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

• Dobbert v. Louie L. Wainwright
  742 F.2d 1274· 11th Cir.· 1984-09-06 ·cited 6×
• Martin v. The State OF Tex.
  737 F.2d 460· 5th Cir.· 1984-07-18 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the failure of retained counsel to advise a defendant of their right to appointed counsel on appeal, when the defendant is indigent, constitutes ineffective assistance of counsel.
• Pringle v. Court OF Common Pleas
  744 F.2d 297· 3d Cir.· 1984-07-05 ·cited 6×·via Habeas Corpus Relief
  A federal court has jurisdiction to hear a habeas corpus petition challenging a state statute's constitutionality if the petitioner was in custody when the petition was filed, even if a state sentence appeal might later result in a non-custodial sentence.
• Hosea Lorenzo Williams v. Melton
  733 F.2d 1492· 11th Cir.· 1984-06-07 ·cited 6×
  The admission of hearsay statements identifying the driver of a car, lacking adequate indicia of reliability, violated the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation and was not harmless error.
• Weaver v. McKASKLE
  733 F.2d 1103· 5th Cir.· 1984-05-21 ·cited 6×
  A state prisoner's failure to comply with the state's contemporaneous objection rule procedurally defaults a claim for federal habeas review, absent a showing of cause and prejudice.
• Enos Jay Gardner v. Pitchess
  731 F.2d 637· 9th Cir.· 1984-04-20 ·cited 6×·via Writ Of Habeas Corpus
  The court held that while the grant of a writ of habeas corpus was appropriate due to ineffective counsel, the order to dismiss all state charges was overly broad and should be modified.
• Williams v. Maggio
  727 F.2d 1387· 5th Cir.· 1984-03-26 ·cited 6×
  The court held that while the state trial court erred by not holding a hearing on the voluntariness of the incriminating statement, the error was harmless because the record supported the statement's voluntariness and there was no evidence of coercion.
• Paulson v. Black
  728 F.2d 1164· 8th Cir.· 1984-03-07 ·cited 6×·via Writ Of Habeas Corpus
  A guilty plea is valid if the defendant understands the nature of the charge, even if they do not admit guilt, and the trial court adequately informed them of the charge and its consequences.
• Esposito v. Ira Mintz
  726 F.2d 371· 7th Cir.· 1984-02-10 ·cited 6×
  A habeas corpus petition challenging only the validity of a state detainer must be brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, and the petitioner must exhaust available state remedies.
• Rodriguez v. McKASKLE
  724 F.2d 463· 5th Cir.· 1984-02-06 ·cited 6×
  A federal court must dismiss a habeas corpus petition if the petitioner has not exhausted all available state remedies, even if an evidentiary hearing has been held in federal court and the merits of the petition have been briefed.
• Cunningham v. Henderson
  725 F.2d 32· 2d Cir.· 1984-01-05 ·cited 6×
  The court held that an appellate counsel's decision not to raise a particular claim, even if colorable, is not ineffective assistance of counsel if it is a reasonable professional judgment.
• Rosetta McKINZY v. Louie L. Wainwright
  719 F.2d 1525· 11th Cir.· 1983-11-21 ·cited 6×·via Habeas Corpus Relief
  The Sixth Amendment right to confrontation requires allowing cross-examination of a juvenile witness regarding their record if it could show bias, overriding state laws protecting juvenile record confidentiality.
• King v. Ponte
  717 F.2d 635· 1st Cir.· 1983-09-14 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the undisclosed exculpatory evidence, even if considered, would not have affected the outcome of the trial, and thus affirmed the denial of the habeas corpus petition.
• Stumbo v. Seabold
  704 F.2d 910· 6th Cir.· 1983-04-13 ·cited 6×·via Petition For Habeas Corpus Relief
  The court held that egregious prosecutorial misconduct, particularly when evidence of guilt is weak, deprives a defendant of a fundamentally fair trial and due process of law.
• Jones v. W.J. Estelle, Jr.
  699 F.2d 793· 5th Cir.· 1983-03-11 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court's finding of abuse of the writ was not supported by the evidence and must be reversed.
• Wassall v. Honorable Judge J. Brendon Ryan
  705 F.2d 970· 8th Cir.· 1983-02-28 ·cited 6×·via Writ Of Habeas Corpus
  Reprosecution is not barred by the Double Jeopardy Clause when the prosecutor's conduct, even if leading to a mistrial, was not intended to provoke the defendant into moving for a mistrial.
• Barefoot v. W.J. Estelle, Jr.
  697 F.2d 593· 5th Cir.· 1983-01-20 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the admission of psychiatric testimony on future dangerousness was not a constitutional violation, and the state court had jurisdiction to resentence. Therefore, the motion to stay execution was denied.
