Habeas Corpus Petition

4,115 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

• Henry v. State
  937 So. 2d 563· Fla.· 2006-05-25 ·cited 30×·via Writ Of Habeas Corpus
  Robert Henry appeals the denial of his Rule 3.850 postconviction motion for relief and petitions for a writ of habeas corpus in this capital murder case. The Florida Supreme Court affirms the denial of postconviction relief, finding no ineffective assistance of counsel at trial o
• Chadwick D. Banks v. State
  842 So. 2d 788· Fla.· 2003-03-20 ·cited 30×·via Writ Of Habeas Corpus
  Chadwick Banks, a death row inmate, appealed the trial court's denial of his Rule 3.850 motion for postconviction relief and filed a habeas corpus petition, challenging his death sentence on grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel and constitutional defects in Florida's deat
• Shere v. Moore
  830 So. 2d 56· Fla.· 2002-09-12 ·cited 30×·via Writ Of Habeas Corpus
  Richard Earl Shere, sentenced to death for first-degree murder, petitions for habeas corpus relief, claiming his appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise proportionality arguments based on his codefendant's life sentence for second-degree murder. The Florida Supreme
• Kight v. State
  784 So. 2d 396· Fla.· 2001-01-18 ·cited 30×·via Writ Of Habeas Corpus
  Charles Michael Kight, a death row inmate, appealed the trial court's denial of his second Rule 3.850 postconviction motion based on newly discovered evidence of his codefendant Gary Hutto's confession to the murder. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the denial, holding that the
• Hickman v. State
  581 So. 2d 942· Fla. 2d DCA· 1991-06-12 ·cited 30×·via Writ Of Habeas Corpus
  William Hickman appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief, claiming he requested an appeal from his 1985 conviction but his trial attorney failed to file it. The court affirms the denial as to most issues barred by the two-year limitations period and succ
• Richmond v. Lewis
  948 F.2d 1473· 9th Cir.· 1990-12-26 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the panel erred in its harmless error analysis by incorrectly assuming Arizona is not a weighing state, which requires reevaluation when an invalid aggravating factor is present.
• United States ex rel. Nathaniel Simmons v. Gramley
  915 F.2d 1128· 7th Cir.· 1990-10-09 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the petitioner failed to prove ineffective assistance of counsel, either at trial or during post-conviction proceedings, and that the district court did not err in denying an evidentiary hearing.
• Cary Michael Lambrix v. State
  559 So. 2d 1137· Fla.· 1990-04-26 ·cited 30×·via Writ Of Habeas Corpus
  Cary Michael Lambrix, a death row inmate, appealed the denial of his habeas corpus petition, claiming his collateral counsel was ineffective for failing to raise a juror misconduct claim in his prior postconviction motion. The Florida Supreme Court rejected the claim, finding the
• Buxton v. Lynaugh
  879 F.2d 140· 5th Cir.· 1989-07-21 ·cited 30×
  The state court's determination of a factual issue based solely on conflicting affidavits, without an evidentiary hearing, was not adequate to afford a full and fair hearing as required by 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2).
• Bryan v. Warden, Ind. State Reformatory
  820 F.2d 217· 7th Cir.· 1987-05-15 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the voluntariness of a Miranda waiver is a factual determination entitled to deference under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), and that the appellant waived his due process claim by failing to raise it on rehearing.
• Sinclair v. Louie L. Wainwright and Jim Smith
  814 F.2d 1516· 11th Cir.· 1987-04-20 ·cited 30×
  The court held that a magistrate had the authority to grant summary judgment under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and that the petitioner failed to establish ineffective assistance of counsel on most grounds. However, the court remanded for a determination of a witness's competency to testif
• Thaddeus Michael Lockhart v. O.L. McCOTTER
  782 F.2d 1275· 5th Cir.· 1986-02-18 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the defendant was not deprived of effective assistance of counsel at trial, and although appellate counsel's performance was deficient, the defendant suffered no prejudice because the appellate issues raised were ultimately rejected.
• Flittie v. Solem
  775 F.2d 933· 8th Cir.· 1985-10-14 ·cited 30×
• Hamilton v. O.L. McCOTTER
  772 F.2d 171· 5th Cir.· 1985-10-03 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the claim of a forged indictment was not procedurally barred and remanded for further consideration, while affirming the dismissal of other claims as abuse of the writ.
• Dalton Prejean v. Maggio
  765 F.2d 482· 5th Cir.· 1985-07-15 ·cited 30×
• Francois v. Louie L. Wainwright
  470 So. 2d 685· Fla.· 1985-05-22 ·cited 30×·via Writ Of Habeas Corpus
  The court held that a successive habeas corpus petition raising claims previously presented and denied is not cognizable, and even if considered, the claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel failed to meet the Strickland standard.
