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

• Ivory Davis v. Franzen
  671 F.2d 1056· 7th Cir.· 1982-03-05 ·cited 18×
  A federal court may deny a habeas corpus petition without ordering a response if the petition, on its face, fails to allege facts showing a constitutional violation.
• Gaines v. Norman B. Hess & the Attorney Gen. of the State of Okla.
  662 F.2d 1364· 10th Cir.· 1981-11-02 ·cited 18×
  The court should remand the case to the district court to allow the state court an opportunity to consider unresolved issues of fact and law.
• Williams v. Blackburn
  649 F.2d 1019· 5th Cir.· 1981-06-18 ·cited 18×
  The court affirmed the district court's denial of the habeas corpus petition and stay of execution, finding no constitutional errors in the petitioner's conviction or sentencing.
• Garrison v. McCARTHY
  653 F.2d 374· 9th Cir.· 1981-05-11 ·cited 18×
  The court held that a defendant's failure to object to identification procedures at trial, absent a showing of cause and prejudice, bars federal habeas review of the claim, and that such failure, when a tactical decision by counsel, does not constitute ineffective assistance of c
• Sober v. Crist
  644 F.2d 807· 9th Cir.· 1981-05-07 ·cited 18×
  A guilty plea does not waive claims regarding the effectiveness of counsel or the voluntariness of the plea, particularly if the plea was unintelligent due to lack of understanding of the crime's elements.
• Wayne v. Wyrick
  646 F.2d 1268· 8th Cir.· 1981-04-20 ·cited 18×·via Habeas Corpus Relief
• Hilary Davis v. Page
  640 F.2d 599· 5th Cir.· 1981-03-23 ·cited 18×·via Writ Of Habeas Corpus
  The dissenting judge argues that federal habeas corpus relief is an inappropriate vehicle for addressing state child custody disputes, and that federal courts should defer to state courts in such matters.
• Harris v. Wyrick
  644 F.2d 710· 8th Cir.· 1981-03-20 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the pretrial identification, though suggestive, was reliable under the totality of the circumstances, and the jury selection process did not violate the fair cross-section requirement.
• Tennyson BOE v. Fort Belknap Indian Community OF Fort Belknap Reservation
  642 F.2d 276· 9th Cir.· 1981-03-16 ·cited 18×·via Habeas Corpus Relief
  Federal courts lack jurisdiction to grant civil relief for alleged violations of tribal laws, as the Indian Civil Rights Act (ICRA) only permits habeas corpus relief, and claims arising under the Indian Reorganization Act (IRA) do not inherently present a federal question unless
• COX v. Wyrick
  642 F.2d 222· 8th Cir.· 1981-02-25 ·cited 18×
• Williams v. Martin
  618 F.2d 1021· 4th Cir.· 1980-03-06 ·cited 18×
  The dissenting judge believes the trial judge was not at fault for the due process violation, but rather ineffective assistance of counsel was the cause.
• Hampton v. Wyrick
  606 F.2d 834· 8th Cir.· 1979-10-11 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying a habeas corpus petition without an evidentiary hearing, as the appellant failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination in jury selection.
• Cooper v. Campbell
  597 F.2d 628· 8th Cir.· 1979-04-25 ·cited 18×
  The failure to instruct the jury on manslaughter, when evidence supported it, constituted a due process violation cognizable in habeas corpus, as it removed the issue of malice from the jury's consideration.
• Tifford v. Louie L. Wainwright
  592 F.2d 233· 5th Cir.· 1979-03-28 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the State's new argument, raised for the first time on rehearing, would not be considered because it was not timely raised and lacked substantial justice. Furthermore, even if considered, the argument would fail as the state court's factual determination was n
• O'Brien v. Putnam
  591 F.2d 53· 9th Cir.· 1979-01-31 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the Parole Commission did not abuse its discretion by considering the severity of the offense and by setting the parole hearing at the one-third point of the sentence, as its regulations allowed for such actions.
• Lerma v. Estelle
  585 F.2d 1297· 5th Cir.· 1978-12-11 ·cited 18×
  A federal court should not grant habeas corpus relief if the petitioner has not exhausted available administrative remedies within the state prison system.
• Dominick Codispoti Y-1353 v. Howard
  589 F.2d 135· 3d Cir.· 1978-12-08 ·cited 18×·via Writ Of Habeas Corpus
  A federal court may review a habeas corpus petition when state court delay in ruling on a new trial motion is excessive and effectively denies the petitioner's right to appeal.
