Habeas Corpus

18,782 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• Taylor v. Kincheloe
  920 F.2d 599· 9th Cir.· 1990-12-11 ·cited 12×
  The court held that a defendant's voluntary decision to vacate a plea agreement, even after jeopardy has attached, does not bar retrial on the original charges, and that no presumption of vindictiveness arises from the reinstatement of charges or an increased sentence following a
• Rivera v. Dir., Dep't OF Corr., State OF Ill.
  915 F.2d 280· 7th Cir.· 1990-09-27 ·cited 12×
  The court held that excluding a co-defendant's confession that exculpated the defendant, solely on the grounds of hearsay and the declarant's unavailability for cross-examination, violated the defendant's due process rights.
• Rodriguez v. Young
  906 F.2d 1153· 7th Cir.· 1990-07-11 ·cited 12×
  The court affirmed the denial of the habeas corpus petition, finding that while counsel's failure to move for suppression of identification testimony was objectively unreasonable, the identification was sufficiently reliable to be admissible, and there was no miscarriage of justi
• Flores v. Meese
  934 F.2d 991· 9th Cir.· 1990-06-20 ·cited 12×
  The dissent argues that the INS regulations unconstitutionally deprive detained alien minors of their liberty, as the majority erred in applying a deferential standard of review and narrowly defining the constitutional right at stake.
• Meliano Diaz v. Henderson
  905 F.2d 652· 2d Cir.· 1990-06-07 ·cited 12×
  While a state prisoner's habeas petition based on a delayed appeal is not automatically mooted by the appeal's eventual hearing, relief is only available if the delay prejudiced the prisoner's due process rights.
• Meadows v. Legursky
  904 F.2d 903· 4th Cir.· 1990-06-01 ·cited 12×
  The court affirmed the dismissal of Acord's petition, finding the state procedural bar adequate and independent, and reversed the grant of habeas relief to Meadows, remanding for dismissal due to failure to exhaust state remedies.
• Hoffman v. Leeke
  903 F.2d 280· 4th Cir.· 1990-05-02 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the defendant was denied his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel due to an actual conflict of interest by his attorney, and that the defendant's purported waiver of this right was not knowing and intelligent.
• Loyd v. Smith
  899 F.2d 1416· 5th Cir.· 1990-04-18 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the federal district court erred in failing to give proper deference to the state court's factual findings regarding counsel's deficient performance in a habeas corpus proceeding.
• E.W. v. Brown
  559 So. 2d 712· Fla. 1st DCA· 1990-04-12 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the state must show good cause for the delay in commencing an adjudicatory hearing, not merely rely on the original grounds for detention, to justify extending a juvenile's detention beyond 21 days.
• Shaykh Matulu Abdurrahman v. Henderson
  897 F.2d 71· 2d Cir.· 1990-02-23 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the petitioner exhausted his state court remedies by citing Strickland v. Washington in a pro se brief, but his claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel was without merit.
• Nunnemaker v. Ylst
  904 F.2d 473· 9th Cir.· 1990-02-21 ·cited 12×
  A state court's summary denial of a habeas petition without clearly stating reliance on a procedural default does not bar federal habeas review of the federal claims. However, a defendant's trial counsel's failure to object to testimony on Fifth and Sixth Amendment grounds, when
• Charles v. Smith
  894 F.2d 718· 5th Cir.· 1990-02-20 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the arrest was supported by probable cause, thus the identification was not tainted. However, the court found a Miranda violation regarding the 'blue jacket' statement, but deemed it harmless error.
• Sterling Horne v. Trickey
  895 F.2d 497· 8th Cir.· 1990-02-06 ·cited 12×
  The court held that appellate counsel's decision not to raise a jury discrimination claim based on the prevailing law at the time was reasonable, and that the prosecutor's rebuttal argument did not impermissibly comment on the defendant's failure to testify.
• Stone v. R.G. Godbehere
  894 F.2d 1131· 9th Cir.· 1990-02-01 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the Arizona statute and injunction were not unconstitutionally vague and did not violate due process, but that the amended sentencing order violated double jeopardy principles under Arizona law.
• LEE v. McCAUGHTRY
  892 F.2d 1318· 7th Cir.· 1990-01-16 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the admission of out-of-court accusations, offered to show the defendant's response and not for their truth, did not violate the Confrontation Clause, especially with a limiting instruction and prosecutor's argument consistent with that limitation.
• Riddick v. Edmiston
  894 F.2d 586· 3d Cir.· 1990-01-16 ·cited 12×
  The court held that Miranda warnings are sufficient to inform a defendant of their Sixth Amendment right to counsel after indictment, and that a prosecutor's race-neutral explanation for a peremptory challenge, found credible by the trial court, satisfies Batson requirements.
