Habeas Corpus Petition

4,117 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

• Mosier v. A.I. Murphy
  790 F.2d 62· 10th Cir.· 1986-05-05 ·cited 10×
  A guilty plea is not rendered involuntary or the result of ineffective assistance of counsel merely because the plea bargain benefits third parties, such as the defendant's wife and mother-in-law.
• Joyner v. King
  786 F.2d 1317· 5th Cir.· 1986-04-18 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the petitioner failed to exhaust state remedies for his Sixth Amendment claim due to new factual allegations presented in federal court, and the state did not waive its right to assert the exhaustion requirement.
• In re the Extradition OF Jorge Gustavo Kraiselburd. United States v. Kraiselburd
  786 F.2d 1395· 9th Cir.· 1986-04-14 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the extradition request was valid, not time-barred, and that the magistrate did not err in limiting discovery or rejecting expert testimony.
• White v. ARN
  788 F.2d 338· 6th Cir.· 1986-04-09 ·cited 10×
  The court held that Ohio's statute requiring defendants to prove self-defense by a preponderance of the evidence does not violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
• McNEIL v. Cuyler
  782 F.2d 443· 3d Cir.· 1986-02-04 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the majority misapplied the Strickland standard for ineffective assistance of counsel, thereby increasing the burden on petitioners and wrongly changing the outcome of the case.
• Dillard v. Blackburn
  780 F.2d 509· 5th Cir.· 1986-01-15 ·cited 10×
  The court held that a habeas petitioner is not entitled to ten days' notice before dismissal if they do not claim prejudice from the lack of notice and have not shown they would have presented additional evidence.
• Anaya v. Hansen
  781 F.2d 1· 1st Cir.· 1986-01-09 ·cited 10×
  The court held that blue collar workers, young adults, and less educated individuals do not constitute "cognizable" or "distinctive" groups under the Duren test for Sixth Amendment fair cross-section challenges, and affirmed the denial of the habeas corpus petition.
• Webb v. Blackburn
  773 F.2d 646· 5th Cir.· 1985-10-15 ·cited 10×·via Habeas Corpus Relief
  The court held that the appellant's claims of prosecutorial misconduct regarding post-arrest silence and other crimes evidence were procedurally barred or harmless, and thus affirmed the denial of his habeas corpus petition.
• O'Blasney v. Solem
  774 F.2d 925· 8th Cir.· 1985-10-15 ·cited 10×
  The court held that a habeas corpus petition alleging insufficient evidence to support a conviction cannot be summarily dismissed without review of the trial record.
• Corn v. Kemp
  772 F.2d 681· 11th Cir.· 1985-09-16 ·cited 10×·via Habeas Corpus Relief
  The court vacated its prior decision affirming the denial of relief on burden-shifting jury instructions and remanded for the district court to grant the writ unless the state retries the petitioner.
• Clutchette v. Rushen
  770 F.2d 1469· 9th Cir.· 1985-09-11 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the wife's voluntary surrender of physical evidence, which the defense attorney was obligated to turn over under state law, did not violate the Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel. It also held that the district court had discretion to gra
• Boag v. Raines
  769 F.2d 1341· 9th Cir.· 1985-08-26 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the new evidence presented by the petitioner was insufficient to raise a substantial doubt as to his competency to stand trial.
• Bernard & Odette Port v. Heard
  764 F.2d 423· 5th Cir.· 1985-07-01 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the Ports' release from confinement did not moot their habeas corpus petition because the punitive fines preserved a live controversy, and that the claimed parent-child testimonial privilege is not constitutionally protected under the Due Process, Equal Protec
• Franklin v. Rose
  765 F.2d 82· 6th Cir.· 1985-06-21 ·cited 10×
  The district court erred in refusing to liberally construe the pro se petitioner's habeas petition and attached materials, thus failing to consider all grounds for relief raised.
• Prater v. U.S. Parole Comm'n
  764 F.2d 1230· 7th Cir.· 1985-06-12 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the practices of executive agencies are not material in determining whether a law is a forbidden ex post facto law.
• Johnson v. Crispus C. NIX
  763 F.2d 344· 8th Cir.· 1985-06-03 ·cited 10×
  The court affirmed the denial of the habeas corpus petition, finding that any error in admitting incriminating statements was harmless and that the defendant's other claims regarding a fair trial and jury impartiality were without merit.
• United States ex rel. Hugh E. Thom v. O.C. Jenkins
  760 F.2d 736· 7th Cir.· 1985-03-12 ·cited 10×·via Writ Of Habeas Corpus
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying the petition for a writ of habeas corpus because the petitioner failed to meet his burden of producing evidence of present inability to pay the judgment, despite evidence of past ability.
