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

• Castaldo v. United States Parole Comm'n & George Rodgers
  725 F.2d 94· 10th Cir.· 1984-01-16 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the Parole Commission adequately established good cause to exceed parole guidelines based on the magnitude of the offense and prior cocaine convictions, and that no impermissible double-counting occurred.
• Garafola v. G.C. Wilkinson
  721 F.2d 420· 3d Cir.· 1983-11-15 ·cited 8×
  A federal prisoner paroled to a state detainer under 28 C.F.R. § 2.32(a)(2) is considered 'paroled' under the Parole Act, and thus the Parole Commission can deny credit for time spent in state prison upon revocation for a new offense.
• Alexander v. State OF Md.
  719 F.2d 1241· 4th Cir.· 1983-10-20 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the state failed to prove Alexander would have been waived to adult court in 1961, and that his petition was not barred by laches under Habeas Rule 9(a).
• Howze v. Marshall
  716 F.2d 396· 6th Cir.· 1983-09-09 ·cited 8×·via Writ Of Habeas Corpus
  Placing the burden on a defendant to prove insanity by a preponderance of the evidence does not violate due process, provided the state proves all elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.
• Birt v. Montgomery
  709 F.2d 690· 11th Cir.· 1983-07-11 ·cited 8×
• Levis Leon Aldridge v. Louie L. Wainwright
  433 So. 2d 988· Fla.· 1983-06-14 ·cited 8×·via Writ Of Habeas Corpus
  The court held that the petitioner's claims regarding the application of legal principles, jury instructions, and the death sentencing scheme were without merit and did not warrant habeas corpus relief.
• L.P.S. v. Lamm
  708 F.2d 537· 10th Cir.· 1983-06-02 ·cited 8×·via Writ Of Habeas Corpus
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reinstate the civil rights action because the parties' stipulation clearly granted the trial court discretion to make that decision.
• Pennywell v. Rushen
  705 F.2d 355· 9th Cir.· 1983-05-03 ·cited 8×
  The failure of California courts to give a trial on a defendant's insanity plea did not violate federal due process, especially when the plea was invalidly entered and the underlying issues were considered under a diminished capacity defense.
• Hindman v. Wyrick
  702 F.2d 148· 8th Cir.· 1983-03-16 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the petitioner was not prejudiced by his trial counsel's failure to call a specific witness, and thus was not denied effective assistance of counsel.
• Hartley v. Neely
  701 F.2d 780· 9th Cir.· 1983-03-14 ·cited 8×·via Writ Of Habeas Corpus
  The court held that the exhaustion requirement for habeas corpus may be satisfied before a final state court judgment when the claim involves double jeopardy, and that a defendant who sought a mistrial is barred from a double jeopardy claim unless the mistrial was provoked by the
• Jones v. Jago
  701 F.2d 45· 6th Cir.· 1983-02-22 ·cited 8×
  The court held that a federal court may entertain constitutional claims in a habeas corpus petition when the state appellate court addresses the merits of the claim, even if a procedural default occurred at trial.
• Despres v. State
  427 So. 2d 257· Fla. 5th DCA· 1983-02-16 ·cited 8×
  Despres sought a belated appeal of his robbery conviction more than 14 months after sentencing, alleging his public defender failed to file an appeal despite his request. The court appointed a Commissioner to investigate and, finding no prejudice to the State despite trial counse
• Sudds v. Maggio
  696 F.2d 415· 5th Cir.· 1983-01-27 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the denial of a challenge for cause, refusal to instruct on intoxication, and use of prior convictions for sentence enhancement do not provide grounds for habeas corpus relief.
• Mata v. Sumner
  696 F.2d 1244· 9th Cir.· 1983-01-20 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the pretrial photographic identification procedures used were so impermissibly suggestive as to create a substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification, violating the defendant's due process rights.
• Paul v. Henderson
  698 F.2d 589· 2d Cir.· 1983-01-18 ·cited 8×
  The court held that a defendant waives his double jeopardy claim if he fails to raise it before the second trial, and that a retrial after a mistrial does not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause.
• Morse v. State OF Tex.
  691 F.2d 770· 5th Cir.· 1982-11-15 ·cited 8×
  A voluntary guilty plea, intelligently made in light of the then-applicable law, does not become vulnerable because later judicial decisions indicate that the plea rested on a faulty premise, such as the potential use of an uncounseled conviction for enhancement.
• Siegel v. State OF NEW York & Edward J. Kuriansky
  691 F.2d 620· 2d Cir.· 1982-10-22 ·cited 8×
• Blaikie v. Callahan
  691 F.2d 64· 1st Cir.· 1982-10-18 ·cited 8×
  The Sixth Amendment right to present a defense does not require a court to allow a defendant to reopen their case after resting to present expert testimony, especially when the testimony is not crucial and the defendant had prior opportunities to present evidence.
