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

• Miller v. Barberton Mun. Court
  935 F.2d 775· 6th Cir.· 1991-06-07
  The court held that the evidence was constitutionally insufficient to support a conviction for criminal recklessness under the applicable statute.
• Penn v. Attorney Gen. OF THE State OF Ala.
  930 F.2d 838· 11th Cir.· 1991-05-06 ·via Petition For Habeas Corpus Relief
  The court held that even if the Jefferson County juvenile statute was unconstitutional, the appellant suffered no prejudice and his prior convictions were validly used for sentence enhancement.
• Anthanasios G. Dallis v. Martin
  929 F.2d 587· 10th Cir.· 1991-04-08 ·via Petition For Habeas Corpus Relief
  The court held that the amended penalty statute for the firearm offense was effective upon enactment, and therefore the Parole Commission correctly computed the petitioner's parole eligibility date.
• Griffin v. Davies
  929 F.2d 550· 10th Cir.· 1991-03-29 ·via Habeas Corpus Review
  The court held that the trial judge's excessive admonitions to a prosecution witness did not violate the petitioner's due process rights because the witness testified and the testimony was not rendered less material or favorable due to the judge's actions.
• Mills v. Armontrout
  926 F.2d 773· 8th Cir.· 1991-02-27 ·via Petition For Habeas Corpus Relief
  The court held that the district court properly denied the petition for habeas corpus relief, affirming the lower court's decision.
• Lowe v. United States
  923 F.2d 528· 7th Cir.· 1991-01-22 ·via Habeas Corpus (28 U.S.C. § 2255)
  The government has a right to appeal a sentence reduction granted under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, and the conviction for intimidation under Illinois law qualifies as a 'violent felony' under the Armed Career Criminal Act.
• McDANIEL v. State OF Ariz.
  921 F.2d 966· 9th Cir.· 1990-12-28 ·via Habeas Corpus Review
  The court held that modifying a sentence to be consecutive rather than concurrent, when the overall punishment was not increased, does not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause. Furthermore, collateral estoppel does not apply to sentencing modifications.
• Ward v. Rutherford
  921 F.2d 286· D.C. Cir.· 1990-12-07 ·via Habeas Corpus Review
  The court held that assigning international extradition proceedings to a magistrate does not violate Article III or the Fifth Amendment.
• Hardy v. Wigginton
  922 F.2d 294· 6th Cir.· 1990-10-29 ·via Habeas Corpus Review
  The court held that the petitioner's claim that a child witness must testify in the physical presence of the trier of fact constitutes a 'new rule' that is not retroactively applicable on federal habeas review.
• Johnson v. State OF Md.
  915 F.2d 892· 4th Cir.· 1990-10-01
  The dissenting judge believes a new trial was warranted due to insufficient inquiry into potential racial prejudice among jurors.
• Wickham v. Denis Dowd
  914 F.2d 1111· 8th Cir.· 1990-09-24 ·via Habeas Corpus Review
  The court held that the district court announced a new constitutional rule and applied it retroactively, violating the Teague v. Lane precedent.
• Flores v. State OF Minn.
  906 F.2d 1300· 8th Cir.· 1990-07-05 ·via Habeas Corpus Review
  The court held that the jury instructions on premeditation and intoxication, as well as the evidentiary rulings, did not violate due process and that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction.
• Hogan v. Koenig
  920 F.2d 6· 9th Cir.· 1990-06-04 ·via Habeas Corpus Review
  The court held that California, not being a party to the treaty, is not bound by its provisions regarding consent to prisoner transfer and has the power to deny consent.
• Carbray v. Champion
  905 F.2d 314· 10th Cir.· 1990-05-25
  The modification of the appellant's sentence by the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals did not violate the Due Process Clause, as the state appellate court had the authority under state law to exercise its discretion and modify the jury's sentence.
• Larrinaga v. State
  554 So. 2d 1233· Fla. 5th DCA· 1990-01-11
• Ellis v. Lynaugh
  883 F.2d 363· 5th Cir.· 1989-09-15 ·via Federal Habeas Corpus Relief
  The court held that a defendant's plea of 'true' to prior felony convictions for sentence enhancement purposes waives any prior complaints about those convictions, and that ineffective assistance of counsel claims must meet the Strickland standard.
