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

• Williams v. Whitley
  940 F.2d 132· 5th Cir.· 1991-08-30 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the petitioner was entitled to an evidentiary hearing to develop facts regarding a police report containing impeachment evidence and his trial counsel's knowledge of it.
• Cortinas v. United States Parole Comm'n
  938 F.2d 43· 5th Cir.· 1991-08-09 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the Parole Commission had the authority to revoke parole and forfeit street time, and that Cortinas's claims of unreasonable delay, ex post facto violation, and double jeopardy were without merit.
• 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.
• Spaziano v. Dugger
  584 So. 2d 1· Fla.· 1991-07-03 ·cited 4×
  Joseph Robert Spaziano petitions for habeas corpus relief, arguing that the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Parker v. Dugger requires the Florida Supreme Court to reconsider his death sentence, which was imposed by the trial judge despite a jury recommendation for life imprisonm
• Jewell Scott v. State OF La. & Bruce Lynn
  934 F.2d 631· 5th Cir.· 1991-06-27 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the jury instruction error for attempted murder was harmless regarding the concurrent sentences but modified the dismissal to be without prejudice due to potential future collateral consequences.
• Gonzalez v. Sullivan
  934 F.2d 419· 2d Cir.· 1991-05-28 ·cited 4×·via Habeas Corpus Review
  A state court must be given fair warning of the federal nature of a petitioner's claim before it can be considered exhausted, and procedural defaults in state court bar federal habeas review unless cause and prejudice are shown.
• Dendalee McBEE v. Abramajtys
  929 F.2d 264· 6th Cir.· 1991-04-04 ·cited 4×·via Habeas Corpus Review
  The court held that the last state court judgment clearly and expressly rested upon a procedural ground, affirming the denial of the habeas petition.
• Hughes Anderson Bagley, Jr. v. CMC Real Est. Corp.
  923 F.2d 758· 9th Cir.· 1991-01-22 ·cited 4×·via Habeas Corpus Proceedings
  The court held that Bagley's civil rights claims accrued when he first learned of the injury, not upon the completion of his habeas corpus proceedings, and that his § 1985(2) claim failed for lack of class-based animus.
• Pinkney v. Keane
  920 F.2d 1090· 2d Cir.· 1990-12-07 ·cited 4×·via Habeas Corpus Review
  A federal court in a habeas corpus proceeding may reexamine a state appellate court's suppression ruling if it appears erroneous, even if the state ruling favored the petitioner. The court found the search of the petitioner's car was constitutional.
• Buddy Nichols v. Mac Sim Butler
  917 F.2d 518· 11th Cir.· 1990-11-20 ·cited 4×
  The court affirmed the district court's grant of habeas corpus relief, holding that the petitioner's fundamental right to testify was violated when his counsel threatened to withdraw if he insisted on testifying.
• Nabors v. United States
  929 F.2d 354· 8th Cir.· 1990-10-15 ·cited 4×·via Petition For Habeas Corpus Relief
  The court held that the district court failed to conduct the required de novo review of the magistrate's recommendation because it did not review the actual testimony from the evidentiary hearing.
• Harper v. Kelly
  916 F.2d 54· 2d Cir.· 1990-10-10 ·cited 4×·via Habeas Corpus Review
  The court held that the trial court's restriction of cross-examination into the victim's emotional state during the robbery violated the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses, and this error was not harmless.
• Micheaux v. Collins
  911 F.2d 1083· 5th Cir.· 1990-09-17 ·cited 4×·via Habeas Corpus Review
  The court held that a state court's finding that a petitioner would not have pleaded guilty if properly admonished is a factual finding entitled to a presumption of correctness under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), and that a federal court cannot disregard such findings by labeling them mix
• Noriega-Sandoval v. U.S. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv.
  911 F.2d 258· 9th Cir.· 1990-08-13 ·cited 4×
  The court held that it lacks jurisdiction to review the denial of an application for adjustment of status to temporary resident under IRCA, except in the context of reviewing an order of deportation.
• Walker v. B.D. Goldsmith
  902 F.2d 16· 9th Cir.· 1990-05-02 ·cited 4×
  The court held that surnames beginning with W through Z do not constitute a cognizable and distinctive class for jury selection purposes.
• Jones v. Meyer
  899 F.2d 883· 9th Cir.· 1990-04-11 ·cited 4×·via Petition For Habeas Corpus Relief
  The court held that shackling a defendant during trial, when justified by security concerns and less restrictive alternatives were considered, does not violate the due process clause or the presumption of innocence.
