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

• Roberts v. Singletary
  794 F. Supp. 1106· S.D. Fla.· 1992-06-05 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the exclusion of evidence regarding the victim's prior sexual history was not a constitutional violation because the defense theory was not presented at trial and the defendant denied making the statement at issue. The court also found no ineffective assistanc
• Singleton v. A.L. Lockhart
  962 F.2d 1315· 8th Cir.· 1992-05-01 ·cited 6×·via Habeas Corpus Relief
  A defendant's knowing and intelligent waiver of the right to present mitigating evidence at the penalty phase of a capital trial is valid and forecloses challenges to the death sentence based on the failure to present such evidence.
• White v. Collins
  959 F.2d 1319· 5th Cir.· 1992-04-21 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the petitioner failed to make a substantial showing of a denial of a federal right or a likelihood of success on the merits, thus denying his motions for a certificate of probable cause and a stay of execution.
• Wise v. Fulcomer
  958 F.2d 30· 3d Cir.· 1992-02-24 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court should have addressed the Commonwealth's abuse of the writ argument before considering the petitioner's failure to exhaust state remedies.
• United States v. Cates
  952 F.2d 149· 5th Cir.· 1992-01-31 ·cited 6×·via Writ Of Habeas Corpus
  The court held that the government did not breach the plea agreement and the defendant was not entitled to withdraw his plea, thus affirming the denial of his § 2255 motion.
• Atehortua v. Kindt
  951 F.2d 126· 7th Cir.· 1991-12-17 ·cited 6×
• LEE v. Meeks
  592 So. 2d 282· Fla. 1st DCA· 1991-12-13 ·cited 6×·via Habeas Corpus For Child Custody
  The Lees, paternal grandparents, sought a writ of habeas corpus in Florida to enforce a Tennessee court's temporary custody order awarding them custody of the child pending final hearing. The Florida trial court denied the petition, finding that the best interests of the child re
• Clay v. Bronnenberg
  950 F.2d 486· 7th Cir.· 1991-12-10 ·cited 6×
  A federal court has jurisdiction under § 2254 to consider the constitutionality of an expired conviction if it was used to augment a current sentence.
• Herrera v. Harkins
  949 F.2d 1096· 10th Cir.· 1991-11-26 ·cited 6×·via Habeas Corpus Relief
  A prisoner may use 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to challenge parole procedures, but must use a habeas corpus petition to challenge the fact or duration of confinement.
• Fannings Johnson v. State
  589 So. 2d 456· Fla. 5th DCA· 1991-11-21 ·cited 6×·via Writ Of Habeas Corpus
  Fannings Johnson sought habeas corpus relief challenging his parole revocation after being acquitted of the charges that led to revocation. The circuit court denied his petition, apparently on procedural grounds, but the appellate court reversed, finding no abuse of writ where su
• Tart v. Commonwealth OF Mass.
  949 F.2d 490· 1st Cir.· 1991-11-15 ·cited 6×
  The court affirmed the district court's rejection of Tart's collateral challenges, finding his Fourth Amendment claim and preemption claim meritless, and his jury instruction claim procedurally barred.
• United States v. DeFUSCO
  949 F.2d 114· 4th Cir.· 1991-11-12 ·cited 6×·via Habeas Corpus Relief
  The court held that a defendant's guilty plea was valid because the trial court adequately complied with Rule 11, the plea was voluntary, and a sufficient factual basis existed. Ineffective assistance of counsel claims are not properly raised on direct appeal.
• Morris v. State OF Cal.
  966 F.2d 448· 9th Cir.· 1991-09-30 ·cited 6×
  The court held that judicial estoppel does not bar a habeas petitioner from asserting a claim of innocence based on ineffective assistance of counsel, and that the petitioner may be entitled to relief if her counsel's performance was deficient and prejudiced her defense.
• Raley v. Parke
  945 F.2d 137· 6th Cir.· 1991-09-19 ·cited 6×·via Writ Of Habeas Corpus
  The court held that the 1980 guilty plea was validly entered, but the 1981 plea was not sufficiently proven to be knowing and intelligent. A conditional writ of habeas corpus was granted, allowing the state to hold a new evidentiary hearing on the 1981 plea.
• Stanley v. A.L. Lockhart
  941 F.2d 707· 8th Cir.· 1991-08-12 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the petitioner procedurally defaulted his claims by failing to file a timely appeal and did not establish cause for the default due to insufficient evidence of mental incompetence.