• Ford v. Superintendent, Ky. State Penitentiary
  687 F.2d 870· 6th Cir.· 1982-09-09 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the magistrate abused discretion by refusing to hear crucial live testimony from a witness whose credibility was central to the petitioner's claim of constitutional violation.
• Harrison v. Owen
  682 F.2d 138· 7th Cir.· 1982-06-29 ·cited 8×
  The admission of Harrison's oral incriminating statements to police was harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt because his subsequent confession to a friend was nearly identical and admitted into evidence.
• Pierce v. Mims
  418 So. 2d 273· Fla. 2d DCA· 1982-06-25 ·cited 8×·via Writ Of Habeas Corpus
  The court held that hearsay testimony is inadmissible at a preliminary hearing to establish probable cause, and its admission warrants a writ of habeas corpus.
• Euell v. Wyrick
  675 F.2d 1007· 8th Cir.· 1982-04-23 ·cited 8×
  A federal habeas court may hear a jury selection claim even if not raised at trial, if state courts did not invoke their contemporaneous objection rule as a bar.
• Williford v. Estelle
  672 F.2d 552· 5th Cir.· 1982-04-09 ·cited 8×·via Habeas Corpus Proceedings
  The court held that the petitioner knowingly and intelligently waived his right to counsel, and the Louisiana conviction was not void.
• Allen v. United States Parole Comm'n
  671 F.2d 322· 9th Cir.· 1982-03-11 ·cited 8×·via Writ Of Habeas Corpus
  The court held that the United States Parole Commission did consider the petitioner's completion of the NARA program, and therefore did not act arbitrarily or capriciously in denying parole.
• Cooks v. Spalding
  660 F.2d 738· 9th Cir.· 1981-11-02 ·cited 8×
  The court held that an attorney's waiver of a 12-person jury, with the defendant's silent presence, does not constitute an arbitrary or fundamentally unfair trial, and thus does not deprive the defendant of due process or effective assistance of counsel.
• Elbert Phillip Long v. Smith
  663 F.2d 18· 6th Cir.· 1981-10-21 ·cited 8×
  The court held that a federal appellate court cannot review state court jury instruction errors in a habeas corpus proceeding unless they rise to the level of a due process violation, and that failure to object at trial under state rules bars federal review absent a showing of ca
• Isaac v. Perrin
  659 F.2d 279· 1st Cir.· 1981-09-25 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the appellant's Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial was not violated, and therefore, the district court did not err in denying his petition for habeas corpus relief.
• Briggs v. Raines
  652 F.2d 862· 9th Cir.· 1981-08-07 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the petitioner had exhausted state remedies and that an evidentiary hearing is required to determine if the victim's FBI rap sheet contained favorable and material evidence that would have supported the petitioner's self-defense claim.
• Bradshaw v. Carlson
  682 F.2d 1050· 3d Cir.· 1981-06-25 ·cited 8×
  The court held that while the district court correctly dismissed most claims for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, it erred in dismissing the statutory construction claim regarding 18 U.S.C. § 5003. However, due to subsequent legislative amendments, no meaningful relief
• Haney v. Rose
  642 F.2d 1055· 6th Cir.· 1981-03-04 ·cited 8×·via Petition For Habeas Corpus Relief
  Federal habeas review of a state prisoner's claim of an unfair jury is not precluded by Wainwright v. Sykes if the state court's finding of procedural waiver was based on a misinterpretation of the record. Prejudice is not presumed when a juror is exposed to information about a d
• Clonce v. Presley
  640 F.2d 271· 10th Cir.· 1981-02-06 ·cited 8×·via Petition For Habeas Corpus Relief
  The court held that while the petitioner was in state custody for habeas corpus purposes, his petition was properly dismissed for failure to exhaust state remedies.
• United States ex rel. Joseph Cyburt v. Rowe
  638 F.2d 1100· 7th Cir.· 1981-01-19 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the trial court's failure to hold a full competency hearing was not constitutional error, and the guilty plea was voluntary and knowingly entered, and counsel was effective.
• Hassig v. Smith
  395 So. 2d 188· Fla. 1st DCA· 1981-01-16 ·cited 8×·via Writ Of Habeas Corpus
  The court held that a Texas court order did not validly modify a Florida divorce decree regarding child support payments.
• Adams v. State
  387 So. 2d 498· Fla. 5th DCA· 1980-08-27 ·cited 8×
  Imprisonment imposed as a condition of probation is not a sentence and therefore does not entitle a defendant to statutory gain time credits.
