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

• Martin v. Demma
  831 F.2d 69· 5th Cir.· 1987-10-28 ·cited 14×·via Habeas Corpus Relief
  The court held that the date of receipt of the complaint by the clerk, not the formal filing date, governs the commencement of an action for statute of limitations purposes.
• Perry v. U.S. Parole Comm'n
  831 F.2d 811· 8th Cir.· 1987-10-27 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the Parole Commission could properly consider a dismissed federal charge as a basis for parole revocation and that any variance in the charges listed was technical and nonprejudicial, thus affirming the district court's dismissal of the habeas corpus petition.
• Thrameah Aziz v. E.S. Leferve and Robert Abrams
  830 F.2d 184· 11th Cir.· 1987-10-21 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the habeas corpus petition for lack of personal jurisdiction, as the respondents waived the issue and failed to respond to a show cause order.
• Walker v. Endell
  850 F.2d 470· 9th Cir.· 1987-09-23 ·cited 14×
  The court held that placing the burden on the defendant to prove duress is constitutional, state appellate review for plain error bypasses procedural default, and a sentencing judge may consider facts related to a contemporaneous acquittal.
• King v. Lynaugh
  828 F.2d 257· 5th Cir.· 1987-09-14 ·cited 14×
• Tyler v. Gunter
  819 F.2d 869· 8th Cir.· 1987-06-01 ·cited 14×
  The court held that a five-year sentence for possession of a small amount of hashish, given the petitioner's prior convictions, does not violate the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.
• Major Burrus v. Young
  808 F.2d 578· 7th Cir.· 1986-12-17 ·cited 14×
  The exclusion of expert testimony regarding the sobering effects of trauma, even if admissible under state law, did not violate the defendant's constitutional right to a fair trial or due process.
• Merlo v. Bolden
  801 F.2d 252· 6th Cir.· 1986-09-18 ·cited 14×
  A jury instruction that impermissibly shifts the burden of proof on mens rea, violating Sandstrom v. Montana, is subject to the Chapman harmless error standard and is not automatically reversible if the defendant contested intent.
• Riles v. O.L. McCOTTER
  799 F.2d 947· 5th Cir.· 1986-09-10 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the petitioner failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a federal right, and therefore, his motion for a certificate of probable cause and stay of execution were denied.
• Jones v. Kemp
  794 F.2d 1536· 11th Cir.· 1986-07-28 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the pretrial identification was not impermissibly suggestive and the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel had not attached at the time of the identification, and even if it had, the identification constituted harmless error.
• Kirby v. Dutton
  794 F.2d 245· 6th Cir.· 1986-07-08 ·cited 14×
  The court held that federal habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is not available to challenge alleged deficiencies in state post-conviction proceedings, as such claims are collateral to the underlying detention and do not directly dispute the fact or duration of confineme
• Burdette Woods v. Clusen
  794 F.2d 293· 7th Cir.· 1986-06-25 ·cited 14×·via Habeas Corpus Relief
  The court held that the police tactics employed during the interrogation of a juvenile suspect violated his Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights, rendering his confession involuntary.
• Funchess v. Louie L. Wainwright
  788 F.2d 1443· 11th Cir.· 1986-04-22 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the defendant's claim of incompetency due to PTSD is barred by the doctrine of abuse of the writ, and other claims are without merit or foreclosed by precedent.
• Manning v. Warden, La. State Penitentiary
  786 F.2d 710· 5th Cir.· 1986-04-09 ·cited 14×
  A federal court may not grant habeas corpus relief for violations of state procedural rules unless the violation renders the trial fundamentally unfair under federal due process standards.
• Sutton v. Superintendent Clayton Strickland, Jr.
  485 So. 2d 25· Fla. 1st DCA· 1986-03-18 ·cited 14×·via Writ Of Habeas Corpus
  The appellate court affirmed the trial court's denial of the inmate's petition, finding he failed to exhaust administrative remedies.
• Harich v. Louie L. Wainwright
  484 So. 2d 1237· Fla.· 1986-03-17 ·cited 14×·via Writ Of Habeas Corpus
  Roy Harich, sentenced to death for first-degree murder, petitioned for habeas corpus relief and a stay of execution, raising three issues: the constitutionality of death-qualified juries, ineffective appellate counsel for failing to raise a voluntary intoxication defense, and imp
• Sheik Abdel Rahim Ahmad v. Redman
  782 F.2d 409· 3d Cir.· 1986-01-27 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the state failed to establish a knowing and intelligent waiver of Miranda rights by the petitioner.