• Earnest Gilbert v. H.N. Scott
  941 F.2d 1065· 10th Cir.· 1991-08-09 ·cited 6×
  The court held that supervening legal authority (Coleman v. Thompson) requires analysis of procedural defaults under the cause and prejudice standard, not the deliberate bypass standard, and that petitioner's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel did not meet the Strickland
• Clark v. Moran
  942 F.2d 24· 1st Cir.· 1991-08-09 ·cited 6×·via Habeas Corpus Relief
  The court held that the introduction of the benzidine test results, while a constitutional violation, constituted harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt due to overwhelming untainted evidence of guilt. The court also affirmed the district court's finding that trial counsel's pe
• Ouimette v. Moran
  942 F.2d 1· 1st Cir.· 1991-08-06 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the state prosecutor's failure to disclose the extensive criminal record and deals made with a key witness violated the petitioner's due process rights under Brady v. Maryland.
• Britz v. Thieret
  940 F.2d 226· 7th Cir.· 1991-08-06 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a state trial court's failure to conduct individual voir dire to determine if prospective jurors were aware of the defendant's prior conviction does not violate the Sixth Amendment, as the Constitution does not mandate a presumption of prejudice in such cases
• Freer v. Dugger
  935 F.2d 213· 11th Cir.· 1991-07-09 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a trial judge's determination that the evidence was legally insufficient to sustain a guilty verdict, even if framed as a grant of a new trial to allow for appeal, constitutes an acquittal for double jeopardy purposes, barring retrial.
• Bedford v. Attorney Gen. OF the State OF Ala. & Charlie E. Jones
  934 F.2d 295· 11th Cir.· 1991-06-24 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the petitioner's claim was not procedurally barred because the state court did not clearly and expressly state that its judgment rested on a state procedural bar, and the state failed to demonstrate prejudice from the delay in filing the petition.
• Brewer v. Aiken
  935 F.2d 850· 7th Cir.· 1991-06-14 ·cited 6×
  The court held that there is a reasonable probability that the jury would have recommended against the death penalty had they known of Brewer's limited intellect and passive personality.
• Purvis v. Dugger
  932 F.2d 1413· 11th Cir.· 1991-06-10 ·cited 6×
  The dissenting judge would grant the writ of habeas corpus, finding that the admission of Purvis's confession violated Miranda, either due to custody issues or the improper admission of details obtained after custody began.
• Johnson v. Puckett
  930 F.2d 445· 5th Cir.· 1991-05-07 ·cited 6×
  A guilty plea to habitual criminal status waives subsequent collateral attacks on prior convictions, and claims not raised in the district court are not considered on appeal.
• Meeks v. Dugger
  576 So. 2d 713· Fla.· 1991-04-11 ·cited 6×
  Douglas Ray Meeks, a death row inmate, petitioned for habeas corpus relief claiming his two death sentences violated Hitchcock v. Dugger by restricting jury consideration to only statutory mitigating circumstances. The Florida Supreme Court found a Hitchcock violation but remande
• Helton v. Fauver
  930 F.2d 1040· 3d Cir.· 1991-04-10 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the New Jersey Supreme Court's interpretation of the state's juvenile law was not unforeseeable, and therefore its retroactive application to Helton did not violate due process.
• In the Interest of R.A.
  575 So. 2d 807· Fla. 4th DCA· 1991-03-13 ·cited 6×·via Writ Of Habeas Corpus
• Allen v. Commonwealth OF Mass.
  926 F.2d 74· 1st Cir.· 1991-02-19 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the trial court's jury instructions did not shift the burden of proof or create a miscarriage of justice, and that counsel's failure to object to instructions or move to suppress identification did not constitute ineffective assistance.
• United States v. Firooz Jalili
  925 F.2d 889· 6th Cir.· 1991-02-05 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court erred in vacating the original sentence because the designation of the place of confinement was surplusage and the challenge to the execution of the sentence was not cognizable under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.
• McKINNON v. A.L. Lockhart
  921 F.2d 830· 8th Cir.· 1990-12-31 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a procedural default in state court bars federal habeas review of claims unless the petitioner demonstrates both cause for the default and prejudice resulting from the state court's failure to address the claims.
• Bumgarner v. A.L. Lockhart
  920 F.2d 510· 8th Cir.· 1990-12-03 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the confinement prior to trial did not interfere with the defendant's ability to prepare his defense or obtain counsel, and that his waiver of counsel was knowing and intelligent.
• Mahorney v. Wallman
  917 F.2d 469· 10th Cir.· 1990-10-24 ·cited 6×·via Habeas Corpus Relief
  The dissenting judge would affirm the district court's decision, arguing that the prosecutor's remarks, when viewed in the totality of the circumstances, did not deny the defendant due process.
• O.P. Hollis v. J.O. Davis & The Attorney Gen. of the State of Ala.
  912 F.2d 1343· 11th Cir.· 1990-09-25 ·cited 6×·via Writ Of Habeas Corpus
  The court should affirm the district court's dismissal of the habeas corpus petition due to prejudice caused by the petitioner's delay in filing.