• Jones v. Zimmerman
  752 F.2d 76· 3d Cir.· 1985-01-16 ·cited 10×
  A district court abuses its discretion by requiring a prisoner to pay a partial filing fee when the prisoner has demonstrated insufficient funds, even considering small amenities.
• Moret v. Karn
  746 F.2d 989· 3d Cir.· 1984-10-24 ·cited 10×·via Petition For Habeas Corpus Relief
  The court held that the termination of the alien's parole was an abuse of discretion because the INS failed to make the required finding of a clear and imminent danger to the community.
• Townsend v. Lucas
  745 F.2d 933· 5th Cir.· 1984-10-19 ·cited 10×·via Habeas Corpus Relief
  The appeal is dismissed because the district court failed to enter a separate final judgment and the notice of appeal was untimely.
• Alphonso Morgan v. Zant
  743 F.2d 775· 11th Cir.· 1984-09-21 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the jury instruction at the sentencing phase was constitutionally infirm for failing to adequately explain the nature and function of mitigating circumstances. The court also found the conviction itself to be constitutionally sound.
• Walker v. Maggio
  738 F.2d 714· 5th Cir.· 1984-08-20 ·cited 10×·via Habeas Corpus Relief
  The court held that the petitioner failed to overcome the presumption of correctness accorded to the state court's finding that his guilty plea was knowingly and voluntarily entered.
• O'Brien v. Louie L. Wainwright
  738 F.2d 1139· 11th Cir.· 1984-08-09 ·cited 10×
  The court held that although pretrial identifications were suggestive, they did not render the in-court identification unreliable, and the Fourth Amendment claim was procedurally barred.
• Blake v. Zant
  737 F.2d 925· 11th Cir.· 1984-07-13 ·cited 10×
  The court held that an order granting a writ of habeas corpus on some claims, but not all, is not a final appealable judgment under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, nor is it an interlocutory injunction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1).
• Kimbrough G. Middlebrooks v. Smith
  735 F.2d 431· 11th Cir.· 1984-06-29 ·cited 10×
  A district court's order transferring a case under 28 U.S.C. § 1631 is a non-appealable interlocutory order.
• Harvey and Rebecca Rumbaugh v. McKASKLE
  730 F.2d 291· 5th Cir.· 1984-04-20 ·cited 10×·via Writ Of Habeas Corpus
  The court held that the pending state habeas petition filed by the prisoner necessitates a remand to monitor its progress before adjudicating the parents' appeal.
• Emilcar Bermudez v. Reid
  733 F.2d 18· 2d Cir.· 1984-04-19 ·cited 10×
  The court held that a default judgment should not be entered in a habeas corpus proceeding without an evidentiary hearing on the merits, even when the state has been inexcusably dilatory.
• Matlock v. Rose
  731 F.2d 1236· 6th Cir.· 1984-04-09 ·cited 10×
  The Sixth Circuit affirmed the denial of habeas corpus relief, holding that the district court properly reached the merits of the petitioner's claims despite an unexhausted claim due to futility, and that the claims themselves lacked merit.
• Thomas v. ARN
  728 F.2d 813· 6th Cir.· 1984-03-09 ·cited 10×·via Writ Of Habeas Corpus
  The court held that failure to file objections to a magistrate's report, after being warned, results in a waiver of the right to appeal the district court's judgment.
• Gray v. King
  724 F.2d 1199· 5th Cir.· 1984-02-13 ·cited 10×
  The Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial was not violated by the ten-and-one-fourth-month delay between arrest and trial, as the delay was not excessive, there was no government misconduct, and the defendant failed to demonstrate prejudice.
• Matthews v. A.L. Lockhart
  726 F.2d 394· 8th Cir.· 1984-01-24 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the appellant's statutory and constitutional rights to a speedy trial were not violated, nor was he denied a fair trial due to pretrial publicity or subjected to double jeopardy.
• Len Terry Jackson v. Torres
  720 F.2d 877· 5th Cir.· 1983-12-05 ·cited 10×
  A Section 1983 action challenging the duration of confinement must be treated as a habeas corpus matter and requires exhaustion of federal habeas corpus remedies.
• Benny Williams v. Kullman
  722 F.2d 1048· 2d Cir.· 1983-11-28 ·cited 10×·via Application For Writ Of Habeas Corpus
  The court held that while sua sponte dismissal of the habeas petition was procedurally improper, the petition should ultimately be dismissed on the merits because the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support the jury's finding of intent.
• Kellotat v. Hoyt C. Cupp
  719 F.2d 1027· 9th Cir.· 1983-11-03 ·cited 10×
  A petitioner must exhaust state post-conviction remedies for claims of denial of appellate counsel, even if an interlocutory petition was presented to the state supreme court.