• Compton v. Butler
  883 F.2d 27· 5th Cir.· 1989-09-12 ·via Federal Habeas Corpus Relief
  The court held that the appellant's claims regarding disproportionate sentencing and lack of judicial awareness of sentencing alternatives were without merit.
• Istvan Kele v. Carlson
  877 F.2d 775· 9th Cir.· 1989-06-08 ·via Petition For Habeas Corpus Relief
  The court held that while the Parole Commission's discretion is broad, it is bound by its own regulations, allowing review for violations of those regulations.
• Sheppard v. State OF La. Bd. OF Parole
  873 F.2d 761· 5th Cir.· 1989-04-27 ·via Habeas Corpus Proceedings
  The court held that a prisoner's civil rights claims challenging parole supervision fees as an ex post facto violation should not be dismissed prematurely and may require a stay or dismissal without prejudice pending habeas corpus exhaustion.
• Littlefield v. Caton
  856 F.2d 344· 1st Cir.· 1988-09-01 ·via Habeas Corpus Review
  The court held that a state prisoner is not constitutionally entitled to good-time credits awarded under statutes later declared unconstitutional as applied to previously sentenced individuals, even if those credits accelerated discharge dates.
• Jaster Lee Marbley v. A.L. Lockhart
  846 F.2d 1161· 8th Cir.· 1988-05-23
  A habeas petitioner must demonstrate both deficient performance by counsel and prejudice resulting from that deficiency to warrant relief.
• Mikolon v. United States
  844 F.2d 456· 7th Cir.· 1988-04-13
  The court held that the petitioner's claim that inaccurate charts in his presentence report prejudiced his parole chances did not warrant vacating his sentence, as the original sentencing was not fundamentally unfair and the primary concern was parole eligibility, not sentence le
• Bryant William Bowles v. Dugger
  838 F.2d 1145· 11th Cir.· 1988-02-29
  A defendant proceeding pro se does not have an automatic right to a continuance, and the denial of such a continuance does not violate constitutional rights.
• Meylert Q. Marshall v. Cabana
  835 F.2d 1101· 5th Cir.· 1988-01-07
  The sentencing judge had the authority to impose a split sentence for armed robbery, consisting of a period of incarceration followed by probation.
• Van Welch v. Butler
  835 F.2d 92· 5th Cir.· 1988-01-05 ·via Habeas Corpus Review
  The court held that statements made during a prayer session with a police officer, following a lawful recording of conversations, were voluntary and not a violation of due process, thus denying habeas corpus relief.
• Aron Edward Donn v. Baer
  828 F.2d 487· 8th Cir.· 1987-09-10
  The court held that while the Parole Commission acted without authority in withdrawing an executed parole violator warrant, the appellant was not prejudiced by this action and thus not entitled to habeas corpus relief.
• Matthews v. Meese
  827 F.2d 313· 8th Cir.· 1987-08-24
  The court held that time spent at liberty pending appeal of a sentence reduction order is not considered time 'in custody' and therefore is not credited against the sentence.
• Donahue v. Armontrout
  820 F.2d 971· 8th Cir.· 1987-06-15 ·via Federal Habeas Corpus Relief
  The court held that a state prisoner seeking federal habeas corpus relief was not denied due process when a plea bargain was not strictly adhered to, because the prisoner was aware of the deviation and remained silent.
• Broesch v. Gagnon
  817 F.2d 37· 7th Cir.· 1987-04-20
  The court held that the jury instruction created a permissive inference, not a mandatory presumption, and was therefore not constitutionally offensive.
• United States v. Collins
  651 F. Supp. 1177· S.D. Fla.· 1987-01-14 ·via Habeas Corpus (28 U.S.C. § 2255)
  A fugitive from justice is disentitled from pursuing post-conviction relief, and the court vacates its prior order granting such relief, reinstating the guilty plea and sentence.
• Ball v. Ricketts
  779 F.2d 578· 10th Cir.· 1986-12-16 ·via Habeas Corpus Review
  The court held that the lack of notice to the juvenile offender's parents regarding his arrest and arraignment violates due process and renders his guilty plea involuntary, requiring the conviction to be vacated.
