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

• Eutues White v. Finkbeiner
  611 F.2d 186· 7th Cir.· 1979-12-07 ·cited 32×
• Finis Smith Blankenship v. Estelle
  545 F.2d 510· 5th Cir.· 1977-01-17 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the admission of other crimes evidence did not violate due process because a strong link was established between the defendant and the other offenses, satisfying the fundamental fairness standard.
• Noorlander v. Ciccone
  489 F.2d 642· 8th Cir.· 1973-12-27 ·cited 32×·via Habeas Corpus Proceedings
  A district court rule permitting a magistrate to hold preliminary evidentiary hearings in habeas corpus cases is valid, provided the district judge retains ultimate decision-making power and a de novo review is available.
• Linroy Davis v. Heyd
  479 F.2d 446· 5th Cir.· 1973-05-29 ·cited 32×·via Habeas Corpus Review
  The majority opinion, which the dissent disagrees with, found that factual inconsistencies in witness statements presented a question of law, potentially requiring a retrial of the state conviction.
• Private Donald Silverthorne, Jr. v. Laird
  460 F.2d 1175· 5th Cir.· 1972-04-14 ·cited 32×·via Habeas Corpus Review
  The court denied the petition for rehearing, finding the appellant's claim frivolous and outside the scope of review for internal military affairs.
• United States ex rel. Kelly Wilson v. The Hon. Daniel McMANN
  408 F.2d 896· 2d Cir.· 1969-03-14 ·cited 32×·via Habeas Corpus Proceedings
  The denial of an indigent defendant's request for a transcript of prior trial testimony, which was necessary to impeach a key witness, violated the defendant's constitutional right to equal protection.
• Perry v. A.L. Lockhart
  871 F.2d 1384· 8th Cir.· 1989-04-10 ·cited 31×
  The court held that the state trial court's erroneous limitation on compulsory process did not warrant habeas relief as the absent witnesses' testimony was not material. It also held that the death sentence was not invalid under Collins v. Lockhart, as subsequent Supreme Court pr
• Cummings v. Dugger
  862 F.2d 1504· 11th Cir.· 1989-01-12 ·cited 31×·via Federal Habeas Corpus Relief
  The court held that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in conducting voir dire, and that the denial of the second change of venue motion was not a violation of the petitioner's constitutional rights to an impartial jury.
• MacHin v. Louie L. Wainwright
  758 F.2d 1431· 11th Cir.· 1985-04-25 ·cited 31×·via Habeas Corpus Review
  The court held that the late disclosure of the word "silencio" did not render the trial fundamentally unfair, and the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions.
• Hobbs v. Blackburn
  752 F.2d 1079· 5th Cir.· 1985-02-14 ·cited 31×·via Federal Habeas Corpus Relief
  A guilty plea is valid if entered voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently, even if the state trial judge fails to explain all elements or lesser included offenses, provided the defendant understood the charge and consequences.
• Snow v. Quinault Indian Nation
  709 F.2d 1319· 9th Cir.· 1983-07-07 ·cited 31×
  Tribal sovereign immunity bars a suit challenging a tribal business tax, and claims under the Indian Civil Rights Act are limited to habeas corpus relief in federal court.
• Caplan v. Vokes
  649 F.2d 1336· 9th Cir.· 1981-07-06 ·cited 31×·via Habeas Corpus Review
  The court held that the statute of limitations was not tolled for Caplan's flight and that the district court failed to adequately establish dual criminality and the principle of specialty for the remaining charges, requiring a remand.
• Granton Stanwood McHENRY v. People OF the State OF Cal.
  447 F.2d 470· 9th Cir.· 1971-08-24 ·cited 31×
  The court held that a change in a defendant's status as a convicted felon after the date of firearm possession does not exempt them from prosecution under the relevant statute.
• Shiflett v. Commonwealth OF Va.
  447 F.2d 50· 4th Cir.· 1971-06-24 ·cited 31×
  The judge, initially concurring with the panel majority, now joins the en banc opinion, agreeing with prospective application of the decision.
• Richmond v. Lewis
  948 F.2d 1473· 9th Cir.· 1990-12-26 ·cited 30×·via Habeas Corpus Review
  The court held that the panel erred in its harmless error analysis by incorrectly assuming Arizona is not a weighing state, which requires reevaluation when an invalid aggravating factor is present.
• Bryan v. Warden, Ind. State Reformatory
  820 F.2d 217· 7th Cir.· 1987-05-15 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the voluntariness of a Miranda waiver is a factual determination entitled to deference under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), and that the appellant waived his due process claim by failing to raise it on rehearing.
• Rafeal Ramirez-Durazo v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv.
  794 F.2d 491· 9th Cir.· 1986-07-14 ·cited 30×·via Habeas Corpus Review
  The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear a direct appeal from an exclusion order, and that the denial of suspension of deportation for the other petitioners was not an abuse of discretion as they failed to demonstrate extreme hardship.