• Bonvillain v. Blackburn
  780 F.2d 1248· 5th Cir.· 1986-01-22 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the petitioner failed to establish a broken plea bargain or ineffective assistance of counsel, and thus was not entitled to habeas corpus relief.
• Watson v. Colonel O.L. McCOTTER
  782 F.2d 143· 10th Cir.· 1986-01-21 ·cited 14×·via Application For Writ Of Habeas Corpus
  The military gave full and fair consideration to the petitioner's ineffective assistance of counsel claim, thus the federal court was not required to grant the writ.
• Ivory Ferrell v. Music
  484 So. 2d 595· Fla. 4th DCA· 1985-11-06 ·cited 14×·via Writ Of Habeas Corpus
  A prisoner petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus to belatedly appeal the denial of his post-conviction relief motion, claiming he did not receive the trial court's order for seven months due to a mailing delay. The Florida District Court of Appeal granted the petition, finding t
• Downs v. Louie L
  476 So. 2d 654· Fla.· 1985-08-29 ·cited 14×·via Writ Of Habeas Corpus
  Ernest Charles Downs, convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death, petitioned for habeas corpus alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel and improper appellate review. The Florida Supreme Court denied his petition, holding that Downs failed to demonstrate
• Zellers v. Duckworth
  763 F.2d 250· 7th Cir.· 1985-05-17 ·cited 14×·via Writ Of Habeas Corpus
  The court held that the State is estopped from contesting Zellers' assertion of cause for his procedural default due to systemic failures in providing due process rights. The court also found sufficient prejudice to justify a hearing.
• Watson v. Blackburn
  756 F.2d 1055· 5th Cir.· 1985-03-18 ·cited 14×·via Habeas Corpus Relief
  The court held that the petitioner failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a federal right, thus denying his application for a stay of execution and certificate of probable cause.
• Kerr v. Finkbeiner
  757 F.2d 604· 4th Cir.· 1985-03-18 ·cited 14×·via Petition For Habeas Corpus Relief
  A violation of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act's (IADA) 180-day speedy trial provision is not a fundamental defect entitling a prisoner to habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 unless prejudice is shown.
• Cash v. Sharyn L. Smith
  465 So. 2d 1294· Fla. 1st DCA· 1985-03-12 ·cited 14×·via Writ Of Habeas Corpus
  The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to grant the extraordinary relief sought by the petitioners and that none of the extraordinary writs provided a remedy.
• United States ex rel. Jerry Devine v. Richard DeROBERTIS & the Attorney Gen. of the State of Ill.
  754 F.2d 764· 7th Cir.· 1985-02-12 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the identity of trial and appellate counsel from the same firm constitutes sufficient 'cause' to overlook a procedural default regarding an ineffective assistance of counsel claim.
• Strahan v. Blackburn
  750 F.2d 438· 5th Cir.· 1985-01-14 ·cited 14×·via Habeas Corpus Proceedings
  A federal habeas corpus petition may be dismissed under Rule 9(a) if the state demonstrates prejudice due to the petitioner's delay in filing, and the petitioner cannot show diligence or grounds for the delay.
• Ewing v. Winans
  749 F.2d 607· 10th Cir.· 1984-11-30 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the admission of a witness's deposition did not violate the defendant's Sixth Amendment confrontation rights, and the exclusion of the victim's old prior convictions was not an abuse of discretion.
• Buck v. Green
  743 F.2d 1567· 11th Cir.· 1984-10-16 ·cited 14×
  A state prisoner is not required to seek discretionary review in the state supreme court if that court's jurisdiction is limited, nor must they seek collateral review of issues already raised on direct appeal.
• Whitmore v. Maggio
  742 F.2d 230· 5th Cir.· 1984-09-24 ·cited 14×
  The court affirmed the denial of habeas relief regarding sufficiency of evidence and jury instructions but remanded for further consideration of the Eighth Amendment issue concerning the sentence's proportionality.
• Farras v. United States
  744 F.2d 37· 6th Cir.· 1984-09-20 ·cited 14×·via Petition For Habeas Corpus Relief
  The court held that the Parole Commission's substantive decisions to grant or deny parole are committed to agency discretion and are not subject to judicial review, and that the parole guidelines do not violate the PCRA or improperly intrude on sentencing functions.
• Jeter v. Keohane
  739 F.2d 257· 7th Cir.· 1984-07-11 ·cited 14×·via Writ Of Habeas Corpus
  A prisoner cannot complain about the order in which he serves sentences imposed by different sovereigns.