• Hawkins v. Higgins
  898 F.2d 1365· 8th Cir.· 1990-03-26 ·cited 4×·via Federal Habeas Corpus Relief
  The court held that state remedies were futile and therefore exhausted, allowing federal habeas corpus review.
• Bagby v. Sowders
  894 F.2d 792· 6th Cir.· 1990-01-17 ·cited 4×·via Habeas Corpus Review
  The court held that the evidence did not warrant an instruction on the lesser included offense of sexual abuse in the first degree.
• Medeiros v. Shimoda
  889 F.2d 819· 9th Cir.· 1989-11-08 ·cited 4×·via Habeas Corpus Review
  The dissent argues that the presumption that an initial confession has a coercive effect on subsequent confessions was not rebutted in this case.
• United States v. Bayard Spector
  888 F.2d 583· 8th Cir.· 1989-11-03 ·cited 4×
  A motion for a new trial under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33, based on newly discovered evidence, must be filed within two years of the appellate court's mandate issuance, and release on bond does not constitute a stay of the mandate.
• Smith v. Jago
  888 F.2d 399· 6th Cir.· 1989-10-20 ·cited 4×·via Habeas Corpus Review
  The Sixth Circuit held that the district court erred by failing to defer to state court findings of fact and by applying an improper standard of prejudice. The court found the state court's factual determinations were supported by the record and that the defendant failed to demon
• Dick v. Scroggy
  882 F.2d 192· 6th Cir.· 1989-08-14 ·cited 4×·via Habeas Corpus Review
  The appearance of impropriety from a prosecutor representing a victim in a civil suit while also prosecuting the defendant in a criminal case does not, without more, violate the Due Process Clause.
• Lopez-Torres v. United States
  876 F.2d 4· 1st Cir.· 1989-06-01 ·cited 4×·via Habeas Corpus Review
  The court held that while the defendant may have raised a triable factual dispute regarding waiver of his right to appeal, the appeal would have lacked merit, thus affirming the denial of the § 2255 motion.
• Swift v. Lynn
  870 F.2d 1039· 5th Cir.· 1989-04-26 ·cited 4×·via Habeas Corpus Review
  The court held that the denial of habeas relief on the sufficiency of the evidence claim was affirmed, but the denial of relief on the multiple offender adjudication claim was reversed and remanded.
• Sanders v. Clarke
  856 F.2d 1134· 8th Cir.· 1988-09-12 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a defendant is not required to show prejudice to obtain relief when counsel fails to comply with the Anders requirements for withdrawing from a frivolous appeal.
• Woods v. Butler
  847 F.2d 1163· 5th Cir.· 1988-06-28 ·cited 4×
  A valid prescription for a controlled substance is a defense, not an element of the crime of possession, and the state may constitutionally require the defendant to prove this defense.
• Catarino Gonzales, Jr. v. Grammer
  848 F.2d 894· 8th Cir.· 1988-06-07 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the prior guilty pleas were not entered in accord with due process, as the defendant was not sufficiently informed of his constitutional rights to make an intelligent choice.
• Pinson v. Morris
  830 F.2d 896· 8th Cir.· 1987-10-05 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the panel opinion's reasoning regarding Pinson's knowledge of his appellate rights was incongruous and that the state may have an obligation to explicitly inform indigent defendants of their appellate rights.
• Carter v. Lynaugh
  826 F.2d 408· 5th Cir.· 1987-09-10 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the inmate failed to demonstrate prejudice, a prerequisite for habeas relief, even if his guilty plea was not knowing and voluntary or his counsel was ineffective.
• Sahagian v. Dickey
  827 F.2d 90· 7th Cir.· 1987-08-14 ·cited 4×·via Habeas Corpus Proceedings
  The court held that a state is not constitutionally required to provide legal materials for discretionary appeals, but reversed the denial of damages for denial of access at Marion, remanding for further proceedings.
• 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.
• Sullivan v. State OF Minn.
  818 F.2d 664· 8th Cir.· 1987-05-12 ·cited 4×·via Habeas Corpus Review
  The court affirmed the denial of the habeas corpus petition, finding no constitutional error in the state court's evidentiary rulings or sufficiency of evidence determination.