• Williams v. Maggio
  695 F.2d 119· 5th Cir.· 1983-01-10 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and that the defendant received effective assistance of counsel.
• Wilson v. Eastmoore
  419 So. 2d 673· Fla. 5th DCA· 1982-08-18 ·cited 6×·via Writ Of Habeas Corpus
  Florida's Fifth District Court of Appeal denied a writ of prohibition challenging a federal district court's order requiring retrial of a defendant convicted of assault on a law enforcement officer. Although the state court disagreed with the federal court's reversal of its own p
• United States ex rel. John Kirk v. Dir., Dep't OF Corr., State OF Ill.
  678 F.2d 723· 7th Cir.· 1982-05-19 ·cited 6×
  The rule forbidding trial judges from inquiring as to the jury's numerical division, established in Brasfield v. United States, is an exercise of the Supreme Court's supervisory jurisdiction over federal courts and is not binding on the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.
• Elbert James Hinkle v. Scurr
  677 F.2d 667· 8th Cir.· 1982-05-12 ·cited 6×·via Petition For Habeas Corpus Relief
  The court held that the appellant's claims regarding inadequate psychiatric examination, ineffective assistance of counsel, and an improper jury instruction on voluntary intoxication did not warrant habeas corpus relief.
• United States ex rel. David G. Stevens v. The Cir. Court OF Milwaukee Cnty.
  675 F.2d 946· 7th Cir.· 1982-04-20 ·cited 6×
  A federal court should not grant pretrial habeas corpus relief to enjoin a state criminal trial on double jeopardy grounds when the defendant has not yet undergone a trial, even if a prior guilty plea was entered.
• Jackson v. Estelle
  672 F.2d 505· 5th Cir.· 1982-04-08 ·cited 6×·via Habeas Corpus Relief
  The court held that the state appellate court's finding of no prejudice from the denial of a mistrial transcript was presumed correct under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), and the appellant failed to overcome this presumption.
• Roche v. Sizer
  675 F.2d 507· 2d Cir.· 1982-04-01 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the petitioner's federal sentence commenced when he was received into federal custody, not from the date of his federal sentencing while in state custody.
• Ford v. Parratt
  673 F.2d 232· 8th Cir.· 1982-03-15 ·cited 6×
  The dissenting judge would affirm the district court's denial of habeas corpus relief, finding no demonstrated prejudice from counsel's alleged failure to investigate a rumor.
• Turoso v. The Cleveland Mun. Court
  674 F.2d 486· 6th Cir.· 1982-02-04 ·cited 6×
  The dissenting judge argues that the majority's attempt to save the Ohio obscenity statute by reinterpreting it is unconstitutional and violates the First Amendment.
• Boothe v. Superintendent, Woodbourne Corr. Facility & Honorable Robert Abrams, Attorney Gen. of the State of N.Y.
  656 F.2d 27· 2d Cir.· 1981-08-06 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the petitioner failed to exhaust his state remedies regarding the claim that the state denied him due process by failing to provide funds for electronic monitoring equipment.
• Otha Lee Conley v. Off. of the Pub. Def.
  653 F.2d 1241· 8th Cir.· 1981-07-21 ·cited 6×·via Habeas Corpus Proceedings
  Witnesses are absolutely immune from civil rights actions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for testimony given in judicial proceedings.
• Foster v. Strickland
  517 F. Supp. 597· N.D. Fla.· 1981-07-02 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the petitioner's counsel provided effective assistance, and that federal review of the state court's competency determination was foreclosed by procedural default.
• Caldwell v. United States
  651 F.2d 429· 6th Cir.· 1981-06-16 ·cited 6×·via Habeas Corpus Relief
  The court held that the petitioner's Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel was not violated, and due process claims not raised below are not properly before the court.
• Lonberger v. Jago
  651 F.2d 447· 6th Cir.· 1981-06-11 ·cited 6×
  A federal court must explain its reasons for departing from state court findings of fact in a habeas corpus suit, and a prior conviction used as a specification for a greater offense is constitutionally infirm if the guilty plea to the prior offense was not intelligently made.
• Keating v. State OF Mo.
  643 F.2d 1315· 8th Cir.· 1981-03-10 ·cited 6×·via Habeas Corpus Relief
  The court held that while a deal between the prosecution and a key witness should have been disclosed, its suppression did not affect the outcome of the trial given the strength of the state's case and the defense's effective impeachment of the witness.
• Spiegel v. Sandstrom
  637 F.2d 405· 5th Cir.· 1981-02-19 ·cited 6×
  A prior conviction, even if pending appeal, cannot be used for impeachment or to enhance punishment if it was constitutionally invalid.
