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

• Lane v. Hanberry
  601 F.2d 805· 5th Cir.· 1979-08-29 ·cited 6×
  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.
• 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.
• Springer v. Collins
  586 F.2d 329· 4th Cir.· 1978-11-17 ·cited 6×
  The Fourth Circuit held that the trial counsel's failure to investigate an insanity defense did not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel, and that the defendant's post-conviction psychiatric diagnosis was insufficient to establish a valid insanity defense under Maryland l
• McDANIEL v. State OF Okla.
  582 F.2d 1242· 10th Cir.· 1978-08-25 ·cited 6×
  Federal habeas corpus relief is not available for a Fourth Amendment claim if the state provided an opportunity for full and fair litigation of that claim, even if the state court found the admission of evidence to be harmless error.
• Poulin v. Gunn
  548 F.2d 1379· 9th Cir.· 1977-02-24 ·cited 6×·via Petition For Habeas Corpus Relief
  The court held that the petitioner's Sixth Amendment rights may have been violated if the bailiff overheard confidential communications between the petitioner and his attorney, and this issue cannot be deemed harmless or waived by failure to object at trial.
• Ferrara v. United States
  547 F.2d 861· 5th Cir.· 1977-02-15 ·cited 6×·via Habeas Corpus Proceedings
  A district court cannot grant relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 without a hearing unless the motion and case records conclusively show the prisoner is entitled to no relief.
• James E. Appelwick, M.D. v. Hoffman
  540 F.2d 404· 8th Cir.· 1976-08-20 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the Army's denial of a community hardship exemption was a reasonable interpretation of its regulations and not arbitrary or unconstitutional, thus affirming the denial of habeas corpus relief.
• Curry v. Estelle
  524 F.2d 981· 5th Cir.· 1975-12-17 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a governor's commutation of a death sentence, even after it was vacated, does not violate constitutional rights and that a conviction based on a grand jury systematically excluding a class of citizens is subject to attack without showing prejudice.
• Thomas v. Parett
  524 F.2d 779· 8th Cir.· 1975-09-09 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the warrantless search of the apartment was justified by exigent circumstances, as the police reasonably believed evidence was about to be destroyed or removed.
• Baker v. United States
  494 F.2d 508· 5th Cir.· 1974-05-20 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a sentence enhancement based on a prior conviction obtained without counsel is improper and requires resentencing.
• United States ex rel. Lonnie Davis v. Johnson
  495 F.2d 335· 3d Cir.· 1974-03-20 ·cited 6×·via Federal Habeas Corpus Relief
  The court held that the defendant was not denied effective assistance of counsel when entering his guilty plea, and therefore the plea was voluntary.
• Torres v. State
  477 F.2d 555· 5th Cir.· 1973-05-07 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the petitioner's constitutional right to a speedy trial was not denied despite a seventeen-month delay between arrest and trial.
• Geboy v. Gray
  471 F.2d 575· 7th Cir.· 1973-01-05 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the combined effect of belated counsel appointment and inadequate representation at a juvenile waiver hearing raises a question of fact as to whether the juvenile and his parents knowingly and intelligently waived procedural defects and juvenile court jurisdic
• Ignatius J. Broussard, Jr. v. Patton
  466 F.2d 816· 9th Cir.· 1972-09-21 ·cited 6×·via Habeas Corpus Review
• Conte v. Cardwell
  475 F.2d 698· 6th Cir.· 1972-06-29 ·cited 6×·via Petition For Habeas Corpus Relief
  The court held that the affidavits were insufficient to support a delayed filing of the motion to reconsider, and the petition to rehear would be denied for untimely filing.
• Young v. State OF Md.
  455 F.2d 679· 4th Cir.· 1972-02-07 ·cited 6×
  The admission of the trenchcoat, even if illegally seized, was harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt because the defendant admitted the act of intercourse and wearing the coat, and the coat's stains did not prejudice his defense.
• Eskridge v. United States
  443 F.2d 440· 10th Cir.· 1971-06-07 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the trial court was justified in denying the appellant's petition to set aside guilty pleas and convictions without an evidentiary hearing.
• Buck Buster v. Hocker
  428 F.2d 820· 9th Cir.· 1970-07-02 ·cited 6×·via Habeas Corpus Review
• Tucker v. Louie L. Wainwright
  235 So. 2d 38· Fla. 2d DCA· 1970-05-06 ·cited 6×·via Habeas Corpus Review
  The petition for writ of habeas corpus is discharged because the notice of appeal was not timely filed.