• In re Extradition OF Robert Henry Russell. United States v. Russell
  805 F.2d 1215· 5th Cir.· 1986-12-10 ·cited 4×·via Habeas Corpus Review
  The court held that the magistrate had jurisdiction, the offense was within the treaty, and there was sufficient evidence for probable cause to believe the accused was guilty, thus affirming the denial of bail and habeas corpus relief.
• Duffy v. Foltz
  804 F.2d 50· 6th Cir.· 1986-10-23 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a defendant's counsel's concession of factual guilt to pursue an insanity defense does not violate the right to a jury trial or due process, and that sanity is not an element of the crimes under Michigan law.
• 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
• Reed Wayne Hamilton v. Crispus NIX
  781 F.2d 619· 8th Cir.· 1985-12-31 ·cited 4×·via Habeas Corpus Review
  The dissenting judge argues that the Iowa Supreme Court's findings regarding the independent source doctrine should be presumed correct under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), and that the majority improperly disregarded these findings.
• Watson v. Marshall
  784 F.2d 722· 6th Cir.· 1985-12-26 ·cited 4×
  The dissenting judge believes the prosecutor's actions and defense counsel's inactions deprived the appellant of a fair trial, warranting a retrial or release.
• 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.
• Schaeffer v. Black
  774 F.2d 865· 8th Cir.· 1985-10-01 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a habeas petitioner claiming ineffective assistance of counsel due to external constraints must still demonstrate actual prejudice, and that state court factual findings are entitled to a presumption of correctness.
• Barton v. A.L. Lockhart
  762 F.2d 712· 8th Cir.· 1985-05-22 ·cited 4×
  A defendant is denied due process when a sentencing judge relies on materially false information in a presentence report and the defendant lacks a meaningful opportunity to rebut the inaccuracies.
• Frye v. Procunier
  746 F.2d 1011· 4th Cir.· 1984-10-18 ·cited 4×
  The court's concurrence rests on binding precedent regarding ineffective assistance of counsel, despite the judge's personal view on the impropriety of the jury instruction.
• Linwood E. Briley v. E.L. Booker
  746 F.2d 225· 4th Cir.· 1984-10-09 ·cited 4×
  The court affirmed the denial of habeas corpus relief, finding the petitioner abused the writ by raising new issues in a successive petition and that the claims lacked merit.
• Austad v. Risley
  739 F.2d 428· 9th Cir.· 1984-07-31 ·cited 4×·via Habeas Corpus Review
  The court held that the district court correctly denied habeas corpus relief, as the state court's findings on mental fitness and impartiality of the jury were entitled to deference.
• Cooley v. Crispus NIX
  738 F.2d 345· 8th Cir.· 1984-07-09 ·cited 4×
  Defense counsel's failure to interview alibi witnesses was not ineffective assistance of counsel when the defendant indicated the witnesses would not help or would harm his case.
• Murrell Toby Hockenbury, III v. Sowders
  718 F.2d 155· 6th Cir.· 1983-09-26 ·cited 4×·via Habeas Corpus Review
  The court should affirm the district court's grant of habeas corpus, as the prosecution's use of the petitioner's post-arrest silence for impeachment violated due process.
• Futrell v. Wyrick
  716 F.2d 1207· 8th Cir.· 1983-09-15 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the admission of mugshots, even if potentially prejudicial, did not rise to the level of a due process violation requiring habeas corpus relief.
• Myers v. State OF Wash.
  702 F.2d 766· 9th Cir.· 1983-03-28 ·cited 4×·via Federal Habeas Corpus Relief
  The court held that the majority's interpretation of the Supreme Court's mandate was incorrect and that prior case law regarding constitutional objections was binding.
• Kelly v. Warden, House OF Correction
  701 F.2d 311· 4th Cir.· 1983-03-03 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court erred in placing the burden of proof on the petitioner to show harm from counsel's incompetence, rather than on the state to show the error was harmless.
• Smith v. Wyrick
  693 F.2d 808· 8th Cir.· 1982-12-01 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a federal court must grant an evidentiary hearing on a habeas petition if relevant facts are in dispute and a fair hearing was not granted in state court, but affirmed the denial because the petitioner's claim could be resolved on the record.
• Remer J. Dasher v. Stripling
  685 F.2d 385· 11th Cir.· 1982-09-07 ·cited 4×·via Habeas Corpus Review
  The court held that a defendant's physical inability to attend trial, without waiver, requires reversal of a conviction obtained in absentia.