• Grace v. Butterworth
  586 F.2d 878· 1st Cir.· 1978-11-17 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the state courts' denial of new trial motions, based on newly discovered evidence, did not violate due process because the evidence was found to be cumulative and not credible, and the state courts conducted a full and fair review.
• Ross v. Wyrick
  581 F.2d 172· 8th Cir.· 1978-07-25 ·cited 18×
  The court held that a significant statistical disparity between the percentage of black residents in the county and the percentage of black individuals on the master jury list, coupled with the opportunity for discrimination in the selection process, establishes a prima facie cas
• Tennon v. Ricketts
  574 F.2d 1243· 5th Cir.· 1978-06-13 ·cited 18×
  A fugitive's inability to comply with state procedural rules for challenging grand jury composition, caused by their own flight, does not violate due process and does not excuse timely filing requirements.
• de Peralta v. Garrison
  575 F.2d 749· 9th Cir.· 1978-05-24 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the Parole Commission improperly applied the 1976 Parole Commission and Reorganization Act retroactively to deny parole, and that reconsideration should be based on the law in effect at the time of sentencing.
• Robinson v. Benson
  570 F.2d 920· 10th Cir.· 1978-02-24 ·cited 18×
  The court held that a prisoner's due process rights were not violated in parole rescission proceedings where he received notice, was represented by a staff member, had access to files, and there was sufficient support for the rescission decision.
• Standlee v. Rhay
  557 F.2d 1303· 9th Cir.· 1977-07-21 ·cited 18×·via Writ Of Habeas Corpus
  Collateral estoppel does not bar a parole revocation hearing after a criminal acquittal because parole revocation is a remedial, not punitive, proceeding with a lower burden of proof.
• United States ex rel. George H. Healey, Jr. v. Cannon
  553 F.2d 1052· 7th Cir.· 1977-04-21 ·cited 18×
  The dissenting judge would reverse the majority's decision, finding no justification to invalidate the guilty plea.
• Fronczak v. Warden, EL Reno Reformatory, EL Reno, Okla. & United States Bd. of Parole
  553 F.2d 1219· 10th Cir.· 1977-03-03 ·cited 18×·via Habeas Corpus Relief
  The court held that the reasons provided for denying parole release satisfied the Administrative Procedure Act and due process requirements, and that the application of parole guidelines was permissible under the Federal Youth Corrections Act.
• ST. John v. Estelle
  544 F.2d 894· 5th Cir.· 1977-01-03 ·cited 18×·via Habeas Corpus Relief
  The admission of evidence of prior convictions solely to show general criminal disposition, if not objected to contemporaneously, does not warrant habeas corpus relief due to procedural default.
• Bond v. State OF Okla.
  546 F.2d 1369· 10th Cir.· 1976-12-20 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the admission of a co-defendant's confession, while constitutional error, was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given the overwhelming independent evidence of guilt. Other claims regarding improper conviction, denial of hearings, severance, and prejudicial ev
• United States ex rel. Samuel D. Robinson v. Housewright
  525 F.2d 988· 7th Cir.· 1975-11-26 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the trial judge's participation in plea negotiations did not violate constitutional standards, and the defendant was not denied effective assistance of counsel due to his attorney representing multiple defendants with potentially conflicting interests.
• Grattan v. Sigler
  525 F.2d 329· 9th Cir.· 1975-08-06 ·cited 18×·via Writ Of Habeas Corpus
  The court held that the prisoner was entitled to a new parole hearing because the Board improperly classified his offense severity and failed to provide timely notice and reasons for the classification.
• United States ex rel. Alfred Lewis v. Henderson
  520 F.2d 896· 2d Cir.· 1975-06-04 ·cited 18×
  The court held that while the state court adequately determined the issue of physical coercion, the claim of mental and psychological coercion was never sufficiently developed or passed upon, requiring a federal evidentiary hearing.
• Burks v. Egeler
  512 F.2d 221· 6th Cir.· 1975-02-06 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the petitioner's claim of a due process violation based on alleged perjury did not present a constitutional issue because there was no showing of state involvement or knowing use of false evidence by the prosecution.
• United States ex rel. William Hayward v. Johnson
  508 F.2d 322· 3d Cir.· 1975-01-28 ·cited 18×·via Habeas Corpus Relief
  The court held that a juvenile's confession, obtained after Miranda warnings and considering the totality of the circumstances, was voluntary and admissible, and that the district court did not err in denying an evidentiary hearing.
