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

• Raulerson v. State
  437 So. 2d 1105· Fla.· 1983-09-01 ·cited 22×·via Writ Of Habeas Corpus
  James David Raulerson, on death row, sought post-conviction relief and a writ of habeas corpus alleging ineffective assistance of counsel at his resentencing and on direct appeal. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the denial of his motion and denied his petition for habeas corpu
• Duncan v. Stynchcombe
  704 F.2d 1213· 11th Cir.· 1983-05-09 ·cited 22×
  Fingerprint evidence alone, under proper circumstances, can be sufficient to sustain a burglary conviction against a constitutional challenge for sufficiency of evidence. A prosecutor's comment on the lack of defense evidence, rather than the defendant's failure to testify, is no
• Miller v. State
  430 So. 2d 611· Fla. 4th DCA· 1983-05-04 ·cited 22×·via Writ Of Habeas Corpus
  Miller petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus claiming ineffective assistance of appellate counsel for failing to raise various issues on direct appeal of his conviction for solicitation to commit murder. The Fourth District Court of Appeal rejected all of Miller's ineffectivenes
• Hopper v. United States Parole Comm'n
  702 F.2d 842· 9th Cir.· 1983-04-01 ·cited 22×·via Habeas Corpus Relief
  The court held that the appellant's claims regarding credit for state custody time and timely parole revocation hearings were premature or lacked demonstrated prejudice, and that the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act did not apply to parole violator warrants.
• Francois v. Klein
  431 So. 2d 165· Fla.· 1983-01-27 ·cited 22×·via Writ Of Habeas Corpus
  The trial court erred in dismissing a Rule 3.850 motion for lack of jurisdiction due to a pending habeas corpus petition.
• United States ex rel. Clarence Rivers v. Franzen
  692 F.2d 491· 7th Cir.· 1982-11-10 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the post-trial evidence of the petitioner's alleged incompetency did not retroactively render his trial unfair, and thus, the trial court was not constitutionally required to hold a post-trial competency hearing.
• Naranjo v. Ricketts
  696 F.2d 83· 10th Cir.· 1982-08-27 ·cited 22×
  A state's waiver of the exhaustion requirement in federal habeas corpus proceedings is not dispositive; federal courts must still ensure exhaustion to uphold comity and the state's role in enforcing federal law.
• Zeigler v. Callahan
  659 F.2d 254· 1st Cir.· 1981-09-22 ·cited 22×·via Habeas Corpus Relief
  The court held that the petitioner's due process rights were not violated by the Commonwealth's alleged non-disclosure of the full scope of its agreement with a key witness, nor by the failure to correct allegedly false testimony.
• Tobias Q. Poole v. Perini
  659 F.2d 730· 6th Cir.· 1981-09-18 ·cited 22×
  The Sixth Circuit held that the admission of portions of accomplice statements adopted by the appellant constituted admissible adoptive confessions, and any remaining hearsay was harmless error. The court also found that the admission of polygraph evidence, to which the appellant
• Myers v. State OF Wash.
  646 F.2d 355· 9th Cir.· 1981-05-26 ·cited 22×
  The majority opinion holds that the Wainwright v. Sykes rule is not implicated by the defendant's jury instruction claim, and that even if it were, the defendant satisfied the cause and prejudice requirements. The dissent disagrees with both holdings.
• Ogle v. Estelle
  641 F.2d 1122· 5th Cir.· 1981-04-06 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the suppression of FBI reports did not violate Brady v. Maryland because the evidence was not material, and the participation of judges who did not hear oral argument did not violate the right to effective assistance of counsel.
• Trans-Canada Enters., Ltd. v. Muckleshoot Indian Tribe
  634 F.2d 474· 9th Cir.· 1980-12-24 ·cited 22×·via Habeas Corpus Relief
  The court held that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because constitutional guarantees are not generally applicable to the exercise of governmental powers by an Indian tribe.
• Jones v. Estelle
  632 F.2d 490· 5th Cir.· 1980-12-08 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the petitioner's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and an improper jury verdict due to a change in foreman lacked sufficient substance for habeas relief.
• Johnson v. Mabry
  602 F.2d 167· 8th Cir.· 1979-07-18 ·cited 22×·via Writ Of Habeas Corpus
  The court held that the district court did not err in finding that the original sentence imposed consecutive terms, and that the subsequent commitment order merely corrected a clerical error, thus the petitioner was not entitled to habeas corpus relief.
• Pierce v. Cardwell
  572 F.2d 1339· 9th Cir.· 1978-04-04 ·cited 22×
  A habeas petitioner is entitled to an evidentiary hearing if the state court did not resolve disputed factual issues relevant to constitutional claims, especially when the waiver of rights is complex and the state court's application of legal standards is unclear.
