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

• Harich v. State
  573 So. 2d 303· Fla.· 1990-12-13 ·cited 24×·via Writ Of Habeas Corpus
  Roy Allen Harich, sentenced to death for first-degree murder and other crimes, appealed the trial court's denial of postconviction relief claiming his trial counsel's undisclosed position as a special deputy sheriff created a conflict of interest and resulted in ineffective assis
• Andersen v. Thieret
  903 F.2d 526· 7th Cir.· 1990-06-05 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the petitioner's confession was voluntary and that the admission of his statements did not violate Miranda, affirming the denial of his habeas petition.
• Solomon Monk v. Colonel Gordon N. Zelez
  901 F.2d 885· 10th Cir.· 1990-04-25 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the military judge's reasonable doubt instruction impermissibly lessened the prosecution's burden of proof, violating the defendant's due process rights.
• Smith v. Freeman
  892 F.2d 331· 3d Cir.· 1989-12-29 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the state courts failed to provide a full and fair evidentiary hearing on the defendant's mental competency at the time of his guilty plea, entitling him to a federal evidentiary hearing.
• Lundy v. Donal Campbell and Charles W. Burson
  888 F.2d 467· 6th Cir.· 1989-11-01 ·cited 24×
  The court held that while the trial court erred in limiting cross-examination, the cumulative effect of the alleged errors did not render the trial fundamentally unfair, and thus, habeas relief was not warranted.
• United States v. Osser
  864 F.2d 1056· 3d Cir.· 1988-12-29 ·cited 24×·via Habeas Corpus (28 U.S.C. § 2255)
  A mail fraud conviction based on a scheme that demonstrably caused monetary loss to the victim, even if also charged under an invalidated 'honest services' theory, can be sustained.
• Williams v. A.L. Lockhart
  849 F.2d 1134· 8th Cir.· 1988-06-24 ·cited 24×
  The district court erred in denying the habeas petition without an evidentiary hearing, as there were disputed material facts regarding ineffective assistance of counsel and the state court failed to provide a full and fair hearing.
• Roussell v. Jeane
  842 F.2d 1512· 5th Cir.· 1988-04-28 ·cited 24×
  The Sixth Amendment was not violated by the exclusion of psychiatric testimony regarding the defendant's amnesia, as the testimony was not material or vital to the defense. The sentencing court's comments did not demonstrate an unconstitutional reliance on a finding of guilt for
• Roberts v. Corrothers
  812 F.2d 1173· 9th Cir.· 1987-03-16 ·cited 24×
  The court held that it lacks jurisdiction to review the Parole Commission's discretionary decisions, even if framed as constitutional claims, unless the Commission acted outside its statutory discretion or violated the Constitution.
• Amanullah & Wahidullah v. Nelson
  811 F.2d 1· 1st Cir.· 1987-02-04 ·cited 24×
  The court held that excludable aliens detained pending exclusion proceedings have no constitutional right to release on parole, and the denial of parole is reviewed under a 'facially legitimate and bona fide reason' standard, not 'abuse of discretion'.
• Wilburn Dobbs v. Kemp
  809 F.2d 750· 11th Cir.· 1987-01-23 ·cited 24×·via Habeas Corpus Proceedings
  The court held that the evidence presented was insufficient to establish a prima facie case of grand jury discrimination based on gender.
• Bennie E. Demps v. Louie L. Wainwright
  805 F.2d 1426· 11th Cir.· 1986-12-02 ·cited 24×
  The court affirmed the denial of the petition for writ of habeas corpus, finding no merit to the claims of suppressed witness deals, unconstitutional cross-examination limitations, or state interference with a defense witness.
• Kramer v. O.C. Jenkins
  803 F.2d 896· 7th Cir.· 1986-10-15 ·cited 24×
  The Parole Commission may rely on an IRS Deficiency Notice to determine tax liability for parole purposes, provided the taxpayer is afforded due process.
• Cartwright v. Maynard
  802 F.2d 1203· 10th Cir.· 1986-09-29 ·cited 24×·via Writ Of Habeas Corpus
  The court held that considering the suffering of a surviving victim is a constitutionally permissible way to determine if a murder was 'especially heinous, atrocious, and cruel.'
• Purnell v. Mo. Dep't OF Corr.
  753 F.2d 703· 8th Cir.· 1985-02-01 ·cited 24×
  The court should affirm the district court's dismissal for failure to exhaust state remedies, as the state's concession of exhaustion was based on a mistake and thus ineffective.
• Ford v. Strickland
  734 F.2d 538· 11th Cir.· 1984-05-30 ·cited 24×
  The court should affirm the district court's judgment denying the stay of execution and certificate of probable cause.
