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

• Ladell Spann v. Louie L. Wainwright
  742 F.2d 606· 11th Cir.· 1984-09-24 ·cited 12×·via Habeas Corpus Relief
  A plea bargain standing alone, without being embodied in a court's judgment, does not create a due process right to specific enforcement.
• Lockett v. ARN
  728 F.2d 266· 6th Cir.· 1984-07-03 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the appellant's failure to raise constitutional objections to jury instructions at trial procedurally barred federal habeas review, absent a showing of cause and prejudice, and that her other claims were without merit.
• Ward v. Huron Cnty. Cir. Judge Knoblock
  738 F.2d 134· 6th Cir.· 1984-06-28 ·cited 12×
  A prisoner who has fully served a state sentence is not 'in custody' for purposes of federal habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, even if the conviction has collateral consequences. However, a prisoner can attack a federal sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 even if it has not yet b
• Williams v. Maggio
  730 F.2d 1048· 5th Cir.· 1984-04-30 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the district court erred in deeming itself bound by state court findings and that the state evidentiary hearing was inadequate to correct a due process violation at sentencing.
• Koontz v. Glossa
  731 F.2d 365· 6th Cir.· 1984-04-11 ·cited 12×
  The court held that amending the indictment without returning to the grand jury, changing the charge from direct arson to arson for hire, violated the petitioner's due process rights by denying him fair notice of the charges and sufficient time to prepare a defense.
• Richardson v. United States Parole Comm'n & Joseph S. Petrovsky
  729 F.2d 1154· 8th Cir.· 1984-03-13 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the petitioner failed to demonstrate he would have received a more favorable parole determination under the prior guidelines, thus affirming the dismissal of his habeas corpus petition.
• Watters v. Hubbard
  725 F.2d 381· 6th Cir.· 1984-01-16 ·cited 12×·via Habeas Corpus Relief
  The court held that admitting psychiatrists' testimony reciting inculpatory statements violated the defendant's Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.
• Melvin v. Petrovsky
  720 F.2d 9· 8th Cir.· 1983-10-19 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the Parole Commission must reconsider the petitioner's offense classification due to inconsistent application of its regulations and failure to consider a codefendant's parole status.
• Miller v. Toles
  442 So. 2d 177· Fla.· 1983-10-13 ·cited 12×·via Writ Of Habeas Corpus
  The Florida Supreme Court held that when a parolee arrested on felony charges is not given a hearing within ten days as required by statute, the automatic temporary revocation of parole is waived and the parolee must be released, preventing the state from later pursuing revocatio
• Brown v. E.P. Perini
  718 F.2d 784· 6th Cir.· 1983-10-05 ·cited 12×
  A guilty plea is not invalidated by misinformation regarding parole eligibility, as parole is considered a collateral, not direct, consequence of the plea.
• LaROCHE v. Perrin
  718 F.2d 500· 1st Cir.· 1983-09-30 ·cited 12×·via Writ Of Habeas Corpus
  The court held that the underrepresentation of 18-34 year olds on petit juries, due to the jury selection system, constituted a prima facie violation of the fair-cross-section requirement.
• Price v. King
  714 F.2d 585· 5th Cir.· 1983-09-16 ·cited 12×
  The Supreme Court's Doyle rule, prohibiting impeachment by post-Miranda silence, applies to cases on direct review when Doyle was decided.
• Norbert Glenn Richardson v. Major B.F. Turner
  716 F.2d 1059· 4th Cir.· 1983-09-09 ·cited 12×
  The court held that a federal court should not adjudicate habeas corpus claims if there is a reasonable possibility that a state court exception to a procedural bar rule would allow the petitioner to raise those claims.
• United States v. Dovalina
  711 F.2d 737· 5th Cir.· 1983-08-12 ·cited 12×
  The court held that a federal sentence does not commence until the defendant is received at a federal facility for service, and there is no constitutional right to concurrent sentences or credit for time served in state custody for unrelated offenses.
• United States ex rel. Ronnie Lee Cunningham v. DeROBERTIS
  719 F.2d 892· 7th Cir.· 1983-08-10 ·cited 12×
  A habeas petitioner cannot claim a violation of another person's Fifth Amendment rights when that person's confession was determined to be voluntary and was not used at the petitioner's trial.
• United States v. Leath
  711 F.2d 119· 8th Cir.· 1983-07-13 ·cited 12×
  The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal from the denial of the motion to correct the presentence report.
• Fabian v. Reed
  707 F.2d 147· 5th Cir.· 1983-05-31 ·cited 12×
  The court held that it lacks jurisdiction to hear an appeal from a federal habeas corpus petition dismissal without a certificate of probable cause and will remand for the district court to consider granting one.
