Habeas Corpus Relief

565 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 717 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• Herrera v. Harkins
  949 F.2d 1096· 10th Cir.· 1991-11-26 ·cited 6×
  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.
• United States v. DeFUSCO
  949 F.2d 114· 4th Cir.· 1991-11-12 ·cited 6×
  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.
• Burton v. Johnson
  948 F.2d 1150· 10th Cir.· 1991-11-01 ·cited 6×·via Habeas Corpus Review
  The court held that the majority opinion created an erroneous rule of constitutional law by presuming juror bias based on past abuse and alleged dishonesty, rather than requiring proof of fixed opinions preventing impartial judgment.
• Clark v. Moran
  942 F.2d 24· 1st Cir.· 1991-08-09 ·cited 6×
  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
• 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.
• Jewell v. Cnty. OF Nassau
  917 F.2d 738· 2d Cir.· 1990-10-30 ·cited 6×·via Federal Habeas Corpus Relief
  A dismissal without prejudice to allow exhaustion of state remedies would time-bar a § 1983 claim if the statute of limitations has run, and a judicial stay, not dismissal, is the proper mechanism to avoid the limitations bar.
• Mahorney v. Wallman
  917 F.2d 469· 10th Cir.· 1990-10-24 ·cited 6×
  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.
• 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.
• United States v. Harper
  901 F.2d 471· 5th Cir.· 1990-05-17 ·cited 6×
  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.
• Toomey v. Bunnell
  898 F.2d 741· 9th Cir.· 1990-03-13 ·cited 6×
  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.
• Romero v. Lynaugh
  884 F.2d 871· 5th Cir.· 1989-10-05 ·cited 6×·via Habeas Corpus Review
  The court held that the defendant's trial counsel provided constitutionally effective assistance, and the federal district court erred in granting habeas corpus relief.
• Earsel Larry Johnson v. Trickey
  882 F.2d 316· 8th Cir.· 1989-08-10 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a prisoner is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on claims that his conviction was obtained through the knowing use of perjured testimony and ineffective assistance of counsel, but affirmed the dismissal of a claim challenging the sufficiency of the charging i
• Harrison v. Dahm
  880 F.2d 999· 8th Cir.· 1989-07-27 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the exclusion of defense witness testimony and the refusal to give jury instructions on the "excited utterance" exception and lack of motive did not constitute constitutional error warranting federal habeas corpus relief.
• Mayo v. Lynaugh
  882 F.2d 134· 5th Cir.· 1989-06-30 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the prisoner's constitutional rights were not violated and affirmed the denial of his habeas corpus petition.
• 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.
• Lombard v. Lynaugh
  868 F.2d 1475· 5th Cir.· 1989-04-06 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a defendant constructively denied effective assistance of appellate counsel falls under the Penson v. Ohio standard, where prejudice is presumed, obviating the need for a Strickland analysis.
• Alford v. Rolfs
  867 F.2d 1216· 9th Cir.· 1989-02-09 ·cited 6×·via Federal Habeas Corpus Relief
  The court held that the petitioner's claims regarding the habitual criminal finding, right to counsel, and Eighth Amendment challenge to his life sentence lacked merit.
• Arthur James "Dinkey" Brunelle v. United States
  864 F.2d 64· 8th Cir.· 1988-11-21 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a breach of a plea agreement requires resentencing before a different judge, even if the original sentencing court stated the breach did not influence its decision.
• Campbell v. Fair
  838 F.2d 1· 1st Cir.· 1988-01-26 ·cited 6×·via Habeas Corpus Review
  The court held that the petitioners' constitutional rights were not violated by the prosecution's conduct regarding a key witness or by the sufficiency of the evidence against petitioner Doherty.
• Quigley v. Vose
  834 F.2d 14· 1st Cir.· 1987-11-25 ·cited 6×·via Habeas Corpus Review
  A Sandstrom-type defect in jury instructions does not automatically require reversal and must be analyzed under the harmless error standard.
• United States v. Lane
  834 F.2d 645· 7th Cir.· 1987-11-24 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the petitioner failed to demonstrate ineffective assistance of counsel or other constitutional violations, and therefore, the denial of his habeas corpus petition was affirmed.
• Landry v. Judge J. Robert Hoepfner and William Guste, Jr.
  818 F.2d 1169· 5th Cir.· 1987-06-03 ·cited 6×·via Habeas Corpus Review
  The Sixth Amendment does not require a jury trial for Driving While Intoxicated (DWI) offenses if the maximum possible punishment does not exceed that for petty offenses.
• United States v. O'Grady
  812 F.2d 347· 7th Cir.· 1987-02-20 ·cited 6×·via Habeas Corpus Review
  The court affirmed the district court's decision, finding the state court's bail determination was not arbitrary and thus not a violation of the Eighth Amendment.
