Habeas Corpus

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

• United States v. Greer
  772 F.2d 322· 7th Cir.· 1985-08-29 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the petitioner waived his constitutional claim regarding the use of his silence at pre-trial fitness examinations for federal habeas review because the Illinois Appellate Court relied on a state procedural rule (waiver) as an independent and adequate ground fo
• Milton v. P.J. Morris
  767 F.2d 1443· 9th Cir.· 1985-08-12 ·cited 12×
  A confined defendant electing to represent himself is constitutionally entitled to reasonable access to resources necessary for his defense, which can be provided through counsel's assistance or other adequate means.
• Allerd Sharlow v. Israel
  767 F.2d 373· 7th Cir.· 1985-07-22 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the exclusion of hearsay testimony did not violate the petitioner's Sixth Amendment right to present a defense because the testimony was not critical or reliable.
• Roesevelt Hayes v. A.L. Lockhart
  766 F.2d 1247· 8th Cir.· 1985-07-09 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the appellant failed to demonstrate an actual conflict of interest from joint representation or ineffective assistance of counsel, and that his due process claim regarding a jury instruction was procedurally barred.
• Miller v. Bordenkircher
  764 F.2d 245· 4th Cir.· 1985-06-17 ·cited 12×
  The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the habeas corpus petition, holding that Habeas Corpus Rule 9(b) was properly invoked to deny the petition due to successive claims and abuse of the writ.
• Riner v. Owens
  764 F.2d 1253· 7th Cir.· 1985-06-14 ·cited 12×
  The majority holds that the petitioner demonstrated sufficient cause and prejudice to overcome waiver of his Sixth Amendment claim. The dissenting judge would hold that the petitioner failed to demonstrate prejudice and thus the claim should be denied.
• Haruna Dabone v. Karn
  763 F.2d 593· 3d Cir.· 1985-06-07 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the petitioner's departure from the U.S. for two months on a planned, multi-continent trip constituted a 'meaningfully interruptive' departure, thus subjecting him to exclusion proceedings upon re-entry and rendering him ineligible for discretionary relief und
• Vassar v. Solem
  763 F.2d 975· 8th Cir.· 1985-06-04 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendant's motions for an expert witness, refusing to suppress his confession, refusing to disqualify itself, or denying his motion for a new trial.
• Walker v. A.L. Lockhart
  763 F.2d 942· 8th Cir.· 1985-05-17 ·cited 12×
  The court held that newly discovered evidence, if credible enough for a jury, warrants a new trial, and that the trial judge's bias deprived the defendant of a fair trial.
• In re The Adoption OF C.L.W. v. Weeks
  467 So. 2d 1106· Fla. 2d DCA· 1985-05-01 ·cited 12×
  Betty Fowler appeals a final adoption judgment granted to Helen and Arnold Weeks for her biological child. The Florida appellate court affirmed the adoption, holding that Florida law applied to the validity of the mother's consent and revocation, that Pennsylvania lacked jurisdic
• Johnson v. Kemp
  759 F.2d 1503· 11th Cir.· 1985-04-24 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the district court correctly denied relief on most grounds but vacated the judgment on ineffective assistance of counsel at sentencing for reconsideration under new standards.
• Adamson v. Ricketts
  758 F.2d 441· 9th Cir.· 1985-04-18 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the admission of certain hearsay statements was a Confrontation Clause violation but harmless error, and that Arizona's death penalty statute is constitutional as applied.
• United States ex rel. Fred Reed v. Lane
  759 F.2d 618· 7th Cir.· 1985-04-10 ·cited 12×
  The dissenting judge believes the petitioner had adequate notice that the compulsion defense would not be available due to his participation in a second murder.
• Augusto Suarez Ortega v. de Suarez
  465 So. 2d 607· Fla. 3d DCA· 1985-03-19 ·cited 12×
  A Florida court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to award child custody where the child's home state was Mexico under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act (UCCJA), despite the mother's unilateral removal of the child to Florida. The court reversed orders denying the fathe
• Essie B. Clark v. Procunier
  755 F.2d 394· 5th Cir.· 1985-03-18 ·cited 12×
  A state prisoner is entitled to habeas corpus relief if the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt for the offense as defined by state law.
• Phelps v. Duckworth
  757 F.2d 811· 7th Cir.· 1985-02-27 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the state failed to establish that the prosecutor's error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
• Mathews v. Marshall
  754 F.2d 158· 6th Cir.· 1985-02-01 ·cited 12×
  The dissenting judge would affirm the denial of habeas relief, finding no federal constitutional violation.