• Eutues White v. Finkbeiner
  570 F.2d 194· 7th Cir.· 1978-02-01 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the district court erred in summarily denying the habeas corpus petition, as the petition stated a legally sufficient claim under Miranda if the petitioner had indeed requested an attorney.
• White v. Maggio
  556 F.2d 1352· 5th Cir.· 1977-08-08 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the denial of access to critical evidence, if subject to varying expert opinion, violates due process and requires a new trial, and that the retroactivity of this rule favors application in this case.
• State of N.J. v. Chesimard
  555 F.2d 63· 3d Cir.· 1977-03-09 ·cited 22×
  The dissenting judge would find that federal intervention is permissible, either because the relief sought is collateral to the state criminal proceeding under Gerstein v. Pugh, or because exceptional circumstances warrant intervention under Younger v. Harris.
• Mucie v. Mo. State Dep't OF Corr.
  543 F.2d 633· 8th Cir.· 1976-11-02 ·cited 22×
  The court held that further exhaustion of state remedies was unnecessary due to state delay and the petitioner's lack of standing in state court.
• Maynard Allen Jacobson v. United States
  542 F.2d 725· 8th Cir.· 1976-09-29 ·cited 22×
  The court held that a petitioner is not entitled to resentencing under Kortness if the parole guidelines pre-dated the sentence and did not change its import, and due process claims regarding parole execution are cognizable only in habeas corpus under § 2241.
• United States ex rel. Sheldon Selikoff v. Comm'r OF Corr. OF the State OF NEW York
  524 F.2d 650· 2d Cir.· 1975-10-21 ·cited 22×·via Writ Of Habeas Corpus
  The court held that a trial judge's statements regarding sentencing, made before a pre-sentence report, do not constitute an unconditional promise that must be specifically enforced, and the opportunity to withdraw the guilty plea is a sufficient remedy.
• Malone v. State OF Ala.
  514 F.2d 77· 5th Cir.· 1975-06-06 ·cited 22×
  The court held that a retained counsel's failure to inform a client of their right to appeal in forma pauperis, without notice to the court of the client's indigency, does not constitute state action denying constitutional rights.
• Captain Roger G. Sanger v. Honorable Robert C. Seamans, Jr.
  507 F.2d 814· 9th Cir.· 1974-11-29 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the Secretary of the Air Force's denial of a conscientious objector discharge application must be supported by a record that includes the reasons for the adverse decision, especially the recommendation of the Air Force Personnel Board.
• United States ex rel. Sheldon Leeson v. Damon
  496 F.2d 718· 2d Cir.· 1974-04-01 ·cited 22×
  The court held that erroneous advice from counsel regarding sentencing does not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel unless it is so egregious as to shock the conscience.
• Harris v. Estelle
  487 F.2d 1293· 5th Cir.· 1974-01-11 ·cited 22×
  The court held that claims not presented to state courts must be dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust state remedies, while exhausted claims can be decided on the merits.
• Montgomery v. Hopper
  488 F.2d 877· 5th Cir.· 1973-12-13 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the petitioner did not knowingly and understandingly bypass state remedies, thus federal habeas review is not precluded.
• United States ex rel. Alexander Little v. Twomey
  477 F.2d 767· 7th Cir.· 1973-04-19 ·cited 22×
  Defense counsel's failure to properly present an insanity defense, even if the psychiatrist's testimony was improperly excluded, did not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel because the defense lacked substance.
• Essex RAY v. Fritz
  468 F.2d 586· 2d Cir.· 1972-10-19 ·cited 22×
  A federal court must hear a prisoner's § 1983 suit if no adequate state administrative or judicial remedy exists.
• Johnson v. Louie L. Wainwright
  453 F.2d 385· 5th Cir.· 1971-12-28 ·cited 22×·via Writ Of Habeas Corpus
  The court affirmed the denial of the petition for writ of habeas corpus because the petitioner had not exhausted his state remedies regarding the claim of denial of a right to appeal.
• The State OF S.C. v. Moore
  447 F.2d 1067· 4th Cir.· 1971-09-08 ·cited 22×·via Writ Of Habeas Corpus
• Ulis Lando Pennington v. Beto
  437 F.2d 1281· 5th Cir.· 1971-02-05 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the district court's hearing on habeas corpus was overly restricted and its findings inadequate, requiring remand for further proceedings.
• Tyler v. Swenson
  427 F.2d 412· 8th Cir.· 1970-06-12 ·cited 22×
  A state court evidentiary hearing is not fair when the judge who presided over the original plea also acts as the trier of fact, relying on his own recollection of events that are disputed by the petitioner and cannot be cross-examined.
• United States ex rel. Donnell Leonard Luster v. Colonel William H. McBEE
  422 F.2d 562· 7th Cir.· 1970-02-09 ·cited 22×
  The court held that there was a basis in fact for the Selective Service Board's classification and denial of hardship deferment, and that the induction order was valid despite procedural irregularities in its postponement.