• Andrade v. O.L. McCOTTER
  805 F.2d 1190· 5th Cir.· 1986-12-01 ·cited 6×·via Federal Habeas Corpus Relief
  The court held that the prisoner failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a federal right, thus denying his request for a certificate of probable cause and a stay of execution.
• Borden v. Meese
  803 F.2d 1530· 11th Cir.· 1986-11-12 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the Board of Immigration Appeals' conclusion that the INS had not abandoned its administrative appeal was reasonable, and thus the district court erred in granting habeas corpus relief.
• Algar Ferguson v. Judge James A. Knight
  792 F.2d 581· 6th Cir.· 1986-06-11 ·cited 6×·via Habeas Corpus Review
  The court held that the use of a prior conviction to prove intent to sell in a second offense trafficking charge, without a limiting instruction, did not violate the Constitution under the Jackson v. Virginia standard.
• Delgado-Carrera v. United States Immigr. & Naturalization Serv.
  773 F.2d 629· 5th Cir.· 1985-10-11 ·cited 6×·via Habeas Corpus Review
  The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to directly review an exclusion order, and any challenges to the exclusion proceeding must be brought via a habeas corpus petition to the district court.
• Kuntzelman v. Black
  774 F.2d 291· 8th Cir.· 1985-10-01 ·cited 6×·via Habeas Corpus Review
  The admission of allegedly inflammatory photographs at trial was not so prejudicial as to deny the defendant due process and a fair trial.
• Duffy v. Foltz
  772 F.2d 1271· 6th Cir.· 1985-09-13 ·cited 6×
  The majority's holding that the prosecution must disprove the affirmative defense of insanity as a matter of constitutional law is inconsistent with Supreme Court precedent.
• Rose v. Duckworth
  769 F.2d 402· 7th Cir.· 1985-07-29 ·cited 6×·via Federal Habeas Corpus Relief
  The court held that the prosecutor's elicitation of improper testimony, even if careless or reckless, did not impermissibly influence the jury's determination of guilt, and thus federal habeas corpus relief was not warranted.
• Hagler v. Callahan
  764 F.2d 711· 9th Cir.· 1985-06-28 ·cited 6×·via Habeas Corpus Review
  The court held that a jury instruction violating due process by relieving the state of its burden of proof on intent is not harmless error if intent was a disputed issue at trial.
• Songer v. Louie L. Wainwright
  756 F.2d 799· 11th Cir.· 1985-02-05 ·cited 6×
• Eutues White v. Finkbeiner
  753 F.2d 540· 7th Cir.· 1985-01-15 ·cited 6×
  The government waived its right to contest the retroactive application of the Edwards rule by failing to raise the issue in prior proceedings.
• 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.
• Powell v. Wyrick
  744 F.2d 632· 8th Cir.· 1984-09-26 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the petitioner knowingly and intelligently waived his right to counsel, and there was no constitutional infirmity in his conviction.
• Pringle v. Court OF Common Pleas
  744 F.2d 297· 3d Cir.· 1984-07-05 ·cited 6×
  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×·via Federal Habeas Corpus Relief
  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.
• Wilson v. Mintzes
  733 F.2d 424· 6th Cir.· 1984-05-04 ·cited 6×·via Habeas Corpus Review
  The trial court's denial of the defendant's request for substitute counsel, made due to an irreconcilable conflict and ineffective representation, deprived the defendant of his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel.
• Rosetta McKINZY v. Louie L. Wainwright
  719 F.2d 1525· 11th Cir.· 1983-11-21 ·cited 6×
  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.
• Oliver v. Zimmerman
  720 F.2d 766· 3d Cir.· 1983-11-03 ·cited 6×·via Federal Habeas Corpus Relief
  The court concurred in the judgment, finding that even if a constitutional violation occurred, the overwhelming evidence of guilt rendered it non-prejudicial.
• Terry v. Duckworth
  715 F.2d 1217· 7th Cir.· 1983-08-25 ·cited 6×·via Habeas Corpus Review
  The court held that the petitioner's thirty-two month delay between charge and arrest did not violate his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• Smith v. Maggio
  664 F.2d 109· 5th Cir.· 1981-12-18 ·cited 6×·via Habeas Corpus Review
  Federal habeas corpus relief cannot be granted on Fourth Amendment grounds if the state provided a full and fair opportunity to litigate the claim.
• 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.
• Caldwell v. United States
  651 F.2d 429· 6th Cir.· 1981-06-16 ·cited 6×
  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.
• Keating v. State OF Mo.
  643 F.2d 1315· 8th Cir.· 1981-03-10 ·cited 6×
  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.
• Palmigiano v. Houle
  618 F.2d 877· 1st Cir.· 1980-04-08 ·cited 6×·via Federal Habeas Corpus Relief
  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.