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

• Judd v. Baer
  911 F.2d 571· 11th Cir.· 1990-09-07 ·cited 2×
  The failure of the National Appeals Board (NAB) to render a decision within sixty days, as mandated by 18 U.S.C. § 4215(b), does not create an entitlement to habeas relief for the prisoner or parolee awaiting the decision.
• Larson v. United States
  907 F.2d 85· 8th Cir.· 1990-07-06 ·cited 2×·via Habeas Corpus Review
  The court held that federal courts lack jurisdiction to review the substantive decisions of the Parole Commission for abuse of discretion, except for violations of the Parole Act or the Constitution.
• Wilton Howell v. W.R. Barker
  904 F.2d 889· 4th Cir.· 1990-05-24 ·cited 2×·via Habeas Corpus Review
  A defendant seeking due process relief for preindictment delay must prove actual prejudice, after which the court balances the prejudice against the government's justification for the delay.
• Harriman v. Lynn
  901 F.2d 64· 5th Cir.· 1990-05-15 ·cited 2×·via Habeas Corpus Review
  The court held that the Supreme Court's decision in Arizona v. Roberson, which prohibited further interrogation after a suspect invokes the right to counsel, announced a "new rule" and therefore does not apply retroactively to cases on collateral review where the conviction was f
• 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.
• Tino Fiumara v. O'Brien
  889 F.2d 254· 10th Cir.· 1989-11-06 ·cited 2×
  The Parole Commission did not abuse its discretion in using unconvicted murders to increase the appellant's offense severity rating, as there was sufficient evidence to establish a nexus between the murders and his racketeering and extortion offenses.
• Butzin v. Wood
  886 F.2d 1016· 8th Cir.· 1989-09-26 ·cited 2×·via Habeas Corpus Review
  The court held that the suspect's confession was not the product of interrogation requiring full Miranda warnings because he initiated the conversation and the statements were volunteered.
• Victorino Villamarin Blancada v. Turnage
  883 F.2d 836· 9th Cir.· 1989-08-30 ·cited 2×·via Habeas Corpus Review
  The court held that immigration officials abused their discretion by denying a stay of deportation when the alien raised a non-frivolous legal challenge to a statute that had not been decided by the circuit or Supreme Court.
• Anselmo v. Sumner
  882 F.2d 431· 9th Cir.· 1989-08-14 ·cited 2×·via Habeas Corpus Review
  The court held that the prisoner's federal constitutional claims are procedurally barred because the state's highest court relied on an independent and adequate state procedural ground (unreasonable delay in filing habeas petition) to deny relief.
• Rev. Timothy L. Lewis v. Attorney General OF the United States and Warden
  878 F.2d 714· 3d Cir.· 1989-06-28 ·cited 2×·via Habeas Corpus Review
  The court held that Lewis is entitled to good time credit earned after the district court's 1982 finding that he could not benefit from YCA treatment. However, he is not entitled to relief for the period preceding that finding.
• Burge v. Butler
  867 F.2d 247· 5th Cir.· 1989-03-10 ·cited 2×
  A defendant sentenced under a statute that does not apply to his crime, and which was not in effect at the time of the offense, is deprived of liberty without due process of law.
• Ringstaff v. Howard
  861 F.2d 644· 11th Cir.· 1989-02-06 ·cited 2×
• Henderson v. A.L. Lockhart
  864 F.2d 1447· 8th Cir.· 1989-01-10 ·cited 2×·via Federal Habeas Corpus Relief
  The court held that the district court properly granted the writ of habeas corpus, finding that Henderson was denied effective assistance of counsel in pursuing his appeal, and that the underlying issue had merit.
• Allen v. Redman
  858 F.2d 1194· 6th Cir.· 1988-10-06 ·cited 2×·via Habeas Corpus Review
  The court held that because sanity is not an element of the charged offenses under Michigan law, the petitioner's claims regarding the sufficiency of evidence and jury instructions on sanity do not present cognizable constitutional grounds for federal habeas corpus relief.
• Rudolph v. Parke
  856 F.2d 738· 6th Cir.· 1988-09-07 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the admission of three invalid prior convictions was harmless error because the petitioner had sufficient valid prior convictions to support his persistent felony offender status, and thus, habeas relief was not warranted.
• Jeffers v. Sargent
  842 F.2d 1008· 8th Cir.· 1988-03-22 ·cited 2×·via Petition For Habeas Corpus Relief
  The court held that the petitioner has an available unexhausted state court remedy, and therefore, his federal habeas petition must be denied.