• Young v. A.L. Lockhart
  892 F.2d 1348· 8th Cir.· 1989-12-29 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to counsel by electing self-representation after his request for new counsel was denied.
• Lavin T. Balfour v. Haws
  892 F.2d 556· 7th Cir.· 1989-12-22 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the petitioner's claims regarding competency, ineffective assistance of counsel, missing photographs, and insufficient evidence did not warrant habeas corpus relief.
• Watson v. Estelle
  886 F.2d 1093· 9th Cir.· 1989-09-21 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the application of a later amendment to California's Determinate Sentencing Law, which allowed for parole hearings every three years instead of annually, did not violate the ex post facto clause because the law in effect at the time of the offense did not prov
• Shedelbower v. Estelle
  885 F.2d 570· 9th Cir.· 1989-09-12 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the appellant's confession was not obtained in violation of his constitutional rights, as he initiated further discussion after invoking his right to counsel and validly waived those rights under the totality of the circumstances.
• Fender v. Thompson
  883 F.2d 303· 4th Cir.· 1989-08-24 ·cited 12×
  The court held that applying an amended statute to revoke a prisoner's pre-existing parole eligibility, even after an escape, violates the ex post facto clause of the Constitution.
• Hamilton v. Vasquez
  882 F.2d 1469· 9th Cir.· 1989-08-23 ·cited 12×
  The court held that a district court must sua sponte review the state court record when a habeas petition raises mixed questions of law and fact, such as whether shackling a defendant during trial violated due process.
• Stano v. Dugger
  883 F.2d 900· 11th Cir.· 1989-08-22 ·cited 12×
  Gerald Eugene Stano appealed the denial of his federal habeas corpus petition challenging his death sentence for the 1983 murder of Cathy Scharf. Stano raised fourteen constitutional claims, including Brady violations for suppressed exculpatory evidence, restrictions on presentin
• Endress v. Dugger
  880 F.2d 1244· 11th Cir.· 1989-08-21 ·cited 12×
  The district court properly applied the presumption of correctness to state appellate court findings and correctly concluded that the petitioner's statements were voluntary and not the product of illegal interrogation.
• Fierro v. Lynaugh
  879 F.2d 1276· 5th Cir.· 1989-08-14 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the petitioner's conviction and sentence were constitutional, and his claims regarding coerced confession, insufficient evidence, improper testimony, and failure to consider mitigating evidence were without merit or procedurally barred.
• Coppola v. Powell
  878 F.2d 1562· 1st Cir.· 1989-07-14 ·cited 12×
  The admission of a prearrest statement, where the suspect refused to confess and indicated awareness of his right to remain silent, into the prosecution's case in chief unconstitutionally burdened the suspect's Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.
• Dunn v. Simmons
  877 F.2d 1275· 6th Cir.· 1989-06-13 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the Kentucky Supreme Court's procedure for challenging guilty pleas does not violate the Constitution, as it requires the defendant to present evidence of invalidity before the state must prove the plea's validity.
• Ragan v. Dugger
  544 So. 2d 1052· Fla. 1st DCA· 1989-05-25 ·cited 12×
  Joseph Ragan petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus claiming ineffective assistance of appellate counsel for failing to challenge the trial court's retention of jurisdiction without stating contemporaneous, specific reasons as required by statute. The court granted the petition,
• McCOY v. Lynaugh
  874 F.2d 954· 5th Cir.· 1989-05-22 ·cited 12×
  The court affirmed the denial of a certificate of probable cause, finding no substantial issue on the merits regarding jury disqualifications.
• Brooks v. Jones
  875 F.2d 30· 2d Cir.· 1989-05-12 ·cited 12×
  The court held that a habeas corpus petitioner need not exhaust state remedies if state court processes have been demonstrably ineffective due to neglect and delay.
• Anant Kumar Tripati v. United States Parole Comm'n
  872 F.2d 328· 9th Cir.· 1989-04-12 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the Sentencing Reform Act's repeal of the statute allowing deviation from parole guidelines did not apply to individuals convicted before the repeal's effective date, and thus did not invalidate the Parole Commission's decision.
• Stringer v. Jackson
  862 F.2d 1108· 5th Cir.· 1988-12-22 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the petitioner's claims of prosecutorial misconduct, erroneous jury instructions, and ineffective assistance of counsel were either procedurally barred or without merit, affirming the denial of the writ of habeas corpus.