• United States ex rel. Roger Pierce v. Cannon
  508 F.2d 197· 7th Cir.· 1974-12-31 ·cited 18×
  The court held that a pre-indictment lineup identification, even if suggestive, does not require per se exclusion if the totality of the circumstances indicates reliability.
• Rutherford v. Hoyt C. Cupp
  508 F.2d 122· 9th Cir.· 1974-12-04 ·cited 18×·via Writ Of Habeas Corpus
  The court held that the search warrant was validly drawn and issued, and the jury's guilty verdict was reasonable.
• Crenshaw v. Wolff
  504 F.2d 377· 8th Cir.· 1974-10-23 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the petitioner was not denied due process, the right to appeal, or effective assistance of counsel, and therefore affirmed the denial of his habeas corpus petition.
• Peavy v. Warner
  493 F.2d 748· 5th Cir.· 1974-05-08 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the district court applied the wrong standard of review and failed to make findings on key aspects of the claim regarding the enlistment extension cancellation.
• Hudson v. State OF Ala.
  493 F.2d 171· 5th Cir.· 1974-04-24 ·cited 18×
  The court held that laches should not bar constitutional claims and that the petitioner received ineffective assistance of counsel.
• Sammie Preston Irby v. State OF Mo.
  502 F.2d 1096· 8th Cir.· 1974-03-25 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the petitioner had exhausted state remedies regarding his claim that his sentence was enhanced by an uncounselled 1956 conviction, and that the state failed to prove an intelligent waiver of counsel for that conviction.
• Tillery v. Eyman
  492 F.2d 1056· 9th Cir.· 1974-02-11 ·cited 18×
• Neary v. State
  285 So. 2d 47· Fla. 4th DCA· 1973-11-09 ·cited 18×
  The court held that an appeal from a resentencing order does not grant jurisdiction to review the original conviction or the deprivation of a direct appeal; such issues must be raised by petition for habeas corpus.
• Hale v. Henderson
  485 F.2d 266· 6th Cir.· 1973-10-05 ·cited 18×
  The court held that discrimination in the selection of a grand jury foreman pro tempore does not warrant quashing an indictment without a showing of prejudice.
• Ross v. State OF Tex.
  474 F.2d 1150· 5th Cir.· 1973-01-30 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the state's failure to disclose a police report, which was unknown to the prosecutor and unlikely to have altered the jury's verdict, did not violate due process.
• Bryant v. Elliott
  472 F.2d 572· 5th Cir.· 1973-01-19 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the district court correctly dismissed the habeas corpus petition because the Supreme Court's decision in Boykin v. Alabama is not retroactive, and the petitioner's guilty plea predated Boykin.
• Cobb v. Bailey
  469 F.2d 1068· 5th Cir.· 1972-12-07 ·cited 18×
  A state prisoner is not constitutionally entitled to credit for pre-conviction jail time, even when sentenced to the maximum term, absent a statute requiring it or a showing of discrimination.
• United States ex rel. Fred LaFAY v. Hon. Harry Fritz
  455 F.2d 297· 2d Cir.· 1972-01-26 ·cited 18×
  A defendant's subjective belief, based on counsel's erroneous sentence estimate, does not render a guilty plea involuntary, even if reasonable.
• Downey v. Peyton
  451 F.2d 236· 4th Cir.· 1971-11-18 ·cited 18×
  The court held that while the mention of the defendant's silence at arrest was error, it was harmless. However, allegations of jury bias and discussion of matters outside the evidence require further factual findings.
• Simon v. Moseley
  452 F.2d 306· 10th Cir.· 1971-11-04 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the Board of Parole lost its jurisdiction to execute a parole violator's warrant due to unreasonable delay and lack of diligence in its execution.
• Dolphus v. State
  243 So. 2d 573· Fla.· 1971-01-27 ·cited 18×·via Writ Of Habeas Corpus
• Sinclair v. Henderson
  435 F.2d 125· 5th Cir.· 1970-11-17 ·cited 18×·via Habeas Corpus Relief
  The court held that a federal court cannot decline jurisdiction over a civil rights complaint based on the exhaustion doctrine, and the allegations of extreme maltreatment warrant adjudication on the merits.
• Tipton v. Baker
  432 F.2d 245· 10th Cir.· 1970-09-28 ·cited 18×
  An increased sentence imposed after a defendant successfully challenged and had their prior sentence set aside does not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause. The due process claim requires further consideration by the district court.