• Harlin Phillip Seritt, Jr. v. State OF Ala.
  731 F.2d 728· 11th Cir.· 1984-05-03 ·cited 24×
  A mandatory life sentence without parole under Alabama's Habitual Felony Offenders Statute for a defendant with three prior felony convictions who commits a Class A felony (armed robbery) does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment.
• Code v. Montgomery
  725 F.2d 1316· 11th Cir.· 1984-02-27 ·cited 24×·via Habeas Corpus Proceedings
  The court held that the in-court identification was not impermissibly suggestive, but remanded the ineffective assistance of counsel claim for an evidentiary hearing due to unresolved factual issues.
• Antone v. Strickland
  706 F.2d 1534· 11th Cir.· 1983-06-13 ·cited 24×·via Habeas Corpus Relief
  The court affirmed the denial of habeas corpus relief, finding petitioner's claims without merit, but remanded to the district court to consider the effects of a pending Supreme Court decision.
• Nevail Mitchell v. Wyrick
  698 F.2d 940· 8th Cir.· 1983-01-31 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the lack of a complete transcript did not violate the petitioner's right to due process or a proper record for appeal, and that the district court did not err in denying the habeas petition without an evidentiary hearing.
• Jones v. W.J. Estelle, Jr.
  692 F.2d 380· 5th Cir.· 1982-11-29 ·cited 24×
  The court held that a petitioner must be given specific notice of a potential summary judgment and an opportunity to respond with factual support, but that the magistrate's show cause order satisfied these requirements in this case.
• Marks v. Estelle
  691 F.2d 730· 5th Cir.· 1982-11-15 ·cited 24×
  The court held that a petitioner's delay in filing a habeas petition is excused until the right asserted in the petition legally exists, and the state must demonstrate prejudice occurring after that point. The court also held that ineffective assistance of counsel does not consti
• Butler v. Rose
  686 F.2d 1163· 6th Cir.· 1982-08-13 ·cited 24×
  The court should have found that prosecutorial statements commenting on the defendant's failure to testify were impermissible.
• Daniels v. Maggio
  669 F.2d 1075· 5th Cir.· 1982-03-12 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the appellant failed to demonstrate prejudice from alleged trial counsel errors, and therefore, his petition for habeas corpus relief was correctly denied.
• Brown v. Cuyler
  669 F.2d 155· 3d Cir.· 1982-01-29 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the petitioner failed to exhaust state remedies by not fairly presenting the Miranda waiver issue to the state courts.
• United States ex rel. Robert Graham v. The United States Parole Comm'n
  629 F.2d 1040· 5th Cir.· 1980-11-03 ·cited 24×
  The court held that while the statutory claim regarding interim hearing scope was foreclosed by precedent, the ex post facto claim regarding the 'clearly exceptional circumstances' standard required further factual findings.
• Vicaretti v. Henderson
  645 F.2d 100· 2d Cir.· 1980-07-21 ·cited 24×
  Appellate courts possess inherent discretion to limit issues on appeal when a certificate of probable cause is required, to manage caseloads while preserving access for valid grievances.
• Brewer v. Overberg
  624 F.2d 51· 6th Cir.· 1980-06-30 ·cited 24×
  The failure of a state court to instruct the jury on lesser included offenses is cognizable on habeas corpus, but procedural noncompliance can bar review if not plain error. The evidence was sufficient to support the murder conviction.
• McINERNEY v. Berman
  621 F.2d 20· 1st Cir.· 1980-05-08 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the jury instructions regarding the inference of malice from the intentional use of a deadly weapon did not impermissibly shift the burden of proof to the defendant, thus not violating due process.
• Baker v. Muncy
  619 F.2d 327· 4th Cir.· 1980-04-24 ·cited 24×
  Jury instructions that created a mandatory presumption of premeditation unconstitutionally shifted the burden of proof from the State to the defendant, violating due process.
• Brown v. Nutsch
  619 F.2d 758· 8th Cir.· 1980-04-18 ·cited 24×·via Writ Of Habeas Corpus
  Section 1983 provides a remedy for improper extradition in violation of the extradition clause and statute, but only if the alleged violations also breach minimal constitutional or statutory requirements.
• Willett v. State OF Ga.
  608 F.2d 538· 5th Cir.· 1979-12-17 ·cited 24×
  A guilty plea entered while protesting innocence is constitutionally invalid unless there is a factual basis for the plea, and the state court must develop facts to support it.
• Wynn v. Mahoney
  600 F.2d 448· 4th Cir.· 1979-06-29 ·cited 24×
  The court affirmed the grant of a writ of habeas corpus, holding that the jury instruction placing the burden of proving self-defense on the defendant violated the due process clause.