• Howard v. Pung
  862 F.2d 1348· 8th Cir.· 1988-12-16 ·cited 12×
  The court held that a Fourth Amendment claim is barred in a habeas petition if the state provided a full and fair opportunity to litigate it, and any error in admitting a confession was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt due to overwhelming evidence.
• Filiberto Ojeda Rios v. Wigen
  863 F.2d 196· 2d Cir.· 1988-11-29 ·cited 12×
  A prior lengthy pretrial detention does not automatically render subsequent pretrial detention on new charges unlawful, even if the conduct was known previously.
• Sanders v. Lane
  861 F.2d 1033· 7th Cir.· 1988-11-10 ·cited 12×
  A judicial order prohibiting attorney-client communication during a trial recess violates the Sixth Amendment right to counsel, but such a violation is subject to harmless error analysis if it does not contaminate the entire proceeding.
• Miller v. Dugger
  858 F.2d 1536· 11th Cir.· 1988-11-01 ·cited 12×
  The court held that appellate counsel was not ineffective for failing to raise claims that lacked merit, and therefore, the petition for a writ of habeas corpus should be denied.
• Boniface v. P.M. Carlson
  856 F.2d 1434· 9th Cir.· 1988-09-15 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the Parole Commission's failure to provide advance notice of potential street time forfeiture violated due process, but the denial of credit for time spent in state custody due to a federal detainer was proper because the state credited that time.
• Earnest Walker v. A.L. Lockhart
  852 F.2d 379· 8th Cir.· 1988-07-28 ·cited 12×
  The court held that counsel's decision not to seek a mistrial after a jury intrusion, based on a reasoned strategic assessment of the jurors' impartiality, did not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel.
• Malone v. Avenenti
  850 F.2d 569· 9th Cir.· 1988-06-28 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the appellant's request for an extension of time was untimely and that the district court could not grant an effective extension ex parte without notice to the state.
• Ruffin v. Dugger
  848 F.2d 1512· 11th Cir.· 1988-06-20 ·cited 12×
• Smith v. Kemp
  849 F.2d 481· 11th Cir.· 1988-06-13 ·cited 12×
  The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal and cross-appeal because the district court's order was not a final judgment under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and lacked the necessary Rule 54(b) certification.
• Byrne v. Hilton Butler
  847 F.2d 1135· 5th Cir.· 1988-06-13 ·cited 12×
  The court denied the application for a certificate of probable cause and a stay of execution, finding the petitioner failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a federal right and did not demonstrate a substantial case on the merits or that the balance of equities weig
• Giarratano v. Murray
  847 F.2d 1118· 4th Cir.· 1988-06-03 ·cited 12×
  The court, in a concurring opinion, expresses doubt about the plaintiffs' standing to prosecute their case due to the consistent provision of counsel in state post-conviction proceedings.
• Singleton v. Thigpen
  847 F.2d 668· 11th Cir.· 1988-05-27 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the petitioner was not denied effective assistance of counsel and that his confession was voluntary, affirming the denial of federal habeas relief.
• Leviston v. Black
  843 F.2d 302· 8th Cir.· 1988-04-04 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the defendant was not in custody for Miranda purposes during the interviews, and therefore Miranda warnings were not required.
• Prantil v. State OF Cal.
  843 F.2d 314· 9th Cir.· 1988-03-31 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the prisoner's claims of insufficient evidence, erroneous jury instructions, denial of judicial immunity, and pre-indictment delay did not violate his due process rights, and thus affirmed the district court's dismissal of his habeas corpus petition.
• Torrey v. Estelle
  842 F.2d 234· 9th Cir.· 1988-03-23 ·cited 12×
  The court held that a prisoner's resentencing to state prison after being committed to the Youth Authority was a collateral consequence, not a direct one, and thus the trial court was not required to advise him of this possibility at the time of his guilty plea.
• Walker v. J.O. Davis
  840 F.2d 834· 11th Cir.· 1988-03-23 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the prosecutor's conduct in acting as both witness and advocate, combined with the lack of overwhelming evidence, rendered the trial fundamentally unfair, thus meeting the standard for federal habeas review despite the procedural default.
• Lawrence v. Jones
  837 F.2d 1572· 11th Cir.· 1988-02-26 ·cited 12×
  The court held that while the petitioner's delay in challenging his conviction was unreasonable, the state failed to demonstrate particularized prejudice caused by that delay, thus vacating the dismissal and remanding for further proceedings.
• Bridge v. Lynaugh
  838 F.2d 770· 1st Cir.· 1988-02-18 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in excluding evidence of a co-defendant's conviction and sentence, and that the appellant's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel lacked merit.