• Gray v. Eddie Lucas & the State of Miss.
  710 F.2d 1048· 5th Cir.· 1983-07-15 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the petitioner's claims, including present insanity, improper jury instructions, prosecutorial misconduct, proportionality review, vague aggravating factors, cruel and unusual punishment, and ineffective assistance of counsel, did not warrant federal habeas co
• Goode v. Louie L. Wainwright
  704 F.2d 593· 11th Cir.· 1983-05-02 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the trial court adequately addressed the appellant's competence to stand trial and to waive counsel, and that the appellant knowingly and intelligently waived his right to counsel. However, the court found merit in the claim that the trial court improperly rel
• United States ex rel. Otis Williams & A. D. Clark v. Franzen
  687 F.2d 944· 7th Cir.· 1982-08-20 ·cited 30×
  The court held that a conflict of interest adversely affecting a lawyer's performance warrants habeas relief, even if the state court applied an improper prejudice standard or if a petitioner arguably waived the claim on appeal.
• Fields v. Wyrick
  682 F.2d 154· 8th Cir.· 1982-04-23 ·cited 30×
  A defendant's waiver of counsel for a polygraph examination does not extend to subsequent post-test interrogation, and the government must prove a knowing and intelligent waiver for such interrogation.
• Edmond Jackson v. Fogg
  589 F.2d 108· 2d Cir.· 1978-12-19 ·cited 30×·via Habeas Corpus Review
  The court held that the admission of identification testimony from three eyewitnesses, tainted by suggestive police procedures, constituted a denial of due process.
• Gomez v. Beto
  462 F.2d 596· 5th Cir.· 1972-07-14 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the failure of defense counsel to investigate the appellant's sole defense (alibi) and subpoena witnesses constituted ineffective assistance of counsel.
• Leavitt v. Howard
  462 F.2d 992· 1st Cir.· 1972-05-24 ·cited 30×·via Habeas Corpus Proceedings
  The court held that the district court erred in disregarding the state court's findings of fact regarding consent to search, as the state court's findings were supported by the record and no statutory exceptions under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) were met.
• Alverez v. Turner
  422 F.2d 214· 10th Cir.· 1970-02-20 ·cited 30×
  The court held that parole revocation hearings do not require the full due process rights afforded in criminal trials, such as confrontation, cross-examination, or compulsory process, but equal protection may be violated by discretionary practices regarding witnesses.
• Ex parte Browne
  93 Fla. 332· Fla.· 1927-02-19 ·cited 30×·via Habeas Corpus Review
  Charles Browne, convicted of murder in the first degree, sought habeas corpus relief challenging his death sentence by electrocution. The Florida Supreme Court held that because the crime was committed in October 1923, before the January 1, 1924 statute replacing hanging with ele
• Diggs v. United States
  740 F.2d 239· 3d Cir.· 1984-07-26 ·cited 29×
  The court should remand with instructions for the district court to entertain the Rule 35 motion to the extent it is based on facts arising before the 120-day period.
• Franklin v. Francis
  720 F.2d 1206· 11th Cir.· 1983-11-16 ·cited 29×·via Habeas Corpus Review
  A jury instruction creating a mandatory rebuttable presumption that a person intends the natural consequences of their voluntary acts unconstitutionally shifts the burden of proof on the element of intent, violating due process.
• Greci v. Birknes
  527 F.2d 956· 1st Cir.· 1976-01-09 ·cited 29×·via Habeas Corpus Review
  The court held that the 1973 extradition treaty between the U.S. and Italy imposes stricter evidentiary standards than 18 U.S.C. § 3190, requiring evidence to be given under oath or with warnings of penal sanctions.
• Cason v. Quinby
  60 Fla. 35· Fla.· 1910-06-01 ·cited 29×·via Habeas Corpus Review
  The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the discharge of a traveling salesman from custody on habeas corpus, holding that a city ordinance requiring a $200 license fee for traveling salesmen violated the dormant Commerce Clause when applied to interstate commerce activities. The court
• Wood v. Allen
  542 F.3d 1281· 11th Cir.· 2008-09-16 ·cited 28×
  The dissenting judge argues that the majority erred in denying habeas relief on the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel during the penalty phase. The dissent asserts that counsel's failure to investigate and present evidence of the defendant's mental impairments constitute
• Fernandez v. United States
  941 F.2d 1488· 11th Cir.· 1991-09-18 ·cited 28×·via Habeas Corpus Review
  Fernando Fernandez, convicted of racketeering and marijuana conspiracy and sentenced to twelve years in prison, sought collateral relief based on a severe heart condition diagnosed as terminal coronary artery disease. He filed motions under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35(b
• Barker v. Morris
  761 F.2d 1396· 9th Cir.· 1985-05-24 ·cited 28×
  The admission of sworn, videotaped testimony from a deceased eyewitness did not violate the Confrontation Clause because the testimony was necessary and possessed particular guarantees of trustworthiness.