• Gully v. Kunzman
  592 F.2d 283· 6th Cir.· 1979-01-18 ·cited 24×
  The Court held that petitioners are not entitled to pre-trial habeas corpus relief on double jeopardy grounds because the Double Jeopardy Clause does not prohibit exposing them to the risk of a death sentence on retrial, even if the death penalty was not sought in the first trial
• Clayton v. Blackburn
  578 F.2d 117· 5th Cir.· 1978-08-10 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a constitutional violation regarding his guilty plea, and thus, a federal evidentiary hearing was not warranted.
• United States ex rel. John Hickey v. Jeffes
  571 F.2d 762· 3d Cir.· 1978-02-13 ·cited 24×
  The district court erred in dismissing the habeas petition on exhaustion grounds, as the issues were presented on direct appeal. One of Hickey's claims for habeas relief is meritorious.
• Pierre v. United States
  547 F.2d 1281· 5th Cir.· 1977-03-07 ·cited 24×·via Habeas Corpus Proceedings
  The court held that the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees did not substantively alter the existing U.S. immigration scheme, did not create new rights or entitlements for aliens, and did not invalidate INS procedures for determining refugee status.
• United States v. Clinkenbeard
  542 F.2d 59· 8th Cir.· 1976-09-20 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the district court correctly denied the section 2255 petition and dismissed the due process claim for lack of jurisdiction.
• Caputo v. Henderson
  541 F.2d 979· 2d Cir.· 1976-09-03 ·cited 24×
  A guilty plea is constitutionally valid if the defendant was aware of the actual sentencing possibilities, and if not, whether accurate information would have made a difference in the decision to plead.
• Cunningham v. Estelle
  536 F.2d 82· 5th Cir.· 1976-07-29 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the appellant's claims regarding incompetent counsel, prejudicial pretrial publicity, and jury composition were procedurally barred or unsupported, thus denying habeas relief.
• McCUNE v. Estelle
  534 F.2d 611· 5th Cir.· 1976-07-01 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the appellant failed to allege facts sufficient to demonstrate he was mentally incompetent to stand trial in 1950.
• Seymour Kloner v. United States
  535 F.2d 730· 2d Cir.· 1976-05-10 ·cited 24×·via Habeas Corpus Relief
  The court held that the guilty plea was valid under Rule 11, but the parole revocation was unconstitutional due to lack of notice for one of the grounds.
• Barry v. United States
  528 F.2d 1094· 7th Cir.· 1976-01-13 ·cited 24×·via Habeas Corpus (28 U.S.C. § 2255)
  The court held that the judge's participation in the trial did not violate the mandatory disqualification statute or constitutional standards, and that the district court did not err in denying an evidentiary hearing or limiting discovery.
• Johnson v. Lou V. Brewer
  521 F.2d 556· 8th Cir.· 1975-08-08 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the refusal to permit extrinsic evidence of a witness-informer's conduct did not violate any constitutional right of the defendant.
• Jackson v. Hutto
  508 F.2d 890· 8th Cir.· 1975-01-09 ·cited 24×
  Ex parte communications between a judge and jury are presumptively prejudicial but can constitute harmless error if the record shows no prejudice to the defendant.
• Flint v. Mullen
  499 F.2d 100· 1st Cir.· 1974-06-25 ·cited 24×
  The court held that a deferred sentence violation hearing, held before a criminal trial for the same incident, does not unconstitutionally compel a defendant to choose between waiving their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination or forfeiting their due process right to
• Mayer v. Moeykens
  494 F.2d 855· 2d Cir.· 1974-03-27 ·cited 24×
  The court held that a conviction will not be reversed due to a denial of a pre-trial probable cause hearing if the denial has no bearing on the conviction itself. The court also affirmed that probable cause for an arrest can be established by the arresting officers' independent k
• Hoskins v. Louie L. Wainwright
  485 F.2d 1186· 5th Cir.· 1973-09-14 ·cited 24×·via Habeas Corpus Relief
  A defendant's Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial is violated by inordinate and unjustified prosecutorial delay, regardless of actual prejudice to the defense, especially when the defendant actively asserts the right.
• Farmer v. Caldwell
  476 F.2d 22· 5th Cir.· 1973-03-23 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying habeas corpus relief, as the petitioner's guilty pleas were voluntary and knowingly entered, and the state court proceedings were adequate.
• Orricer v. Erickson
  471 F.2d 1204· 8th Cir.· 1973-01-12 ·cited 24×
  The court affirmed the district court's judgment, agreeing that the evidence was admissible.