Habeas Corpus Relief Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254

51 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• Smith v. Comm'r, Ala. Dep't of Corr.
  67 F.4th 1335· 11th Cir.· 2023-05-19 ·cited 57×
  Joseph Clifton Smith, convicted of capital murder, challenged his death sentence on the grounds that he is intellectually disabled, which would render the sentence unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment under the principle established in Atkins v. Virginia. The Eleventh Circ
• Branch v. Estelle
  631 F.2d 1229· 5th Cir.· 1980-12-04 ·cited 51×
  The court held that the petitioner was not entitled to federal habeas corpus relief on any of his claims, affirming the denial of his petition.
• Raper v. Mintzes
  706 F.2d 161· 6th Cir.· 1983-04-27 ·cited 36×
  The prosecutor's comments on the uncontradicted nature of the evidence did not violate the petitioner's right against self-incrimination because the evidence could have been contradicted by sources other than the petitioner, and the comments were a permissible rebuttal to defense
• United States ex rel. Clinton Burnett v. People OF the State OF Ill.
  619 F.2d 668· 7th Cir.· 1980-04-22 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the petitioner's claims of due process violations based on an eleven-member jury, knowing use of perjured testimony, and prosecutorial misconduct were without merit.
• Grady Lee Smith v. W.J. Estelle, Jr.
  711 F.2d 677· 5th Cir.· 1983-08-11 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the district court properly denied habeas corpus relief without an evidentiary hearing, as the record sufficiently demonstrated the voluntariness of the guilty plea and the adequacy of counsel.
• Beans v. Black
  757 F.2d 933· 8th Cir.· 1985-03-08 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the appellant was not denied a full, fair, and adequate hearing on his competency to stand trial and did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel.
• Rudolph v. Blackburn
  750 F.2d 302· 5th Cir.· 1984-12-04 ·cited 20×
  A federal habeas petitioner's failure to raise an unexhausted claim in a prior petition constitutes an abuse of the writ, even if the claim was unexhausted at the time of the prior petition.
• Nixon v. Lanson Newsome
  888 F.2d 112· 11th Cir.· 1989-11-14 ·cited 17×
  The court held that the petitioner received constitutionally ineffective assistance of counsel because his trial attorney failed to impeach the key eyewitness with her prior inconsistent testimony, and this failure likely affected the outcome of the trial.
• Matthews v. Butler
  833 F.2d 1165· 5th Cir.· 1987-12-15 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the petitioner's habeas petition was properly dismissed under Rule 9(b) for abuse of the writ, as he failed to provide a sufficient excuse for not raising the claims in a prior petition.
• Roach v. Warden Joseph Martin
  757 F.2d 1463· 4th Cir.· 1985-03-20 ·cited 16×
  The court affirmed the denial of the habeas corpus petition, finding that the petitioner's claims were without merit and that the state court's factfinding procedures were adequate.
• United States ex rel. Rueben Palmer v. DeROBERTIS
  738 F.2d 168· 7th Cir.· 1984-05-14 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court correctly dismissed the habeas corpus petition because the petitioner failed to demonstrate a constitutional violation regarding the admission of flight evidence or the prosecution's use of peremptory challenges, and procedural defaults barr
• Hernando Williams v. Chrans
  945 F.2d 926· 7th Cir.· 1991-10-01 ·cited 14×
  The court affirmed the district court's denial of the habeas petition, finding no constitutional infirmities in the guilty plea or the Illinois death penalty statute as applied.
• United States v. Lane
  926 F.2d 694· 7th Cir.· 1991-03-08 ·cited 12×
  The court held that defense counsel's failure to ensure an alibi witness's appearance at trial, despite diligent efforts to locate her, did not constitute constitutionally ineffective assistance of counsel.
• Eleuterio v. Louie L. Wainwright
  587 F.2d 194· 5th Cir.· 1979-01-02 ·cited 12×
  The court held that a refusal to sign a Miranda waiver form does not automatically invalidate a waiver, and that competent evidence of sanity existed to support the conviction.
• Graham v. Lynaugh
  854 F.2d 715· 5th Cir.· 1988-08-31 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the petitioner failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a federal right and therefore denied his petition for a certificate of probable cause.