• Payne v. Rees
  738 F.2d 118· 6th Cir.· 1984-06-27 ·cited 14×
  A state prisoner seeking federal habeas corpus relief after a procedural default in state court must demonstrate cause and actual prejudice for the default, and failure to raise identification issues on direct appeal bars relief.
• Bowden v. Francis
  733 F.2d 740· 11th Cir.· 1984-05-14 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in failing to order a psychiatric examination for competency, nor did it err in other claims raised by the petitioner.
• Little v. Allsbrook
  731 F.2d 238· 4th Cir.· 1984-04-05 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the defendant was grossly misled regarding parole eligibility, despite the sentence imposed being within the predicted range.
• Hutchins v. Woodard
  730 F.2d 953· 4th Cir.· 1984-03-13 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding writ abuse, and that equitable grounds did not warrant a stay of execution despite potential emerging constitutional principles.
• Kennedy v. Maggio
  725 F.2d 269· 5th Cir.· 1984-02-21 ·cited 14×
  A guilty plea induced by counsel's erroneous advice that the death penalty was applicable, when it was not, renders the plea involuntary and violates the Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel.
• Riley v. A.L. Lockhart
  726 F.2d 421· 8th Cir.· 1984-02-03 ·cited 14×
  The court affirmed the denial of the habeas corpus petition, finding no merit in the petitioner's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, perjured testimony, or error in the denial of an evidentiary hearing.
• Rollins v. Maggio
  711 F.2d 592· 5th Cir.· 1983-07-07 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the petitioner procedurally defaulted his claim by failing to object to the jury instruction at trial, barring federal habeas review.
• Ross v. Amos Reed
  704 F.2d 705· 4th Cir.· 1983-03-31 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the novelty of the constitutional claim at the time of trial constituted cause for failing to raise it on appeal, and prejudice was present, thus satisfying the cause and prejudice exception to the procedural bar rule.
• Moya v. W.J. Estelle, Jr.
  696 F.2d 329· 5th Cir.· 1983-01-24 ·cited 14×
  A federal court need not hold an evidentiary hearing on a habeas corpus petition if the petitioner's allegations are contradicted by the existing record, including prior sworn testimony and affidavits.
• Ventura v. Hoyt C. Cupp
  690 F.2d 740· 9th Cir.· 1982-10-21 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court must determine whether the petitioner exhausted state remedies, considering potential excuses for non-exhaustion, before ruling on the merits of the habeas petition.
• Tyronne J. Mitchell v. Maggio
  679 F.2d 77· 5th Cir.· 1982-06-25 ·cited 14×·via Habeas Corpus Relief
  The court held that an attorney's status as a part-time city prosecutor does not inherently create an actual conflict of interest violating the Sixth Amendment when representing a defendant in state court, absent proof of divided loyalties or adverse attorney-client relationships
• Miller v. Estelle
  677 F.2d 1080· 5th Cir.· 1982-06-10 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the presumption of prejudice from third-party jury contact, established in Remmer v. United States, does not extend to the sentencing phase of a bifurcated trial.
• Stacy v. Love
  679 F.2d 1209· 6th Cir.· 1982-06-03 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, entitling the petitioner to habeas corpus relief.
• Clark v. Jago
  676 F.2d 1099· 6th Cir.· 1982-04-23 ·cited 14×
  A jury instruction that allows a defendant's intent to kill to be attributed to an accomplice, rather than requiring proof of the defendant's own intent, violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
• William and Mary Lou Castorr v. Brundage
  674 F.2d 531· 6th Cir.· 1982-03-23 ·cited 14×·via Writ Of Habeas Corpus
  The court affirmed the district court's dismissal, holding that federal courts should not intervene in child custody disputes, claims were barred by res judicata, and judicial immunity and the Eleventh Amendment protected state officials and agencies.
• White v. Estelle
  669 F.2d 973· 5th Cir.· 1982-03-08 ·cited 14×·via Habeas Corpus Proceedings
  The court held that the federal habeas review standard for a state court jury's competency verdict is whether any rational trier of fact could conclude the evidence does not predominate in favor of incompetence, viewing evidence favorably to the verdict.
• Doescher v. Estelle
  666 F.2d 285· 5th Cir.· 1982-01-25 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the search warrant was validly issued based on probable cause, despite allegations of false statements in the affidavit, because sufficient corroborating information remained even if the challenged statements were disregarded.
• Bennie E. Demps v. Louie L. Wainwright
  666 F.2d 224· 5th Cir.· 1982-01-22 ·cited 14×·via Habeas Corpus Relief
  The court held that the use of a deposition at trial, even if it violated the Confrontation Clause, was harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt due to overwhelming evidence of guilt. The denial of severance was not an abuse of discretion.