• United States ex rel. Rushing Greer v. Pate
  393 F.2d 44· 7th Cir.· 1968-03-04 ·cited 6×·via Habeas Corpus Review
  The court held that the relator was properly tried by the State of Illinois, and that prosecutorial comments on the defendant's failure to testify were not grounds for habeas corpus relief as the conviction predated the Supreme Court's decision in Griffin v. California and subseq
• Wilson v. Honorable Stanley A. Weigel
  387 F.2d 632· 9th Cir.· 1967-12-01 ·cited 6×·via Habeas Corpus Proceedings
  The court held that while general discovery depositions are not authorized in habeas corpus proceedings, evidentiary depositions may be permissible under certain circumstances, and the district court's discretion in managing such proceedings should not be overridden by mandamus.
• Buchanan v. State of Fla. ex rel. Morgan D. Morris
  167 So. 2d 43· Fla. 3d DCA· 1964-08-25 ·cited 6×·via Habeas Corpus Review
  A Florida appellate court reversed a circuit court's grant of habeas corpus relief to a defendant convicted of drunk driving as a second offender. The court held that habeas corpus is not available to challenge the sufficiency of an affidavit or complaint when the accusatory plea
• Sunday v. Madigan
  301 F.2d 871· 9th Cir.· 1962-03-30 ·cited 6×·via Habeas Corpus Review
  The Uniform Code of Military Justice became effective in Korea at midnight on May 30-31, 1951, Korean standard time, and thus Article 120 was not applied ex post facto.
• Royal v. United States
  274 F.2d 846· 10th Cir.· 1960-01-19 ·cited 6×·via Habeas Corpus Proceedings
  The court held that the commitment of a mentally incompetent defendant charged with a federal offense is proper even if the insanity is permanent, and the trial court did not err in refusing to appoint a psychiatrist of the defendant's choice.
• Dalton v. Hunter
  174 F.2d 633· 10th Cir.· 1949-05-10 ·cited 6×·via Habeas Corpus Review
  A guilty plea waives factual defenses, and habeas corpus is limited to reviewing jurisdiction and whether the indictment charged a penal offense.
• Farrior v. State of Fla. Ex rel. Foster Compton
  152 Fla. 754· Fla.· 1943-04-23 ·cited 6×·via Habeas Corpus Review
  Foster Compton, a hotel operator holding a valid occupational license, was convicted under a statute that explicitly exempted licensed hotel operators. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decision to overturn the conviction, holding that Compton's hotel satisfied
• Blackwelder v. Morris
  89 Fla. 87· Fla.· 1925-02-05 ·cited 6×·via Habeas Corpus Proceedings
  E. H. Blackwelder was convicted of reckless operation of an automobile while intoxicated and sought habeas corpus relief. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's remand for resentencing because the original sentence violated a mandatory statutory requirement to impos
• The State of Fla. ex rel. Frank S. Porter v. Vinzant
  49 Fla. 130· Fla.· 1905-01-01 ·cited 6×·via Habeas Corpus Proceedings
  The Florida Supreme Court dismissed an appeal because the writ of error was not properly allowed or granted as required by statute, meaning the court lacked jurisdiction to hear the case.
• Hutchinson v. State
  29 So. 3d 1228· Fla. 3d DCA· 2010-03-31 ·cited 5×
  Tyrone Hutchinson appeals the denial of a motion to correct an illegal sentence under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800, claiming he should have been sentenced to five years (as promised in his 2001 plea agreement) rather than ten years (imposed in 2005 for violating commu
• Dasher v. Attorney Gen., State of Fla., Jim Witt
  574 F.3d 1310· 11th Cir.· 2009-07-13 ·cited 5×·via Habeas Corpus Review
  Cornelius Dasher pleaded guilty to cocaine possession with intent to sell within 1000 feet of a church after his attorney advised him that a straight guilty plea would result in a sentence of approximately thirteen months, based on a favorable plea offer from the judge. The sente
• Grace v. State
  920 So. 2d 719· Fla. 4th DCA· 2006-02-08 ·cited 5×
• Martin v. Jenne
  745 So. 2d 412· Fla. 4th DCA· 1999-10-27 ·cited 5×
  Brandon Martin sought habeas corpus relief from a $50,000 bond set pending retrial on a burglary charge after his conviction was reversed. The court granted the petition, finding the bond excessive because the trial court failed to hold an evidentiary hearing on Martin's financia
• Carey Dean Moore v. Clarke
  904 F.2d 1226· 8th Cir.· 1990-05-25 ·cited 5×·via Habeas Corpus Review
  The Nebraska Supreme Court's interpretation of Neb.Rev.Stat. § 29-2523(l)(d) provides sufficient guidance to prevent arbitrary imposition of the death penalty and is not unconstitutionally vague.
• Berryhill v. Zant
  858 F.2d 633· 11th Cir.· 1988-09-29 ·cited 5×·via Habeas Corpus Review
  The court held that the trial court's voir dire procedure was constitutionally inadequate to unearth prejudice given the significant possibility of prejudice from pretrial publicity.