• Morrison v. Irwin I. Kimmelman
  752 F.2d 918· 3d Cir.· 1985-01-18 ·cited 12×
  The court held that Stone v. Powell does not bar federal habeas corpus review of a Sixth Amendment claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, even if the claim is based on counsel's failure to raise a Fourth Amendment issue.
• Cornell Fitzpatrick v. Procunier
  750 F.2d 473· 5th Cir.· 1985-01-17 ·cited 12×
  The court affirmed the district court's denial of federal habeas relief, finding no error in the denial of a continuance, the destruction of evidence, or the failure to produce an informant.
• Lazarus C. Finney v. Rothgerber
  751 F.2d 858· 6th Cir.· 1985-01-08 ·cited 12×
  The court held that a defendant's voluntary absence from trial constitutes a waiver of the right to be present, and that while a "no adverse inference" instruction is required in the enhancement phase of a persistent felony offender trial, the failure to give it in this case was
• Tarrant v. Ponte
  751 F.2d 459· 1st Cir.· 1985-01-04 ·cited 12×
  The Court of Appeals held that federal courts are bound by a state court's interpretation of state law regarding the "unit of prosecution" for double jeopardy purposes and should not reject it based on a disagreement with its application to the facts.
• Quiroz v. Wawrzaszek
  749 F.2d 1375· 9th Cir.· 1984-12-27 ·cited 12×
  A defendant's knowing and intelligent waiver of constitutional rights is valid even if the trial judge did not explicitly advise them of the maximum sentence, provided counsel communicated this information.
• Enriquez v. Procunier
  752 F.2d 111· 5th Cir.· 1984-12-26 ·cited 12×
  The court affirmed the denial of habeas relief, finding no merit in the petitioner's claims of incompetency, ineffective assistance of counsel, improper admission of extraneous offenses, or unconstitutional jury exclusion.
• Sires v. Gabriel
  748 F.2d 49· 1st Cir.· 1984-11-20 ·cited 12×
  The court held that an injunction restricting a litigant's access to the courts cannot be issued without specific findings that the litigant has abused the judicial process or harassed defendants.
• Myers v. Linwood V. Stephenson
  748 F.2d 202· 4th Cir.· 1984-11-05 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the case must be remanded to the district court for fact-finding to determine the actual receipt date of the notice of appeal, as the timeliness is unclear and crucial for appellate jurisdiction.
• Satchell v. Dilworth
  745 F.2d 781· 2d Cir.· 1984-10-04 ·cited 12×
  The court held that it was error to grant summary judgment to a defendant on an unpleaded affirmative defense and that a pro se plaintiff should have been afforded an opportunity to amend his complaint.
• Lockett v. ARN
  728 F.2d 266· 6th Cir.· 1984-07-03 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the appellant's failure to raise constitutional objections to jury instructions at trial procedurally barred federal habeas review, absent a showing of cause and prejudice, and that her other claims were without merit.
• Ward v. Huron Cnty. Cir. Judge Knoblock
  738 F.2d 134· 6th Cir.· 1984-06-28 ·cited 12×
  A prisoner who has fully served a state sentence is not 'in custody' for purposes of federal habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, even if the conviction has collateral consequences. However, a prisoner can attack a federal sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 even if it has not yet b
• Wolff v. United States
  737 F.2d 877· 10th Cir.· 1984-06-26 ·cited 12×
  The court held that a federal habeas corpus petitioner waived his constitutional claims by failing to raise them at his court-martial, absent a showing of cause and prejudice.
• United States ex rel. Jose Mireles v. Greer
  736 F.2d 1160· 7th Cir.· 1984-06-12 ·cited 12×
  The court held that a trial judge's initial doubt about a defendant's competency to stand trial can be dissipated by subsequent evidence and reports, and the judge is not automatically required to hold a hearing if that doubt is reasonably resolved.
• Christian v. McKASKLE
  731 F.2d 1196· 5th Cir.· 1984-05-14 ·cited 12×
  The court affirmed the dismissal of the habeas corpus petition, finding that the Fourth Amendment claim was barred by Stone v. Powell and the Sixth Amendment claim lacked merit because a motion to suppress would have failed.
• Williams v. Maggio
  730 F.2d 1048· 5th Cir.· 1984-04-30 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the district court erred in deeming itself bound by state court findings and that the state evidentiary hearing was inadequate to correct a due process violation at sentencing.