• Billiot v. Maggio
  694 F.2d 98· 5th Cir.· 1982-12-20 ·cited 10×
  The court held that a federal court cannot review a state court's application of Fourth Amendment principles in habeas proceedings unless the petitioner was denied a full and fair opportunity to litigate the claim. Furthermore, withholding cumulative evidence from the jury does n
• Washington v. Regan
  510 F.2d 1126· 3d Cir.· 1975-02-10 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the state court's resentencing procedure did not violate due process, and therefore, federal intervention via habeas corpus was unwarranted.
• Russell v. Jones
  886 F.2d 149· 8th Cir.· 1989-09-19 ·cited 8×
  The court affirmed the denial of the habeas corpus petition, finding no ineffective assistance of counsel, no suppression of confession, and sufficient evidence for conviction. The court also affirmed the denial of the state's request for transcript costs.
• 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.
• United States v. O'Grady
  908 F.2d 170· 7th Cir.· 1990-07-19 ·cited 6×
  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.
• Singleton v. A.L. Lockhart
  871 F.2d 1395· 8th Cir.· 1989-04-10 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the defendant's conviction was valid, but his death sentence should be reinstated, finding no constitutional error in jury selection or ineffective assistance of counsel, and that the prior vacating of the sentence was based on an overruled precedent.
• Sadler v. Sheriff, Sullivan, Joseph A., Philadelphia Cnty., Patton, Ernest S., Superintendent State Corr. Inst. at Camp Hill & the Attorney Gen. of the State of Pa.
  748 F.2d 820· 3d Cir.· 1984-11-20 ·cited 6×
  The Equal Protection Clause does not require Pennsylvania to apply its 180-day prompt trial rule from the date of a juvenile petition filing to a juvenile certified for adult trial.
• Jackson v. Estelle
  672 F.2d 505· 5th Cir.· 1982-04-08 ·cited 6×
  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.
• 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.
• Alexander v. Whitley
  940 F.2d 946· 5th Cir.· 1991-09-09 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court should first consider whether the petitioner's habeas petition constitutes an abuse of the writ under Rule 9(b), in light of the intervening Supreme Court decision in McCleskey v. Zant.
• Camillo v. Armontrout
  938 F.2d 879· 8th Cir.· 1991-07-10 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a defendant has a due process right to be present at proceedings determining persistent offender status, and the failure to provide notice or opportunity to be present violates this right.
• Eddy Ray Messimer v. A.L. Lockhart
  822 F.2d 43· 8th Cir.· 1987-06-30 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the habeas corpus petition for abuse of the writ and procedural default, finding the appellant had adequate notice.
• Myrick v. Herb Maschner & the Attorney Gen. of the State of Kan.
  799 F.2d 642· 10th Cir.· 1986-08-29 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a constitutionally deficient jury instruction regarding intent was harmless error because the evidence overwhelmingly established the petitioner's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and the instruction did not affect the verdict. The court also held that the pet
• Abelino Rodriguez v. Ricketts
  777 F.2d 527· 9th Cir.· 1985-12-02 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the Due Process Clause does not require state courts to establish a factual basis for a guilty plea absent special circumstances, and that no conflict of interest affected the adequacy of appellate representation.
• United States v. Wyrick
  675 F.2d 161· 8th Cir.· 1982-04-02 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the appellant failed to establish a prima facie violation of the Constitution's fair cross-section requirement due to the exclusion of women from jury venires.
• Arnold v. Wyrick
  646 F.2d 1225· 8th Cir.· 1981-04-10 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court correctly denied the petition for a writ of habeas corpus, affirming the denial of relief.
• Chakouian v. Moran
  975 F.2d 931· 1st Cir.· 1992-09-23 ·cited 2×
  The court affirmed the dismissal of the habeas corpus petition, holding that the petitioner failed to establish a prima facie case of racial discrimination in the prosecutor's use of peremptory challenges.
• Wilson v. A.L. Lockhart
  892 F.2d 754· 8th Cir.· 1990-01-03 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a petitioner's pro se status on a prior habeas petition does not, by itself, warrant relitigation of a claim already decided on the merits.