• Dupuy v. Butler
  837 F.2d 699· 5th Cir.· 1988-02-17 ·cited 2×
  A state prisoner's habeas corpus claim under Hicks v. Oklahoma requires showing either that the sentencing decision was not made by the proper authority or that the authority lacked knowledge of sentencing discretion, and that prejudice resulted; here, the sentence was within the
• Zenous Whaley v. Rodriguez
  840 F.2d 1046· 2d Cir.· 1988-02-10 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the defendant's counsel was not ineffective for failing to file a speedy trial motion because such a motion would have been denied, as the People exercised due diligence in apprehending the defendant.
• Moeller v. The Attorney Gen. OF the State OF S.D. & Jerry Parkinson
  838 F.2d 309· 8th Cir.· 1988-02-05 ·cited 2×·via Habeas Corpus Review
  The court held that sufficient evidence existed for a rational jury to find the petitioner guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, rejecting his entrapment defense.
• Cikora v. Wainwright
  661 F. Supp. 813· S.D. Fla.· 1987-04-07 ·cited 2×·via Habeas Corpus Review
  The Court held that the photographic lineup was not impermissibly suggestive and the identification was reliable under the totality of the circumstances, thus denying the petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
• Sinclair LEE v. Probate Court OF Davidson Cnty.
  807 F.2d 512· 6th Cir.· 1986-12-23 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the state's prosecution of the petitioner for marijuana possession did not violate the double jeopardy clause, as the offenses of possessing marijuana and possessing paraphernalia were separate and distinct.
• Walker v. A.L. Lockhart
  807 F.2d 136· 8th Cir.· 1986-12-16 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the petitioner's counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to secure a material witness and failing to investigate, which prejudiced the petitioner's defense.
• In re Ali Reza Ghalamsiah. Appeal of Dist. Dir.
  806 F.2d 68· 3d Cir.· 1986-11-26 ·cited 2×·via Habeas Corpus Proceedings
  The court held that the Attorney General, not the district court, has the exclusive discretionary authority to grant bail to an alien not illegally detained, pending a motion to reopen deportation proceedings, subject to judicial review.
• Murphy v. Sowders
  801 F.2d 205· 6th Cir.· 1986-09-12 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the retroactive repeal of a rule requiring corroboration of accomplice testimony, when applied to a defendant whose crime occurred before the repeal, violates the Ex Post Facto Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
• United States v. Smith
  793 F.2d 85· 3d Cir.· 1986-06-13 ·cited 2×·via Habeas Corpus Proceedings
  The court held that the defendant did not raise a substantial question on appeal, thus bail pending appeal was not warranted.
• Moore v. State
  485 So. 2d 1368· Fla. 1st DCA· 1986-04-03 ·cited 2×
  Carlos Moore, convicted of armed robbery in 1973, was denied his right to appellate review due to his trial counsel's failure to file assignments of error or pursue an Anders appeal, which prevented him from obtaining trial transcripts necessary for appeal. The court found this c
• Bond v. Procunier
  780 F.2d 461· 4th Cir.· 1986-01-02 ·cited 2×
  The district court erred in dismissing the petition without an evidentiary hearing, as the allegations of suppressed exculpatory evidence were specific enough to warrant a hearing and potentially alter the trial outcome.
• Deloach v. Louie L. Wainwright
  777 F.2d 1524· 11th Cir.· 1985-12-12 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the appellant's conviction and sentence for both felony murder and the underlying felony did not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause, as interpreted by Florida law.
• 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.
• Claudio Fernandez v. Rodriguez
  761 F.2d 558· 10th Cir.· 1985-04-04 ·cited 2×
  The admission of polygraph test results, which are testimonial communications, in a criminal trial cannot be harmless error if the confession was involuntary or if the error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
• J.A. Avery, Jr. v. Procunier
  750 F.2d 444· 5th Cir.· 1985-01-14 ·cited 2×
  The court affirmed the denial of habeas corpus relief, finding no constitutional error in the denial of claims for ineffective assistance of counsel, use of perjured testimony, illegal arrest/search, self-incrimination, or failure to appeal.
• United States v. Clark N. Fishel
  747 F.2d 271· 5th Cir.· 1984-11-06 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying the habeas corpus petition without an evidentiary hearing or discovery.