• Schwander v. Blackburn
  750 F.2d 494· 5th Cir.· 1985-01-17 ·cited 28×
  The court held that an incomplete trial transcript did not deny a meaningful appeal and that the petitioner received effective assistance of counsel at trial and on appeal.
• Smith v. Bordenkircher
  718 F.2d 1273· 4th Cir.· 1983-10-05 ·cited 28×
  The court should grant the writ of habeas corpus because the conviction was obtained through unconstitutional means.
• Grady Lee Smith v. W.J. Estelle, Jr.
  711 F.2d 677· 5th Cir.· 1983-08-11 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the district court properly denied habeas corpus relief without an evidentiary hearing, as the record sufficiently demonstrated the voluntariness of the guilty plea and the adequacy of counsel.
• Clover Hayes v. Maggio
  699 F.2d 198· 5th Cir.· 1983-02-07 ·cited 28×·via Federal Habeas Corpus Relief
  The court held that the district court clearly erred in finding the plea bargain did not include a promise of parole eligibility, reversing the denial of habeas corpus relief.
• Alderman v. Austin
  695 F.2d 124· 5th Cir.· 1983-01-10 ·cited 28×
• United States ex rel. Johnny Veal v. DeROBERTIS
  693 F.2d 642· 7th Cir.· 1982-11-17 ·cited 28×
  The court held that a hearing should not be held to determine if the petitioner can show cause and prejudice for failing to make an adequate offer of proof.
• Speigner v. Jago
  603 F.2d 1208· 6th Cir.· 1979-06-13 ·cited 28×·via Habeas Corpus Review
  A state court criminal conviction is unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause if it lacks any evidentiary support for a crucial element of the crime, and such a claim is reviewable in federal habeas corpus.
• Mack v. Hoyt C. Cupp
  564 F.2d 898· 9th Cir.· 1977-11-17 ·cited 28×
  The court held that a federal court should not grant habeas corpus relief on Fourth Amendment claims if the state provided an opportunity for full and fair litigation of those claims, even if the state court made an error.
• Hollis Earl Woods v. Estelle
  547 F.2d 269· 5th Cir.· 1977-02-18 ·cited 28×·via Habeas Corpus Review
  The admission of extraneous evidence, even if erroneous under state rules, does not warrant habeas corpus relief unless it denies fundamental fairness and violates due process.
• Cleveland v. Ciccone
  517 F.2d 1082· 8th Cir.· 1975-06-10 ·cited 28×
  Federal prisoners are entitled to reasonably prompt hearings on parole or release violation warrants, and deferring such hearings until the expiration of an intervening sentence violates due process.
• Rothman v. United States
  508 F.2d 648· 3d Cir.· 1975-01-31 ·cited 28×·via Habeas Corpus (28 U.S.C. § 2255)
  The court held that a pro se prisoner's petition, even if styled under § 2255, should be treated as a writ of coram nobis if the petitioner is no longer in custody and alleges fundamental errors of fact.
• Hughes v. Swenson
  452 F.2d 866· 8th Cir.· 1971-12-16 ·cited 28×
  The court held that a valid waiver of Miranda rights can be established by the prosecution showing the defendant was effectively advised of his rights and knowingly and understandingly declined to exercise them, without an express declaration of waiver.
• FOX v. United States
  354 F.2d 752· 10th Cir.· 1965-12-14 ·cited 28×
  A federal court cannot impose a second probation term after revoking an initial probation, especially if the violation occurs after the statutory maximum probation period has expired.
• United States v. Shoaf
  341 F.2d 832· 4th Cir.· 1964-09-29 ·cited 28×·via Habeas Corpus Proceedings
  An indigent defendant is not entitled to a free transcript for collateral attack on a conviction unless they demonstrate a specific need for it, distinguishing this from direct appeals where counsel's unfamiliarity may establish general need.
• State ex rel. Phil Feldman v. Kelly
  76 So. 2d 798· Fla.· 1954-11-19 ·cited 28×·via Habeas Corpus Proceedings
  Fourteen petitioners challenged their contempt convictions and jailing for refusing to answer grand jury questions about communist activities, invoking Fifth Amendment protections. The Florida Supreme Court held that the petitioners could lawfully refuse to answer because their a
• Konstantinos X. Fotopoulos v. State
  838 So. 2d 1122· Fla.· 2002-12-19 ·cited 27×·via Habeas Corpus Proceedings
  Konstantinos Fotopoulos appeals the denial of postconviction relief and petitions for habeas corpus after his conviction for orchestrating two murders and an attempted murder. The Florida Supreme Court affirms the trial court's rejection of his ineffective assistance of counsel c
• MacHetti v. Linahan
  679 F.2d 236· 11th Cir.· 1982-06-25 ·cited 27×
  The court held that Georgia's jury selection procedure, which allowed women to opt-out of service, resulted in unconstitutional underrepresentation of women on jury venires, violating the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment fair cross-section requirement.