• Moreno v. Beto
  415 F.2d 154· 5th Cir.· 1969-08-11 ·cited 22×
  The failure of trial counsel to question the voluntariness of a confession, based on an unawareness of the then-unconstitutional Texas procedure for determining voluntariness, does not constitute a deliberate bypass of state procedures, allowing the issue to be raised on federal
• Braley v. Gladden
  403 F.2d 858· 9th Cir.· 1968-11-21 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the trial judge's failure to provide a form for an acquittal verdict, coupled with instructions, constituted an impermissible judicial comment on guilt, denying the defendant a fair trial.
• Bearden v. United States
  403 F.2d 782· 5th Cir.· 1968-11-05 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the jury's observation of a co-defendant's guilty plea and the judge's comment on it in the jury charge, while not ideal, did not constitute reversible error given the overwhelming evidence of guilt and the lack of demonstrable unfairness.
• Beard v. LEE
  396 F.2d 749· 5th Cir.· 1968-07-01 ·cited 22×
  The court held that a prisoner's claims of cruel and unusual punishment, even if not solely racially motivated, are not necessarily resolved by a prior class action order on prison desegregation and warrant a forum.
• Victor v. Ward Lane
  394 F.2d 268· 7th Cir.· 1968-05-06 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the district court should conduct an evidentiary hearing on the petitioner's claims regarding his right to a belated appeal and the state's responsibility for the delay.
• United States ex rel. Cosme Rosado v. Flood
  394 F.2d 139· 2d Cir.· 1968-04-24 ·cited 22×·via Writ Of Habeas Corpus
  A witness before a grand jury cannot impede the investigation by raising issues that could be litigated later by an indicted defendant.
• Hield v. State
  201 So. 2d 235· Fla. 4th DCA· 1967-07-24 ·cited 22×·via Writ Of Habeas Corpus
  The court did not explicitly state a holding as this is a special concurrence commenting on a point of law.
• Garnett B. Fortner v. Balkcom
  380 F.2d 816· 5th Cir.· 1967-07-07 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the district court erred in denying a writ of habeas corpus without a full evidentiary hearing, as the petitioner raised substantial constitutional claims that required further factual development.
• United States ex rel. Christopher Romano v. Hon. Edward M. FAY
  360 F.2d 389· 2d Cir.· 1966-04-29 ·cited 22×
  The Supreme Court decisions in Massiah and Escobedo should not be applied retroactively to void convictions that occurred before their pronouncements.
• Sandoval v. Tinsley
  338 F.2d 48· 10th Cir.· 1964-11-12 ·cited 22×·via Habeas Corpus Proceedings
  The court held that the appellant competently and understandingly waived his right to counsel, and the district court's finding of waiver was adequately supported by the record.
• Kostal v. Tinsley
  337 F.2d 845· 10th Cir.· 1964-11-02 ·cited 22×·via Application For Writ Of Habeas Corpus
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying the writ of habeas corpus because the disciplinary actions taken by prison officials were within their authority and not cruel and inhuman.
• Sutton v. Settle
  302 F.2d 286· 8th Cir.· 1962-04-17 ·cited 22×·via Writ Of Habeas Corpus
  The court held that issues not raised in the trial court cannot be considered on appeal, and the trial court properly dismissed the petition.
• United States ex rel. Benjamin Reid v. Richmond
  295 F.2d 83· 2d Cir.· 1961-09-19 ·cited 22×
• Anderson v. Bannan
  250 F.2d 654· 6th Cir.· 1958-01-03 ·cited 22×·via Writ Of Habeas Corpus
  The court held that the appellants failed to demonstrate a denial of due process due to ineffective assistance of counsel, and thus their petition for a writ of habeas corpus was properly denied.
• Winhoven v. Swope
  195 F.2d 181· 9th Cir.· 1952-02-28 ·cited 22×·via Application For Writ Of Habeas Corpus
  The court held that a federal prisoner seeking habeas corpus relief after denial of a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 must demonstrate the inadequacy of the § 2255 remedy, and a second or successive § 2255 motion is generally not permitted.
• Eisentrager v. Forrestal
  174 F.2d 961· D.C. Cir.· 1949-04-15 ·cited 22×·via Writ Of Habeas Corpus
  A person deprived of liberty by U.S. officials in violation of the Constitution has a substantive right to habeas corpus, and this right cannot be defeated by jurisdictional omissions; the petition may be filed in the district court with jurisdiction over the officials exercising
• Craig v. Hunter
  167 F.2d 721· 10th Cir.· 1948-04-14 ·cited 22×
  The court held that a defendant cannot raise the issue of conflicting jurisdiction between state and federal courts, as this is a matter of comity solely for the offended sovereign to address. It also held that a hearing on a habeas corpus petition is not required when only quest