• Johns v. Dep't OF Just. OF the United States
  624 F.2d 522· 5th Cir.· 1980-08-01 ·cited 8×·via Writ Of Habeas Corpus
  The court held that deportation proceedings against an unrepresented infant violate due process, requiring the appointment of a guardian ad litem.
• Montes v. Jenkins
  626 F.2d 584· 7th Cir.· 1980-07-25 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the introduction of a codefendant's adoption of the petitioner's confession was not a violation of confrontation rights, and the confession itself was voluntary and not the fruit of illegal detention.
• State v. Bacon
  385 So. 2d 1160· Fla. 2d DCA· 1980-07-11 ·cited 8×·via Habeas Corpus Proceedings
  Florida appealed the dismissal of aggravated assault charges against Robert Bacon. The trial court dismissed the case when the victim disappeared and, after the state refiled the charges, granted Bacon's motion to dismiss based on alleged double jeopardy and expiration of speedy
• Medina v. Sandstrom
  384 So. 2d 927· Fla. 3d DCA· 1980-06-13 ·cited 8×·via Writ Of Habeas Corpus
  A defendant charged with life-imprisonment crimes was denied bail based on a trial judge's finding that proof of guilt was evident and presumption was great. The defendant challenged this denial via habeas corpus, arguing the judge improperly relied on hearsay evidence—a victim's
• Dalton Abbott v. Louie L. Wainwright
  616 F.2d 889· 5th Cir.· 1980-05-09 ·cited 8×·via Habeas Corpus Relief
  The court held that the denial of a severance motion, which prevented a codefendant from offering exculpatory testimony, made the state trial fundamentally unfair, warranting habeas corpus relief.
• Hankins v. Civiletti
  614 F.2d 953· 5th Cir.· 1980-03-31 ·cited 8×·via Writ Of Habeas Corpus
  A party who testifies on direct examination waives the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination concerning matters relevant to that testimony, and cannot refuse to answer relevant cross-examination questions.
• Whitehead v. Louie L. Wainwright
  609 F.2d 223· 5th Cir.· 1980-01-07 ·cited 8×
  The district court's finding of incompetence is affirmed, but its order limiting sentencing upon retrial is vacated.
• Osborne v. Vinson F. Thompson
  610 F.2d 461· 6th Cir.· 1979-12-20 ·cited 8×·via Writ Of Habeas Corpus
  The court held that due process required the trial court to conduct a hearing on the petitioner's competency to stand trial when doubt was raised by psychiatric reports and the judge's own finding of incompetence.
• Wacht v. Harold J. Cardwell & the Attorney Gen. of the State of Ariz.
  604 F.2d 1245· 9th Cir.· 1979-09-24 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the petitioner failed to allege sufficient specific facts to demonstrate that his guilty plea was not intelligently or voluntarily made due to the trial judge's omission of parole ineligibility information.
• Green v. Estelle
  601 F.2d 877· 5th Cir.· 1979-08-30 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the state was collaterally estopped from relitigating the issue of malice in a second murder trial after the jury in the first trial had already determined that issue in the defendant's favor.
• Gagne v. Meachum
  602 F.2d 471· 1st Cir.· 1979-07-31 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the state trial judge's jury instructions did not unconstitutionally shift the burden of proof to the defendant regarding self-defense or malice.
• Bennington v. Verne C. Thornton, Jr.
  370 So. 2d 856· Fla. 4th DCA· 1979-05-10 ·cited 8×·via Writ Of Habeas Corpus
  The court held that a probationer arrested on a warrant, rather than for a new felony charge, is not entitled to a hearing within ten days under Section 949.11, Fla.Stat. (1977).
• T. W. C. v. Pate
  369 So. 2d 361· Fla. 1st DCA· 1979-03-14 ·cited 8×·via Writ Of Habeas Corpus
• Walker v. Loggins
  608 F.2d 731· 9th Cir.· 1979-02-01 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the appellant's double jeopardy claim was meritless, but vacated the denial of habeas corpus relief on the self-representation claim and remanded for further consideration.
• Morgan v. Estelle
  588 F.2d 934· 5th Cir.· 1979-01-29 ·cited 8×·via Habeas Corpus Proceedings
  The court affirmed the denial of habeas corpus relief, holding that federal courts cannot grant relief on Fourth Amendment claims if the state provided an opportunity for full and fair litigation of those claims.
• Fitch v. Estelle
  587 F.2d 773· 5th Cir.· 1979-01-12 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court erred in denying an evidentiary hearing on the petitioner's claims of incompetency to stand trial and involuntary guilty plea, and that the ineffective assistance of counsel claim should also be heard.