• Francois v. Murray Henderson
  850 F.2d 231· 5th Cir.· 1988-07-26 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the state trial judge's denial of release was not supported by the record and that the patient was not mentally ill or dangerous under Louisiana law, thus requiring deinstitutionalization. The court also noted that recent changes in Louisiana law may violate t
• Earvil Watson v. Althea Camp
  848 F.2d 89· 7th Cir.· 1988-05-31 ·cited 5×·via Federal Habeas Corpus Relief
  The court held that the denial of one peremptory challenge to each side, when multiple others were available, does not violate the Constitution by casting doubt on the impartiality of the jury.
• Adams v. Evans
  788 F.2d 1493· 11th Cir.· 1986-05-09 ·cited 5×·via Habeas Corpus Review
  The court held that alleged violations of Title III concerning the territorial jurisdiction of the authorizing district attorney and judge are not cognizable on federal habeas corpus review because they do not implicate the core concerns of the statute.
• Malgorzata Gornicka v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv.
  681 F.2d 501· 7th Cir.· 1982-06-22 ·cited 5×·via Habeas Corpus Review
  Bond determinations made pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a) and 8 C.F.R. § 242.2 are not directly appealable to the Courts of Appeals under 8 U.S.C. § 1105a.
• Anton J. Krawczuk v. Sec'y, Fla. Dep't OF Corr.
  873 F.3d 1273· 11th Cir.· 2017-10-18 ·cited 4×
  Anton Krawczuk, a Florida death row inmate, appealed the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition challenging his conviction and death sentence for the brutal 1990 murder of David Staker. Krawczuk claimed his trial counsel, Barbara LeGrande, rendered ineffective assistance
• Kenitra Monae Casper v. State
  187 So. 3d 255· Fla. 1st DCA· 2016-02-10 ·cited 4×·via Habeas Corpus Proceedings
• Quinten Walden v. State
  162 So. 3d 84· Fla. 4th DCA· 2014-10-01 ·cited 4×
  The court granted habeas corpus relief, vacated the conviction, and remanded for a new trial because denying the petitioner the same remedy as in a prior, related case would be manifestly unjust.
• Vanderbilt v. Collins
  994 F.2d 189· 5th Cir.· 1993-06-17 ·cited 4×·via Habeas Corpus Review
  The court held that while the Fifth and Sixth Amendment violations regarding psychiatric testimony were not harmless error, subsequent Supreme Court precedent on double jeopardy prevents barring a new sentencing hearing based on insufficient evidence from a prior trial.
• Muhammed Dawan v. A.L. Lockhart
  980 F.2d 470· 8th Cir.· 1992-12-02 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the petitioner is excused from procedural defaults due to ineffective assistance of counsel, which constitutes cause and prejudice for raising his claim.
• Goldsmith v. S.R. Witkowski
  981 F.2d 697· 4th Cir.· 1992-11-24 ·cited 4×·via Habeas Corpus Review
  The court held that the evidence was constitutionally sufficient to support the petitioner's drug convictions, and the jury's consideration of stricken testimony did not violate his rights.
• Warner v. United States
  975 F.2d 1207· 6th Cir.· 1992-09-16 ·cited 4×
  The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of state habeas relief, vacating the state sentence, but affirmed the denial of federal habeas relief, finding no prejudice from counsel's ineffective assistance in the federal proceedings.
• Jeffers v. Lewis
  974 F.2d 1075· 9th Cir.· 1992-08-31 ·cited 4×·via Habeas Corpus Review
  The court held that the Arizona Supreme Court erred by affirming a death sentence without adequately considering mitigating evidence or conducting a proper reweighing of factors after invalidating one aggravating circumstance.
• Marczak v. Greene
  971 F.2d 510· 10th Cir.· 1992-07-23 ·cited 4×·via Habeas Corpus Review
  The court held that the District Director's denial of parole was not supported by individualized, factually based reasons, and thus constituted an abuse of discretion.
• Flowers v. Ill. Dep't of Corr.
  962 F.2d 703· 7th Cir.· 1992-05-07 ·cited 4×·via Federal Habeas Corpus Relief
  The court held that the jury instructions violated due process and were not harmless error, entitling the petitioner to habeas relief, but that the double jeopardy claim failed due to jury confusion.
• Mikes v. Borg
  947 F.2d 353· 9th Cir.· 1991-10-07 ·cited 4×·via Habeas Corpus Review
  The court held that fingerprint evidence alone is insufficient to support a conviction if the record does not contain evidence from which a rational factfinder could infer that the fingerprints were impressed during the commission of the crime.
• 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.