• Koontz v. Glossa
  731 F.2d 365· 6th Cir.· 1984-04-11 ·cited 12×
  The court held that amending the indictment without returning to the grand jury, changing the charge from direct arson to arson for hire, violated the petitioner's due process rights by denying him fair notice of the charges and sufficient time to prepare a defense.
• Richardson v. United States Parole Comm'n & Joseph S. Petrovsky
  729 F.2d 1154· 8th Cir.· 1984-03-13 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the petitioner failed to demonstrate he would have received a more favorable parole determination under the prior guidelines, thus affirming the dismissal of his habeas corpus petition.
• Hyman A. Lieberman v. Gunnell
  726 F.2d 75· 2d Cir.· 1984-01-23 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the Parole Commission abused its discretion by misclassifying the appellant's offense as a Greatest I property offense instead of a Very High opiate offense.
• Watters v. Hubbard
  725 F.2d 381· 6th Cir.· 1984-01-16 ·cited 12×
  The court held that admitting psychiatrists' testimony reciting inculpatory statements violated the defendant's Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.
• Stamper v. Alton Baskerville
  724 F.2d 1106· 4th Cir.· 1984-01-13 ·cited 12×
  The court reversed the district court's decision, finding that even if discretion existed to depart from a prior order, the district court abused that discretion.
• Velez v. Schmer
  724 F.2d 249· 1st Cir.· 1984-01-06 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the initial show-up identification was so unnecessarily suggestive and unreliable that it tainted the subsequent in-court identification, violating due process.
• Turner v. McKASKLE
  721 F.2d 999· 5th Cir.· 1983-12-27 ·cited 12×
  A state prisoner's habeas corpus petition should be granted if the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support a conviction for murder under federal due process standards.
• Robinson v. Hadden
  723 F.2d 59· 10th Cir.· 1983-12-12 ·cited 12×
  The Parole Commission may consider evidence of offenses charged in dismissed counts when determining parole eligibility, provided it does not violate a plea agreement or a government representation. The Commission did not abuse its discretion in rating the offense severity or set
• Stranghoener v. Black
  720 F.2d 1005· 8th Cir.· 1983-12-01 ·cited 12×
  A federal habeas corpus claim is not "fairly presented" to state courts if significant factual allegations supporting the claim are raised for the first time in federal court. Therefore, the petitioner failed to exhaust state remedies.
• Melvin v. Petrovsky
  720 F.2d 9· 8th Cir.· 1983-10-19 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the Parole Commission must reconsider the petitioner's offense classification due to inconsistent application of its regulations and failure to consider a codefendant's parole status.
• Miller v. Toles
  442 So. 2d 177· Fla.· 1983-10-13 ·cited 12×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that when a parolee arrested on felony charges is not given a hearing within ten days as required by statute, the automatic temporary revocation of parole is waived and the parolee must be released, preventing the state from later pursuing revocatio
• Brown v. E.P. Perini
  718 F.2d 784· 6th Cir.· 1983-10-05 ·cited 12×
  A guilty plea is not invalidated by misinformation regarding parole eligibility, as parole is considered a collateral, not direct, consequence of the plea.
• LaROCHE v. Perrin
  718 F.2d 500· 1st Cir.· 1983-09-30 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the underrepresentation of 18-34 year olds on petit juries, due to the jury selection system, constituted a prima facie violation of the fair-cross-section requirement.
• Norbert Glenn Richardson v. Major B.F. Turner
  716 F.2d 1059· 4th Cir.· 1983-09-09 ·cited 12×
  The court held that a federal court should not adjudicate habeas corpus claims if there is a reasonable possibility that a state court exception to a procedural bar rule would allow the petitioner to raise those claims.
• United States ex rel. Ronnie Lee Cunningham v. DeROBERTIS
  719 F.2d 892· 7th Cir.· 1983-08-10 ·cited 12×
  A habeas petitioner cannot claim a violation of another person's Fifth Amendment rights when that person's confession was determined to be voluntary and was not used at the petitioner's trial.
• Baker v. W.J. Estelle, Jr.
  711 F.2d 44· 5th Cir.· 1983-08-01 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the petitioner was not subjected to double jeopardy and affirmed the denial of his habeas corpus petition.
• Holmes v. King
  709 F.2d 965· 5th Cir.· 1983-07-18 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the state trial court did not err in finding the defendant competent to stand trial and that the procedures used were adequate.
• Barrier v. C.W. Beaver
  712 F.2d 231· 6th Cir.· 1983-07-14 ·cited 12×
  The court held that a parole violator's sentence resumes running upon the execution of the violator warrant, not upon the final decision of the Parole Commission, and that a new warrant cannot be issued after the parolee's maximum term has expired.