• Flowers v. Blackburn
  764 F.2d 276· 5th Cir.· 1985-06-18 ·cited 2×
  The court granted a certificate of probable cause, finding that the petitioner made a substantial showing of the denial of a federal right regarding jury instructions on specific intent.
• Lacy v. A.L. Lockhart
  697 F.2d 271· 8th Cir.· 1983-01-12 ·cited 2×
  The court affirmed the district court's denial of the habeas corpus petition, finding no constitutional violations regarding incriminating statements, in-court identification, sufficiency of evidence, or ineffective assistance of counsel.
• Tully v. Scheu
  607 F.2d 31· 3d Cir.· 1979-09-26 ·cited 2×
  The court held that denying a defendant a hearing on a timely motion for sentence reduction due to court rule time limits, after the hearing was adjourned to obtain substitute counsel, violates the constitutional right to counsel at a critical stage of the proceeding.
• Baker v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr. (Pinellas)
  2019 WL 10303104· M.D. Fla.· 2025-05-28 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the petitioner's sole remaining habeas claim is procedurally defaulted and barred from federal review.
• Jecksam T. Vega-Alvarez v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr.
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-11-17
  The court held that the petitioner's claims were waived by his nolo contendere plea or lacked merit and factual support, thus denying his petition for writ of habeas corpus.
• Jones v. Sec'y FLA. Dept of Corr.
  S.D. Fla.· 2024-07-26
  Renell Jones sought federal habeas corpus relief challenging the admission of his confession in a murder trial, arguing Miranda violations and constitutional defects in his interrogation. The district court affirmed the magistrate judge's recommendation to deny the petition, find
• Carballa v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr. (Hillsborough)
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-03-08
  The court held that the petitioner's claims were procedurally defaulted and not cognizable on federal habeas corpus review, and therefore denied the petition.
• Bates v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr.
  M.D. Fla.· 2023-04-07
  The court held that the petitioner's Miranda claim is procedurally defaulted and barred from federal habeas review because it was not exhausted in state court and no exceptions apply.
• Daniels v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr. (Pinellas County)
  M.D. Fla.· 2021-05-19
  The court held that the petitioner's claims were procedurally defaulted and barred from federal review because he failed to appeal the denial of his state post-conviction motion.
• Belle v. Jones
  M.D. Fla.· 2021-03-31
  The court held that the state postconviction court reasonably applied federal law in denying the habeas petitioner's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, as the petitioner failed to demonstrate prejudice by showing he would have gone to trial but for counsel's alleged erro
• Walker v. Moody
  S.D. Fla.· 2020-08-19
  The court held that the pro se plaintiff's complaint failed to state a claim for relief and lacked sufficient factual allegations for jurisdiction.
• Childs v. Collins
  995 F.2d 67· 5th Cir.· 1993-07-13
  The court held that a defendant who is informed of his right to appeal and fails to make his desire to appeal known waives that right, and thus cannot claim ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to appeal.
• Kelley v. Kaiser
  992 F.2d 1509· 10th Cir.· 1993-05-17
  The court held that the Oklahoma court's application of the Edwards requirement, which shifted the burden to the petitioner to show why he would not have been certified as an adult, constituted an inadequate fact-finding procedure, thus the state court's determination was not ent
• Griffin v. Warden, Md. Corr. Adjustment Ctr.
  970 F.2d 1355· 4th Cir.· 1992-07-28
  The court held that the petitioner was denied effective assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment due to his attorneys' failure to investigate and present alibi witnesses, which prejudiced his defense.
• Williams v. A.L. Lockhart
  797 F.2d 344· 8th Cir.· 1986-08-05
  The court held that a juror's voir dire statements did not demonstrate bias and a prosecutor's rebuttal argument did not improperly comment on the defendant's failure to testify.
• William v. Nabozny
  781 F.2d 83· 6th Cir.· 1986-01-15
  The court held that the reasonable doubt instruction was adequate, Fourth Amendment claims were properly litigated, emergency wiretaps were justified under statute, and ineffective assistance of counsel claims failed to meet the required prejudice standard.
• Terry v. Housewright
  659 F.2d 879· 8th Cir.· 1981-09-30
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support the petitioner's felony conviction for theft of property.