• Daigre v. Maggio
  705 F.2d 786· 5th Cir.· 1983-05-27 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the district court erred in denying an evidentiary hearing on the petitioner's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and right to counsel at lineup, but affirmed the denial of the claim regarding an impermissibly suggestive lineup.
• Thigpen v. United States Parole Comm'n
  707 F.2d 973· 7th Cir.· 1983-05-26 ·cited 12×·via Writ Of Habeas Corpus
  The Parole Commission has the authority to withdraw an executed parole violator warrant and hold it in abeyance pending the outcome of related state criminal charges, even after a constitutionally infirm revocation hearing has occurred.
• Collins v. A.L. Lockhart
  707 F.2d 341· 8th Cir.· 1983-05-11 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the petitioner's claims lacked merit and the district court's denial of the writ of habeas corpus should be affirmed.
• Yount v. Patton
  710 F.2d 956· 3d Cir.· 1983-05-10 ·cited 12×
  The court, in a concurring opinion, argues that the established constitutional standard for jury impartiality, allowing jurors with preconceived notions of guilt if they promise to be impartial, is flawed and should be replaced with a stricter standard.
• Hawkins v. West
  706 F.2d 437· 2d Cir.· 1983-05-04 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the petitioner's claim of insufficient evidence was adequately presented to state courts and that the futility exception to the exhaustion requirement remains valid.
• Robinson v. J.W. Fairman
  704 F.2d 368· 7th Cir.· 1983-04-04 ·cited 12×
  A successive habeas corpus petition cannot be dismissed under Rule 9(b) for abuse of the writ based solely on the petitioner's response to a form question, especially when appointed counsel's ineffectiveness prevented the petitioner from adequately responding to the respondent's
• Walker v. Zant
  693 F.2d 1087· 11th Cir.· 1982-12-16 ·cited 12×
  The court held that a federal court may grant habeas corpus relief if the petitioner has raised the same issues on direct appeal in state court, as this satisfies the exhaustion requirement.
• Hawk v. Solem
  693 F.2d 825· 8th Cir.· 1982-12-03 ·cited 12×
  A guilty plea is not subject to collateral attack based on a coerced confession unless counsel was ineffective, and there is no constitutional right to a jury determination of competency to stand trial or plead guilty.
• Folston v. Allsbrook
  691 F.2d 184· 4th Cir.· 1982-09-27 ·cited 12×·via Habeas Corpus Relief
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying a habeas corpus evidentiary hearing and in finding no constitutional error in the admission of evidence at the state trial.
• Aiken v. Spalding
  684 F.2d 632· 9th Cir.· 1982-08-17 ·cited 12×
  Difficulty in reprosecution due to delay in filing a habeas petition is not sufficient prejudice to warrant dismissal under Rule 9(a).
• United States ex rel. Nathaniel Spurlark v. Wolff
  683 F.2d 216· 7th Cir.· 1982-07-14 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the petitioner's request for substitute counsel was dilatory and properly denied by the state trial court, and even if it were an error, it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
• Harman v. Mohn
  683 F.2d 834· 4th Cir.· 1982-07-07 ·cited 12×
  Plea bargains involving lenient treatment of a third party are not per se unconstitutional, provided the prosecutor acts in good faith and the court carefully scrutinizes the plea. A claim of ineffective assistance of counsel against a prior attorney is waived if not raised in th
• Ottway Barbee v. Ruth
  678 F.2d 634· 5th Cir.· 1982-06-18 ·cited 12×·via Habeas Corpus Relief
  A guilty plea is valid even if the defendant is not informed that the sentence may run consecutively to a prior sentence.
• Deloney v. Estelle
  679 F.2d 372· 5th Cir.· 1982-06-14 ·cited 12×
• Danilo Zabala Artez v. Mulcrone
  673 F.2d 1169· 10th Cir.· 1982-04-01 ·cited 12×·via Writ Of Habeas Corpus
  The court held that the Parole Commission's denial of parole did not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause or the Equal Protection Clause, nor did it unconstitutionally delegate judicial power.
• Hilbert Walker v. Louie L. Wainwright
  411 So. 2d 1038· Fla. 1st DCA· 1982-04-01 ·cited 12×·via Writ Of Habeas Corpus
  Walker petitioned for a belated appeal of his 1973 rape conviction, claiming he had requested his court-appointed attorney file an appeal that was never filed. The Florida appellate court denied the petition, holding that the doctrine of laches precluded the belated appeal given
• Isidoro M. Arana v. United States Immigr. & Naturalization Serv.