• Weygandt v. Look
  718 F.2d 952· 9th Cir.· 1983-10-19 ·cited 10×·via Habeas Corpus Proceedings
  An interlocutory order denying a motion for appointment of counsel in a habeas corpus proceeding is not an appealable final decision under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
• Sanders v. Israel
  717 F.2d 422· 7th Cir.· 1983-09-21 ·cited 10×·via Habeas Corpus Proceedings
  The court affirmed the denial of the habeas corpus petition, finding no constitutional error in the petitioner's conviction. Claims regarding illegal arrest evidence, prosecutorial misconduct, jury instructions, and the presumptive intent instruction were all rejected.
• Alvaro L. Hernandez, Jr. v. W.J. Estelle, Jr.
  711 F.2d 619· 5th Cir.· 1983-08-08 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court erred by not conducting a de novo review of the magistrate's report and recommendations based on the hearing transcript.
• Bullard v. W.J. Estelle, Jr.
  708 F.2d 1020· 5th Cir.· 1983-07-05 ·cited 10×
  The court vacated the district court's grant of habeas relief and remanded with instructions to dismiss the case with prejudice due to lack of a live case or controversy.
• Taylor v. Curry
  708 F.2d 886· 2d Cir.· 1983-06-07 ·cited 10×
  The court held that while the exclusion of the draft separation agreement was an error, it did not deprive the petitioner of a fundamentally fair trial, and thus habeas corpus relief was not warranted.
• Dyas v. Art Lockhart
  705 F.2d 993· 8th Cir.· 1983-04-21 ·cited 10×
  The court held that a judge's relationship to prosecutors, standing alone, is insufficient to raise a conclusive presumption of bias, but remanded for a hearing on whether the petitioner personally waived the judge's disqualification offer.
• Parton v. Wyrick
  704 F.2d 415· 8th Cir.· 1983-04-12 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the appellant failed to demonstrate ineffective assistance of appellate counsel for not raising the self-representation issue, nor did he show prejudice from the failure to object to prior convictions.
• Adams v. A.R. Jago
  703 F.2d 978· 6th Cir.· 1983-04-07 ·cited 10×·via Habeas Corpus Relief
  The court held that the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel was not violated by his trial attorney's actions or inactions.
• In the Interest of W.B.
  428 So. 2d 309· Fla. 4th DCA· 1983-03-16 ·cited 10×
  A fourteen-year-old juvenile appeals a 1979 adjudication of delinquency for breaking and entering, arguing the guilty plea was involuntary. The court reverses and remands for an evidentiary hearing to determine plea voluntariness, holding that a juvenile has habeas corpus rights
• Irby v. State OF Mo.
  427 So. 2d 367· Fla. 2d DCA· 1983-03-02 ·cited 10×
  Samuel Irby, a Florida prisoner with a Missouri parole violation detainer, sought habeas corpus relief arguing the detainer violated his speedy trial rights under the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act. The Florida Second District Court of Appeal reversed its prior precedent a
• United States v. Sutton
  700 F.2d 1078· 6th Cir.· 1983-03-01 ·cited 10×·via Habeas Corpus (28 U.S.C. § 2255)
  The court held that consecutive sentences for RICO and predicate drug offenses do not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause when Congress intends to authorize multiple punishments, and that the government sufficiently proved the existence of a RICO enterprise.
• LaCHAPPELLE v. Moran
  699 F.2d 560· 1st Cir.· 1983-02-02 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the trial judge's in camera conference with a minor witness, while unusual, did not violate the Sixth Amendment's confrontation clause or the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause.
• Ford v. Wainwright
  425 So. 2d 1189· Fla. 1st DCA· 1983-01-27 ·cited 10×·via Writ Of Habeas Corpus
  The court held that the attorney's failure to file an appeal did not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel.
• Lydon v. Justices OF the Boston Mun. Court
  698 F.2d 1· 1st Cir.· 1982-12-30 ·cited 10×
  The court held that a defendant's election of a two-tier trial system does not constitute a waiver of the right to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence presented at the first-tier trial.
• Holguin v. Raines
  695 F.2d 372· 9th Cir.· 1982-12-23 ·cited 10×
  The dissent argues that the majority's interpretation of Mileham improperly expands its scope, and that under Weaver v. Graham, the state's retroactive application of parole guidelines violates the ex post facto clause.
• Ware v. King
  694 F.2d 89· 5th Cir.· 1982-12-20 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the petitioner failed to demonstrate an actual conflict of interest by his counsel, and thus, the district court did not err in dismissing his habeas corpus petition.