• Rizzo v. Armstrong
  912 F.2d 1111· 9th Cir.· 1990-08-30 ·cited 6×·via Writ Of Habeas Corpus
  The court held that the regulation mandating forfeiture of street time was an unreasonable interpretation of the statute and thus invalid, and that street time forfeiture is a discretionary decision for the Commission.
• De Long v. Hennessey
  912 F.2d 1144· 9th Cir.· 1990-08-30 ·cited 6×
  The court held that while federal courts have inherent power to enjoin vexatious litigants, such orders require notice, an adequate record, substantive findings of frivolousness or harassment, and must be narrowly tailored; otherwise, they are an abuse of discretion.
• Coleman v. Saffle
  912 F.2d 1217· 10th Cir.· 1990-08-28 ·cited 6×
  The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the denial of post-conviction relief, holding that the petitioner's claims regarding competency and fair trial were previously litigated and that newly discovered evidence was insufficient to warrant relief.
• Derrick v. R.S. Peterson
  924 F.2d 813· 9th Cir.· 1990-08-28 ·cited 6×
  The court held that Derrick's confession was voluntary under the Fourteenth Amendment and his Miranda waiver was knowing and intelligent, affirming the denial of his habeas corpus petition.
• Smith v. Duckworth
  910 F.2d 1492· 7th Cir.· 1990-08-23 ·cited 6×·via Writ Of Habeas Corpus
  The court held that the state failed to demonstrate sufficient prejudice due to delay in filing the habeas petition, and that Smith's confession was involuntary based on the totality of the circumstances.
• Guinan v. Armontrout
  909 F.2d 1224· 8th Cir.· 1990-08-03 ·cited 6×
  The court affirmed the denial of habeas corpus relief, finding no due process violation in the denial of a psychiatric evaluation, no ineffective assistance of counsel, and no Eighth Amendment violation from jury instructions or prosecutorial remarks.
• United States v. O'Grady
  908 F.2d 170· 7th Cir.· 1990-07-19 ·cited 6×·via Habeas Corpus Relief
  The court held that the district court erred in granting habeas relief without an evidentiary hearing, as the petitioner failed to make a sufficiently precise showing of what impeachment evidence would have produced or why counsel's actions were not strategic.
• Schrader v. Whitley
  904 F.2d 282· 5th Cir.· 1990-06-28 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a continuance when the opposing party stipulated to the absent witness's testimony and its truthfulness, and the testimony was likely cumulative.
• Orndorff v. A.L. Lockhart
  906 F.2d 1230· 8th Cir.· 1990-06-19 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the prosecutor's failure to disclose a key witness's hypnosis was a constitutional error, but the harmless error analysis requires comparing pre-hypnosis statements with trial testimony, not deeming it inherently prejudicial.
• O'Bremski v. Manfred Maass
  915 F.2d 418· 9th Cir.· 1990-06-06 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the prisoner's claims were not colorable under federal law and that the Board's action in vacating an invalid release date was proper under Oregon law, thus affirming the dismissal of his habeas petition.
• United States v. Harper
  901 F.2d 471· 5th Cir.· 1990-05-17 ·cited 6×·via Habeas Corpus Relief
  The court held that the indictment adequately alleged the necessary elements of felony escape, specifically the basis for the defendant's custody, and thus the district court properly denied habeas relief.
• Tippitt v. A.L. Lockhart
  903 F.2d 552· 8th Cir.· 1990-05-11 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the appellant's habeas claims for ineffective assistance of counsel were procedurally barred because they were not raised in state court and he failed to show cause for this failure.
• Battle v. Armontrout
  902 F.2d 701· 8th Cir.· 1990-05-09 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion in denying the appointment of counsel for an indigent, incarcerated petitioner in a capital habeas corpus case.
• Elcock v. Henderson
  902 F.2d 219· 2d Cir.· 1990-05-03 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court should appoint counsel to assist the petitioner in preparing his habeas corpus petition, specifically to address a due process claim regarding appellate delay.
• Fairchild v. A.L. Lockhart
  900 F.2d 1292· 8th Cir.· 1990-04-17 ·cited 6×
  A successive habeas petition is procedurally barred and an abuse of the writ if new claims were available earlier and no cause or prejudice is shown. Even on the merits, the petitioner failed to demonstrate that alleged mental retardation rendered his confessions unreliable or th
• Langle v. State
  559 So. 2d 657· Fla. 5th DCA· 1990-03-22 ·cited 6×·via Writ Of Habeas Corpus
  The court held that a petitioner seeking release due to a delayed final revocation hearing must demonstrate prejudice resulting from the delay, even if the delay is presumed unreasonable.
• Toomey v. Bunnell
  898 F.2d 741· 9th Cir.· 1990-03-13 ·cited 6×·via Habeas Corpus Relief
  The court held that an attorney's failure to move for suppression of evidence, even if intentionally done to create appeal grounds, does not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel if the motion would have been unsuccessful and the client was aware of the strategy.