• In re Cloyce Gilbert Little Light v. Crist
  649 F.2d 682· 9th Cir.· 1981-02-17 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the area of Hardin, Montana, was disestablished from the Crow Reservation, granting Montana courts jurisdiction, but remanded for further proceedings on claims of involuntary plea and lack of counsel.
• Camillo v. Wyrick
  640 F.2d 931· 8th Cir.· 1981-02-09 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying the habeas corpus petition, as the totality of the circumstances demonstrated the guilty plea was voluntary and the state court's findings were supported by the record.
• Navedo v. Preisser
  630 F.2d 636· 8th Cir.· 1980-09-22 ·cited 6×·via Writ Of Habeas Corpus
  The court held that the Iowa statute's gender-based classification, which punished males over twenty-five for sexual intercourse with a sixteen-year-old female but not females over twenty-five for intercourse with a sixteen-year-old male, violated the Equal Protection Clause beca
• United States v. Scott
  625 F.2d 623· 5th Cir.· 1980-09-10 ·cited 6×·via Writ Of Habeas Corpus
  A defendant seeking to vacate a guilty plea based on misinformation about the maximum sentence must show prejudice, meaning they would not have pled guilty had they been properly informed.
• Hancock v. State
  386 So. 2d 613· Fla. 5th DCA· 1980-08-06 ·cited 6×·via Writ Of Habeas Corpus
  The court held that a petitioner is entitled to bail pending sentencing and appeal if not yet adjudicated guilty, even after a guilty verdict, as the constitutional right to bail continues until adjudication.
• White v. Sowders
  644 F.2d 1177· 6th Cir.· 1980-07-01 ·cited 6×
  The Sixth Circuit held that a juvenile's constitutional rights were violated by an inadequate transfer order from juvenile to adult court, and federal habeas corpus relief was available despite procedural arguments by the state.
• Gormley v. Dir., Conn. State Dep't OF Prob. & Attorney Gen. of the State of Conn.
  632 F.2d 938· 2d Cir.· 1980-05-27 ·cited 6×
  The statute may be constitutional if narrowly construed by the Connecticut Supreme Court to apply only to unprotected speech, but would be void for overbreadth if construed broadly.
• Brown v. Louie L. Wainwright
  383 So. 2d 754· Fla. 4th DCA· 1980-05-14 ·cited 6×·via Writ Of Habeas Corpus
  The appellate court affirmed the trial court's denial of a habeas corpus petition, agreeing that the trial court lacked the authority to grant the requested relief.
• Jerry v. Louie L. Wainwright
  383 So. 2d 1110· Fla. 1st DCA· 1980-05-13 ·cited 6×·via Writ Of Habeas Corpus
  The court held that the department failed to comply with its rules by not advising the inmate of his right to call witnesses.
• Palmigiano v. Houle
  618 F.2d 877· 1st Cir.· 1980-04-08 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the petitioner was afforded a full and fair opportunity to litigate his Fourth Amendment claims in state court, despite a misallocation of the burden of proof, and thus federal habeas corpus relief was barred.
• Cerbo v. Fauver
  616 F.2d 714· 3d Cir.· 1980-03-13 ·cited 6×
  The court held that appellate counsel's tactical decision not to raise a tape sealing defense, based on then-existing adverse case law, did not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment, and an evidentiary hearing was not required.
• Hopkins v. Barad
  380 So. 2d 1166· Fla. 3d DCA· 1980-03-11 ·cited 6×
  Hopkins, a criminal defendant, sought habeas corpus relief arguing he was entitled to discharge under Florida's speedy trial rule because the 60-day period expired without trial. The court denied relief, holding that although Hopkins had a bona fide desire for speedy trial, he fa
• Min-Shey Hung v. United States
  617 F.2d 201· 10th Cir.· 1980-03-10 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court should not have considered an arrest challenge while INS deportation proceedings were in progress and had passed the probable cause stage.
• Lane v. Hanberry
  601 F.2d 805· 5th Cir.· 1979-08-29 ·cited 6×·via Habeas Corpus Relief
  A federal prisoner seeking post-conviction relief must file a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 in the sentencing court, and may only seek habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 if the § 2255 remedy is inadequate or ineffective.
• Brooks v. Hopper
  597 F.2d 57· 5th Cir.· 1979-06-13 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court erred in denying habeas corpus relief without a full evidentiary hearing, as the petitioners' claims of ineffective assistance of counsel due to a conflict of interest have substantial merit.
• United States v. Rodger Phillip Missio
  597 F.2d 60· 5th Cir.· 1979-06-13 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a hearing was not required because the sentencing judge explicitly stated that the allegedly unconstitutional prior convictions played no part in determining the sentence.
• Harris v. Wilters
  596 F.2d 678· 5th Cir.· 1979-06-08 ·cited 6×
  The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant's motion for a mandatory preliminary injunction to fund his state coram nobis proceeding.