lacked sufficient indicia of reliabilit
• Evans v. Denis Dowd
  932 F.2d 739· 8th Cir.· 1991-05-08 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the confession was not involuntary and affirmed the dismissal of the habeas corpus petition.
• R.L. v. State
  578 So. 2d 862· Fla. 5th DCA· 1991-05-02 ·cited 2×·via Writ Of Habeas Corpus
  The court held that a juvenile detained beyond statutory limits, even if transferred to home detention, is entitled to release.
• Bagby v. Kuhlman
  932 F.2d 131· 2d Cir.· 1991-04-30 ·cited 2×·via Writ Of Habeas Corpus
  The court held that a witness's invocation of the Fifth Amendment privilege does not violate the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause if the defendant had a prior ample opportunity to cross-examine the witness and the witness's subsequent recantation is deemed untrustworthy.
• Marx v. United States
  930 F.2d 1246· 7th Cir.· 1991-04-26 ·cited 2×·via Habeas Corpus Relief
  The dissenting judge would vacate the guilty plea due to deficiencies in the plea-taking procedure and the government's failure to fulfill its commitment regarding the return of cows.
• Lemieux v. Dareld Kerby
  931 F.2d 1391· 10th Cir.· 1991-04-26 ·cited 2×
  The New Mexico sentencing statute authorizing good time credit only for post-sentencing time served in state prison, but not pre-sentencing time in county jail, does not violate the Equal Protection or Due Process Clauses.
• Harris v. Allen
  929 F.2d 560· 10th Cir.· 1991-04-01 ·cited 2×
  A civil forfeiture proceeding is a collateral consequence of a guilty plea and does not need to be included in a plea agreement for the plea to be considered knowing and voluntary.
• Vahlsing v. Commercial Union Ins. Co., Inc.
  928 F.2d 486· 1st Cir.· 1991-03-22 ·cited 2×·via Writ Of Habeas Corpus
  The court held that the jury's verdict for the defendant on all counts was supported by sufficient evidence and proper jury instructions, affirming the district court's judgment.
• Strouse v. Leonardo
  928 F.2d 548· 2d Cir.· 1991-03-18 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the petitioner made a sufficient showing to be entitled to an evidentiary hearing on his claim of an actual conflict of interest due to his trial counsel's potential expectation of fees as executor.
• Tyler v. United States
  929 F.2d 451· 9th Cir.· 1991-03-13 ·cited 2×
  The Good Time Credits Act of 1986 (GTCA) did not impliedly repeal the prior statute requiring parole violators to forfeit street time credit.
• Jackson v. United States
  928 F.2d 245· 8th Cir.· 1991-03-06 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial counsel's actions did not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel, and the defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to testify.
• Simpson v. Camper
  927 F.2d 392· 8th Cir.· 1991-03-04 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the appeal would be held in abeyance pending a determination by the Missouri Court of Appeals on whether a state remedy is available to the petitioner.
• Bedford v. Attorney Gen. OF the State OF Ala. & Charlie E. Jones
  924 F.2d 203· 11th Cir.· 1991-02-19 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the defendant's claim was not procedurally barred because the state court's dismissal was not a clear and express statement of reliance on a procedural default, and the state failed to show particularized prejudice from the delay.
• Stephenson v. Rice
  574 So. 2d 286· Fla. 2d DCA· 1991-02-13 ·cited 2×·via Writ Of Habeas Corpus
  Petitioner Stephenson sought habeas corpus relief, arguing he was unlawfully held without probable cause. The Florida appellate court granted the writ, finding that hearsay testimony from witnesses regarding victims' statements was insufficient to establish probable cause at a pr
• Disinger v. State
  574 So. 2d 268· Fla. 5th DCA· 1991-02-07 ·cited 2×·via Writ Of Habeas Corpus
  Robert Disinger, a criminal defendant convicted of sexual battery and indecent assault, petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus claiming his appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise a Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause violation on direct appeal. The court granted
• Haley v. Armontrout
  924 F.2d 735· 8th Cir.· 1991-01-22 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court properly denied the habeas corpus petition, affirming the denial of relief on all grounds.