• Barham v. United States
  724 F.2d 1529· 11th Cir.· 1984-02-16 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the simultaneous representation of a defendant and a government witness by the same attorney does not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel unless an actual conflict of interest adversely affected the attorney's performance.
• Muench v. Israel
  715 F.2d 1124· 7th Cir.· 1983-08-15 ·cited 30×
  The dissenting judge would grant the writs, finding the state's justifications for excluding psychiatric testimony on mens rea unpersuasive.
• Gray v. Eddie Lucas & the State of Miss.
  710 F.2d 1048· 5th Cir.· 1983-07-15 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the petitioner's claims, including present insanity, improper jury instructions, prosecutorial misconduct, proportionality review, vague aggravating factors, cruel and unusual punishment, and ineffective assistance of counsel, did not warrant federal habeas co
• Nash v. Israel
  707 F.2d 298· 7th Cir.· 1983-05-19 ·cited 30×·via Writ Of Habeas Corpus
  The court held that a guilty plea is invalid if the trial court fails to establish on the record that the defendant understood the elements of the charge, particularly when the defendant explicitly states confusion.
• Goode v. Louie L. Wainwright
  704 F.2d 593· 11th Cir.· 1983-05-02 ·cited 30×·via Habeas Corpus Relief
  The court held that the trial court adequately addressed the appellant's competence to stand trial and to waive counsel, and that the appellant knowingly and intelligently waived his right to counsel. However, the court found merit in the claim that the trial court improperly rel
• Ross v. W.J. Estelle, Jr.
  694 F.2d 1008· 5th Cir.· 1983-01-03 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the denial of the writ of habeas corpus was proper because the appellant's claims of constitutional error, including denial of compulsory process and ineffective assistance of counsel, lacked merit.
• Emmett Hickerson v. Maggio
  691 F.2d 792· 5th Cir.· 1982-11-18 ·cited 30×
  A defendant has a due process right to the exercise of the sentencer's discretion, and a claim that this discretion was not exercised warrants an evidentiary hearing if not conclusively refuted by the record.
• Williams v. Holbrook
  691 F.2d 3· 1st Cir.· 1982-09-23 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the petitioner had sufficiently presented her sixth amendment claims to the state courts, satisfying the exhaustion requirement, and that her escape did not constitute an abuse of the writ warranting dismissal.
• United States ex rel. Otis Williams & A. D. Clark v. Franzen
  687 F.2d 944· 7th Cir.· 1982-08-20 ·cited 30×
  The court held that a conflict of interest adversely affecting a lawyer's performance warrants habeas relief, even if the state court applied an improper prejudice standard or if a petitioner arguably waived the claim on appeal.
• Fornash v. Marshall
  686 F.2d 1179· 6th Cir.· 1982-08-16 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the petitioner failed to demonstrate actual prejudice from the jury instructions and did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel.
• Fields v. Wyrick
  682 F.2d 154· 8th Cir.· 1982-04-23 ·cited 30×·via Habeas Corpus Relief
  A defendant's waiver of counsel for a polygraph examination does not extend to subsequent post-test interrogation, and the government must prove a knowing and intelligent waiver for such interrogation.
• United States v. Franzen
  669 F.2d 433· 7th Cir.· 1982-01-12 ·cited 30×
  Federal courts cannot entertain state law claims in habeas corpus proceedings, as the habeas corpus statutes are limited to violations of federal law. Pendent jurisdiction does not extend to state law claims in this context.
• Powell v. Wyrick
  657 F.2d 222· 8th Cir.· 1981-08-26 ·cited 30×
  The court held that a petitioner is not required to pursue a discretionary state remedy under Mo.R.Civ.P. 84.08 if such pursuit would be futile.
• Priore v. Nelson
  626 F.2d 211· 2d Cir.· 1980-06-11 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the United States Parole Commission's guidelines were lawfully promulgated and applied, did not violate statutory intent or constitutional prohibitions, and that the prisoner's claim regarding mandatory release was premature.
• Moore v. Nelson
  611 F.2d 434· 2d Cir.· 1979-12-05 ·cited 30×
  The United States Parole Commission's guidelines may be applied to federal prisoners sentenced under 18 U.S.C. § 4205(b)(2), and these guidelines may consider offense severity and do not require special emphasis on rehabilitation for such prisoners.
• Harrison v. State OF Ind.
  597 F.2d 115· 7th Cir.· 1979-05-02 ·cited 30×
  A federal court retains jurisdiction over a habeas corpus petition even if the petitioner is released from custody before the proceedings conclude, provided jurisdiction attached at the time of filing, and the petition is not moot if collateral consequences of the challenged conv
• Edmond Jackson v. Fogg
  589 F.2d 108· 2d Cir.· 1978-12-19 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the admission of identification testimony from three eyewitnesses, tainted by suggestive police procedures, constituted a denial of due process.