• Cole v. Commanding Officer
  747 F.2d 217· 4th Cir.· 1984-10-25 ·cited 2×
  The dissenting opinion argues that the district court should have exercised jurisdiction to review the conscientious objector discharge application, as administrative remedies were rendered impossible by the Navy's actions.
• Nealy J. Buchanon v. Mintzes
  734 F.2d 274· 6th Cir.· 1984-05-09 ·cited 2×·via Habeas Corpus Proceedings
  The court held that Rule 9(a) of habeas corpus proceedings requires a showing of actual prejudice to bar consideration of claims, and that the state failed to show prejudice regarding the petitioner's claims of unknowing waiver of counsel and guilty plea.
• Webster v. Engle
  721 F.2d 566· 6th Cir.· 1983-11-21 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court improperly granted habeas corpus relief because the appellee's substantive claims were procedurally barred by his failure to comply with Ohio's contemporaneous objection rule, and he failed to demonstrate cause and prejudice for this default
• O'Guin v. Foltz
  715 F.2d 397· 6th Cir.· 1983-09-01 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the petitioner's claims lacked merit and affirmed the denial of habeas corpus relief.
• Runnels v. Hess
  713 F.2d 596· 10th Cir.· 1983-07-29 ·cited 2×·via Federal Habeas Corpus Relief
  The court should find cause for the procedural default and grant relief, as the circumstances demonstrate a fundamental miscarriage of justice.
• 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.
• Jones v. Weldon
  690 F.2d 835· 11th Cir.· 1982-11-01 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a prosecutor's refusal to stipulate to the admissibility of polygraph evidence does not violate a defendant's constitutional rights when the state rule merely allows parties to waive objection to inadmissible evidence, rather than creating a substantive right
• Fletcher Shaw v. Estelle
  686 F.2d 273· 5th Cir.· 1982-09-20 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the inadvertent use of the wrong heroin packet at trial, without prosecution knowledge or material impact, did not violate due process or fundamental fairness, and thus did not warrant habeas relief.
• Ellison v. DE LA Rosa
  685 F.2d 959· 5th Cir.· 1982-09-13 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a section 1983 action against appointed counsel for ineffective assistance of counsel fails because such counsel does not act under color of state law.
• Bryant v. Cherry
  687 F.2d 48· 4th Cir.· 1982-09-10 ·cited 2×·via Habeas Corpus Review
  A guilty plea remains voluntary and intelligent even if the trial court fails to inform the defendant of a mandatory minimum sentence, if the defendant was aware of the plea agreement and reasonably expected a sentence at or above the mandatory minimum.
• Ramirez v. Estelle
  678 F.2d 604· 5th Cir.· 1982-06-18 ·cited 2×·via Federal Habeas Corpus Relief
  The court held that the petitioner waived his constitutional claim by failing to move for a continuance, and the absence of the witness's testimony did not result in prejudice.
• United States v. Mizell
  667 F.2d 1247· 7th Cir.· 1982-01-14 ·cited 2×·via Habeas Corpus Review
  The court held that a rational trier of fact could find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant possessed more than 500 grams of cannabis, even if the substance included immature stalks or was weighed with some soil.
• Jones v. Purvis
  646 F.2d 127· 4th Cir.· 1981-04-07 ·cited 2×·via Federal Habeas Corpus Relief
  The court held that the sentence imposed was not so disproportionate as to constitute cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment.
• Sperl v. Deukmejian
  642 F.2d 1154· 9th Cir.· 1981-03-23 ·cited 2×
  The court held that declaratory relief is unavailable to attack a state criminal conviction and that collateral estoppel bars reconsideration of issues already decided in state habeas corpus proceedings.
• Hardy v. Callahan
  634 F.2d 646· 1st Cir.· 1980-11-12 ·cited 2×·via Habeas Corpus Review
  The court held that the petitioner failed to demonstrate cause and prejudice for his procedural default in state court, thus precluding federal habeas corpus review.
• Willis v. Garrison
  624 F.2d 491· 4th Cir.· 1980-07-01 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a pre-trial identification procedure, even if suggestive, is permissible if the identification is reliable under the totality of the circumstances, and that the identification in this case met that standard.
• Pinnon v. Ciccone
  611 F.2d 252· 8th Cir.· 1979-12-20 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the issues raised by the petitioner became moot due to a subsequent parole hearing, and his allegations did not state sufficient facts for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.
• Sanders v. Oliver
  611 F.2d 804· 10th Cir.· 1979-12-20 ·cited 2×·via Petition For Habeas Corpus Relief