• Gutierrez v. Moriarty
  922 F.2d 1464· 10th Cir.· 1991-01-07 ·cited 2×
  The majority's conclusion that the New Mexico procedural bar rule is not adequate for speedy trial claims is incorrect because it misinterprets state case law and presumes state courts are not faithful to their rules.
• Geronima Mayo v. Schiltgen
  921 F.2d 177· 8th Cir.· 1990-12-12 ·cited 2×·via Writ Of Habeas Corpus
  The court held that the district court erred by affirming the agency's exclusion order on grounds not relied upon by the agency, and that the appellant deserves a hearing on her claim that her marriage was void under Philippine law.
• Hernandez v. W.L. Garrison
  916 F.2d 291· 5th Cir.· 1990-11-05 ·cited 2×·via Writ Of Habeas Corpus
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying the habeas corpus petition, as the appellant's claims were either moot, not cognizable in habeas, or based on a misinterpretation of statutory amendments.
• Marzano v. Kincheloe
  915 F.2d 549· 9th Cir.· 1990-10-02 ·cited 2×
  A sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole cannot be constitutionally imposed on a defendant who pleads guilty, even if they agree to such a sentence in a plea bargain, as the statute requires jury findings for such sentences.
• Judd v. Baer
  911 F.2d 571· 11th Cir.· 1990-09-07 ·cited 2×
  The failure of the National Appeals Board (NAB) to render a decision within sixty days, as mandated by 18 U.S.C. § 4215(b), does not create an entitlement to habeas relief for the prisoner or parolee awaiting the decision.
• Manning v. Alexander
  912 F.2d 878· 6th Cir.· 1990-08-31 ·cited 2×
  The Sixth Circuit held that Manning adequately presented his ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claim to the Supreme Court of Ohio, thus exhausting his state remedies.
• Jeffries v. Crispus C. NIX
  912 F.2d 982· 8th Cir.· 1990-08-30 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial court properly excluded evidence of the victim's past sexual behavior under the rape shield law, and any error in excluding evidence of delusions was harmless.
• Ostrosky v. State OF Alaska
  913 F.2d 590· 9th Cir.· 1990-08-28 ·cited 2×
  The court held that prosecuting Ostrosky after a lower court declared the statute unconstitutional, but while that decision was on appeal, did not violate due process, and that Ostrosky waived his right to a jury trial on his mistake of law defense.
• Alexzene Hamilton v. Collins
  905 F.2d 825· 5th Cir.· 1990-06-25 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court correctly dismissed the habeas petition because the state court's findings of competency were fairly supported by the record and thus binding. The court denied the stay of execution and affirmed the dismissal.
• Sandsbury LEE v. Dugger
  902 F.2d 822· 11th Cir.· 1990-06-04 ·cited 2×·via Writ Of Habeas Corpus
  Government officials are entitled to qualified immunity if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights. A single intermediate appellate court decision construing a statute is insufficient to establish clarity for qualified immunity purpos
• Ford v. A.L. Lockhart
  904 F.2d 458· 8th Cir.· 1990-06-04 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the defendant received effective assistance of counsel and his guilty plea was voluntary, knowing, and intelligent.
• Wilton Howell v. W.R. Barker
  904 F.2d 889· 4th Cir.· 1990-05-24 ·cited 2×
  A defendant seeking due process relief for preindictment delay must prove actual prejudice, after which the court balances the prejudice against the government's justification for the delay.
• Pens v. Kit Bail
  902 F.2d 1464· 9th Cir.· 1990-05-16 ·cited 2×
  The court held that using statements made by a defendant during court-ordered, confidential therapy to impose an exceptional sentence violates the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.
• Hafley v. Sowders
  902 F.2d 480· 6th Cir.· 1990-05-15 ·cited 2×
  The court held that one claim was exhausted and meritorious, while the remaining six ineffective assistance of counsel claims were unexhausted. The court affirmed dismissal of unexhausted claims and dismissal of the exhausted claim on its merits.
• Harriman v. Lynn
  901 F.2d 64· 5th Cir.· 1990-05-15 ·cited 2×·via Application For Writ Of Habeas Corpus
  The court held that the Supreme Court's decision in Arizona v. Roberson, which prohibited further interrogation after a suspect invokes the right to counsel, announced a "new rule" and therefore does not apply retroactively to cases on collateral review where the conviction was f