  673 F.2d 75· 3d Cir.· 1982-03-08 ·cited 12×
  The court held that an individual subject to a deportation order who has absconded and failed to comply with court orders is disentitled from calling upon the court's resources to determine his claims.
• Staege v. United States Parole Comm'n
  671 F.2d 266· 8th Cir.· 1982-02-10 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the Parole Commission's reclassification of offense severity was a reasonable exercise of discretion and that the Notice of Action provided sufficient explanation. The court also found no error in the consideration of institutional adjustment or the calculatio
• Harrison v. Louie L. Wainwright
  408 So. 2d 800· Fla. 5th DCA· 1982-01-15 ·cited 12×·via Writ Of Habeas Corpus
  The court held that a defendant must be given credit for all time spent in jail as a condition of probation before sentencing, even if probation is revoked.
• State ex rel Franklin C. Coody v. The Honorable Bernard Muszynski
  402 So. 2d 81· Fla. 5th DCA· 1981-08-18 ·cited 12×·via Writ Of Habeas Corpus
  The court held that a civil contempt order for failure to pay child support must always permit the contemnor to purge the contempt by complying with the order, and a provision allowing purge only after a period of incarceration is improper.
• Escobedo v. Estelle
  650 F.2d 70· 5th Cir.· 1981-07-06 ·cited 12×
  A state prisoner has exhausted state remedies for federal habeas corpus purposes when the federal claim has been fairly presented to the highest state court, even if that court did not explicitly address the claim in its opinion.
• Anders Steinsvik v. Vinzant
  640 F.2d 949· 9th Cir.· 1981-02-23 ·cited 12×
  The court should have held an evidentiary hearing to determine Steinsvik's mental capacity at the time of his guilty plea due to evidence of a recent drug overdose and history of psychological problems.
• Pate v. Smith
  637 F.2d 1068· 6th Cir.· 1981-01-09 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the trial judge's failure to conduct a competency hearing, despite evidence raising doubt about the petitioner's mental state, violated due process.
• Anthony v. Wilkinson
  637 F.2d 1130· 7th Cir.· 1980-12-23 ·cited 12×
• Ismail Muslim ALI v. Gibson
  631 F.2d 1126· 3d Cir.· 1980-10-02 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the transfer of the prisoner was legally permissible under statutory and constitutional law, and that the prisoner failed to meet his burden of proof regarding prison conditions.
• C. L. B. v. Carlton L. Jones
  381 So. 2d 1178· Fla. 1st DCA· 1980-03-18 ·cited 12×
  The court held that although the issues are moot due to the petitioner's transfer, they are of sufficient importance to rule on the merits regarding detention hearing timeliness and evidentiary requirements.
• Lucas v. Louie L. Wainwright
  604 F.2d 373· 5th Cir.· 1979-10-11 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the petitioner received reasonably effective assistance of counsel, and therefore his petition for habeas corpus was correctly denied.
• Cousin v. Blackburn
  597 F.2d 511· 5th Cir.· 1979-06-21 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the appellant's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel due to plea discussions with the judge without consent and vindictive sentencing were without merit.
• United States v. Horsley
  599 F.2d 1265· 3d Cir.· 1979-06-07 ·cited 12×
  A defendant is not entitled to collateral relief for a Rule 11 violation unless they demonstrate actual prejudice, meaning they were unaware of the charge's nature or would not have pleaded guilty if properly advised.
• Spenkelink v. Louie L. Wainwright
  372 So. 2d 927· Fla.· 1979-05-25 ·cited 12×·via Writ Of Habeas Corpus
  The Court denied the petition for writ of habeas corpus, application for stay of execution, motion to intervene, and request for review of sentence.
• Jordan v. Estelle
  594 F.2d 144· 5th Cir.· 1979-04-30 ·cited 12×
  The court held that a habeas petitioner is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on claims of ineffective assistance of counsel when the record does not support the state's factual assertions.
• United States ex rel. Leroy Hairston v. Warden, Ill. State Penitentiary, Stateville Corr. Ctr.
  597 F.2d 604· 7th Cir.· 1979-04-30 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the state trial court's pre-trial statement that alibi evidence would be excluded if the notice statute was not complied with, effectively denied the defendant his right to present an alibi defense, thus violating due process under Wardius v. Oregon.
• Passmore v. Estelle
  594 F.2d 115· 5th Cir.· 1979-04-27 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the state trial court's ruling barring impeachment by prior incarceration did not violate the Sixth Amendment, but the submission of a one-sentence appellate brief constituted ineffective assistance of counsel under the Fourteenth Amendment.