• Atwell v. Blackburn
  800 F.2d 502· 5th Cir.· 1986-09-26 ·via Habeas Corpus Review
  The court held that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a constitutional violation regarding the grand jury's fair cross-section or due process claims, affirming the denial of his habeas corpus petition.
• Thomas v. Kemp
  800 F.2d 1024· 11th Cir.· 1986-09-09
  The court held that despite the Supreme Court's clarification on harmless error, the specific jury instruction in this capital case could not be deemed harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
• 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.
• Owens v. Foltz
  797 F.2d 294· 6th Cir.· 1986-07-30 ·via Habeas Corpus Review
  The court held that the identification procedures used were not impermissibly suggestive and did not violate due process, and other claims of error did not rise to constitutional harm.
• Olaniyan v. Dist. Dir.
  796 F.2d 373· 10th Cir.· 1986-07-22 ·via Habeas Corpus Proceedings
  The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to review the district director's denial of employment authorization because it involved factual issues requiring initial district court review, but affirmed the deportation order which was factually supported.
• Bruce v. Carson
  489 So. 2d 1234· Fla. 1st DCA· 1986-06-13 ·via Habeas Corpus Proceedings
• Brown v. Armontrout
  786 F.2d 362· 8th Cir.· 1986-03-13
  The court held that the defendant violated the terms of his plea agreement by failing to appear for sentencing, and therefore the court was justified in imposing a harsher sentence and the defendant was not entitled to withdraw his plea.
• Rapetti v. James
  784 F.2d 85· 2d Cir.· 1986-02-14 ·via Habeas Corpus Review
  The court held that viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, a rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of Rape in the Third Degree beyond a reasonable doubt, thus reversing the district court's grant of habeas corpus.
• Rook v. Rice
  783 F.2d 397-401· 4th Cir.· 1986-01-31
  The court held that the jury instruction regarding malice did not unconstitutionally shift the burden of persuasion to the defendant. However, the judge writing separately believes the death sentence procedure violated constitutional rights.
• Vail
  798 F.2d 119· 5th Cir.· 1986-01-16
  The court denied the application for a certificate of probable cause, finding no substantial showing that the appellant was denied a federal right. Issues not raised on appeal are deemed abandoned.
• 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.
• Darden v. Louie L. Wainwright
  772 F.2d 666· 11th Cir.· 1985-08-27
• Hallmark v. Cartwright
  742 F.2d 584· 10th Cir.· 1984-08-29 ·via Federal Habeas Corpus Relief
  The court held that a defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel does not extend to the presence of counsel at a post-lineup interview between witnesses and police. Therefore, denial of counsel at such an interview does not violate the Sixth Amendment.
• Spiro Anast v. United States Parole Comm'n
  739 F.2d 403· 8th Cir.· 1984-07-30
  The court held that the Parole Commission did not abuse its discretion in setting a parole date above the applicable guidelines, as it established good cause for its decision.
• Ball v. State OF Ga.
  733 F.2d 1557· 11th Cir.· 1984-06-11
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction for aggravated assault on a police officer and that the petitioner's Fourth Amendment claim was meritless.
• Hair v. A.L. Lockhart
  734 F.2d 390· 8th Cir.· 1984-05-17
  The court held that convictions for rape and kidnapping do not violate the double jeopardy clause, and the district court did not err in refusing to appoint counsel for a habeas corpus petition.
• Long v. Bd. OF Pardons & Paroles OF Tex.
  725 F.2d 306· 5th Cir.· 1984-02-21 ·via Federal Habeas Corpus Relief
  The court held that a voluntary dismissal under Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(a) completely terminates the prior litigation, and a dismissed action cannot be reactivated.
• Bruce v. W.J. Estelle, Jr.
  707 F.2d 155· 5th Cir.· 1983-06-13
  The federal district court's handling or mishandling of a habeas corpus petition cannot serve as a basis for setting aside an otherwise valid state court conviction.
• Terrell v. Maggio
  693 F.2d 591· 5th Cir.· 1982-12-17
  The court held that the district court erred by granting habeas relief without considering the presumption of correctness afforded state court factual determinations under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).