• Gerrold Duane Davis v. Louie L. Wainwright
  547 F.2d 261· 5th Cir.· 1977-02-18 ·cited 30×
  The court held that a violation of a state speedy trial rule, even if counsel failed to raise it, is not a constitutional violation reviewable by federal habeas corpus. A guilty plea is voluntary if the defendant affirms it is knowing and voluntary, even if the court doesn't list
• Craig v. Warden Sam P. Garrison
  549 F.2d 306· 4th Cir.· 1977-02-07 ·cited 30×·via Application For Writ Of Habeas Corpus
  When a pro se litigant's notice of appeal is filed within the extension period, the court must advise the litigant of the requirements for excusable neglect before deeming it untimely.
• Haymes v. Montanye
  547 F.2d 188· 2d Cir.· 1976-12-28 ·cited 30×
  The court held that there are genuine issues of material fact regarding whether the prisoner's transfer violated his First Amendment rights or his right to assist other prisoners with habeas corpus petitions.
• Cameron v. Fastoff
  543 F.2d 971· 2d Cir.· 1976-04-22 ·cited 30×
  The court held that petitioners failed to exhaust state remedies for their federal constitutional claims, but affirmed the dismissal on the merits for the claim regarding probable cause for the search warrants.
• Haefeli v. Chernoff
  526 F.2d 1314· 5th Cir.· 1975-12-15 ·cited 30×·via Writ Of Habeas Corpus
  The court held that the warrantless search of the automobile was permissible under the automobile exception due to exigent circumstances and probable cause, and that the subsequent search warrant for the apartment was validly issued based on sufficient probable cause.
• Tyler v. Swenson
  483 F.2d 611· 8th Cir.· 1973-08-15 ·cited 30×
  District courts are required to consider exhausted claims in a habeas petition even if other unrelated claims within the same petition are unexhausted.
• Gomez v. Beto
  462 F.2d 596· 5th Cir.· 1972-07-14 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the failure of defense counsel to investigate the appellant's sole defense (alibi) and subpoena witnesses constituted ineffective assistance of counsel.
• Leavitt v. Howard
  462 F.2d 992· 1st Cir.· 1972-05-24 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the district court erred in disregarding the state court's findings of fact regarding consent to search, as the state court's findings were supported by the record and no statutory exceptions under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) were met.
• Meller v. State OF Mo.
  431 F.2d 120· 8th Cir.· 1970-08-17 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the defendant's 1952 guilty plea and waiver of counsel were voluntary and intelligent, and that the Boykin v. Alabama decision should not be applied retroactively.
• Thompkins v. U. S. Bd. OF Parole
  427 F.2d 222· 5th Cir.· 1970-06-15 ·cited 30×·via Writ Of Habeas Corpus
  The determination of eligibility for parole is wholly within the discretion of the Parole Board, and prisoners are not entitled to parole as a matter of right.
• Alverez v. Turner
  422 F.2d 214· 10th Cir.· 1970-02-20 ·cited 30×·via Habeas Corpus Relief
  The court held that parole revocation hearings do not require the full due process rights afforded in criminal trials, such as confrontation, cross-examination, or compulsory process, but equal protection may be violated by discretionary practices regarding witnesses.
• Perkins v. Henderson
  418 F.2d 441· 5th Cir.· 1969-11-12 ·cited 30×·via Writ Of Habeas Corpus
  The court held that a consent to search is invalid if the individual is not informed that they have the right to refuse consent.
• Emmitt Monroe Spencer v. Wainwright
  403 F.2d 778· 5th Cir.· 1968-11-22 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the federal district court erred in denying the petition for habeas corpus because the petitioner had not exhausted his available state remedies.
• Hill v. Beto
  390 F.2d 640· 5th Cir.· 1968-02-21 ·cited 30×
  The court held that conviction by a state for robbery after a federal conviction for the same act does not constitute double jeopardy.
• Martinez v. United States
  344 F.2d 325· 10th Cir.· 1965-04-07 ·cited 30×
  A motion for post-conviction relief requires factual allegations, not mere conclusions, to warrant a hearing.
• Dillard v. Bomar
  342 F.2d 789· 6th Cir.· 1965-03-24 ·cited 30×·via Writ Of Habeas Corpus
  The Sixth Circuit held that there is no constitutional right to a preliminary hearing, and therefore, denial of such a hearing does not violate due process.
• Charley Luther Pike v. Dickson
  323 F.2d 856· 9th Cir.· 1963-10-18 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the trial court erred in summarily dismissing the habeas corpus petition without inquiring into the alleged facts of prosecutorial misconduct and prejudice.