Habeas Corpus

18,784 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• Clark Davis v. Reynolds
  890 F.2d 1105· 10th Cir.· 1989-11-30 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the trial court improperly violated the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to a public trial by excluding the public during a witness's testimony without adequate findings or consideration of alternatives.
• Dalton Prejean v. Smith
  889 F.2d 1391· 5th Cir.· 1989-11-28 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the petitioner's claims regarding improper jury selection, ineffective assistance of counsel, and the unconstitutionality of his execution due to mental retardation and youth were without merit. The court denied his motions for a certificate of probable cause
• Kordenbrock v. Scroggy
  889 F.2d 69· 6th Cir.· 1989-11-03 ·cited 8×
  The admission of the full written confession was harmless error, and the denial of access to an independent psychiatrist did not violate due process because the defendant did not present an insanity defense.
• Moore v. Jarvis
  885 F.2d 1565· 11th Cir.· 1989-10-18 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the petitioner's claims regarding uncounseled misdemeanor convictions and sentencing enhancements were not sufficiently alleged to warrant an evidentiary hearing.
• Swindler v. A.L. Lockhart
  885 F.2d 1342· 8th Cir.· 1989-09-26 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying the petition for a writ of habeas corpus, affirming the denial of relief on all grounds.
• Chambers v. Armontrout
  885 F.2d 1318· 8th Cir.· 1989-09-15 ·cited 8×
  The court held that trial counsel's decision not to interview or call a witness was a reasonable strategic decision, not constituting ineffective assistance of counsel.
• Monachelli v. Warden, SCI Graterford & the Attorney Gen. of the Commonwealth of Pa. & the Dist. Attorney of Bucks Cnty.
  884 F.2d 749· 3d Cir.· 1989-09-11 ·cited 8×
  The admission of a non-testifying co-defendant's out-of-court statements, even with a limiting instruction, violates the other defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation unless the error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
• Davis v. Rouse
  548 So. 2d 287· Fla. 3d DCA· 1989-09-05 ·cited 8×
• Ketion v. State
  548 So. 2d 778· Fla. 1st DCA· 1989-09-01 ·cited 8×
  The court held that while an initial brief is required in appeals from habeas corpus petitions, an answer brief is not mandatory unless ordered by the court. Sanctions for failure to file an answer brief are denied.
• Sheppard v. Rees
  909 F.2d 1234· 9th Cir.· 1989-08-25 ·cited 8×
  A violation of the Sixth Amendment right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation is not subject to the harmless-error rule when it arises from the constitutionally improper use of one of multiple legal theories culminating in a general verdict.
• Richardson v. Thigpen
  883 F.2d 895· 11th Cir.· 1989-08-17 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the petitioner failed to make a substantial showing of a denial of a federal right, thus denying his motion for a certificate of probable cause and stay of execution.
• Tosh v. A.L. Lockhart
  879 F.2d 412· 8th Cir.· 1989-07-18 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the defendant was deprived of his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel due to his attorney's failure to call crucial alibi witnesses.
• Barks v. Armontrout
  872 F.2d 237· 8th Cir.· 1989-06-29 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the state courts would not entertain the petitioner's successive post-conviction relief motion under Rule 29.15, making further attempts at state redress futile.
• Berry v. A.L. Lockhart
  873 F.2d 1168· 8th Cir.· 1989-05-09 ·cited 8×
  The court affirmed the district court's grant of habeas relief, holding that the defendant did not knowingly and intelligently waive his right to counsel.
• Valladares v. P.W. Keohane
  871 F.2d 1560· 11th Cir.· 1989-05-05 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the Sentencing Reform Act's transition provisions did not retroactively repeal prior parole ineligibility statutes, and thus did not grant Valladares a right to immediate parole consideration.
• Clarissa Marsh v. Richardson
  873 F.2d 129· 6th Cir.· 1989-04-28 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by granting an extension to file a late notice of appeal based on 'good cause' when the circumstances only warranted an 'excusable neglect' standard, which was not met.
• Dickerson v. Latessa
  872 F.2d 1116· 1st Cir.· 1989-04-25 ·cited 8×
  The dissenting judge argues that the distinction in appeal rights between capital and non-capital defendants, based on whether claims are 'new and substantial,' lacks a rational basis and is unconstitutional.
• Cerro v. United States
  872 F.2d 780· 7th Cir.· 1989-04-18 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the defendant failed to demonstrate an actual conflict of interest that adversely affected his counsel's performance, nor did the judge, prosecutor, or counsel fail in their duties regarding potential conflicts.
• Sahagian v. Murphy
  871 F.2d 714· 7th Cir.· 1989-04-11 ·cited 8×
  The court held that a defendant cannot claim a Confrontation Clause violation when his own tactical decision to refuse a continuance for a temporarily unavailable witness leads to the witness's prior testimony being admitted.
• Roulette Blair v. McCARTHY
  881 F.2d 602· 9th Cir.· 1989-03-27 ·cited 8×
  A habeas petitioner can obtain relief for a state trial court's violation of state law in accepting a guilty plea if the petitioner shows a reasonable probability that, but for the error, they would not have pleaded guilty.
• Evans v. Clarke
  868 F.2d 267· 8th Cir.· 1989-02-14 ·cited 8×
  An Anders violation requires the state to reinstate the direct appeal and appoint new counsel to brief arguable issues, as harmless error or Strickland prejudice standards do not apply.
• Ismail Mohammed v. Sullivan
  866 F.2d 258· 8th Cir.· 1989-01-25 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the Rule 60(b) motion because the intervening change in law was irrelevant due to lack of jurisdiction and did not limit prison officials' discretion.
• Rowland Dory v. Comm'r OF Corr. OF the State OF NEW York & Attorney Gen. of the State of N.Y.
  865 F.2d 44· 2d Cir.· 1989-01-10 ·cited 8×
  The court held that summary dismissal of a habeas corpus petition followed by a grant of a certificate of probable cause is intrinsically contradictory and warrants reversal.
• Terry v. LeFEVRE
  862 F.2d 409· 2d Cir.· 1988-11-23 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the petitioner's confession and the murder weapon were not obtained in violation of his Miranda rights or through coercion, and affirmed the denial of his habeas corpus petition.
• Davis v. Puckett
  857 F.2d 1035· 5th Cir.· 1988-10-17 ·cited 8×
  The court held that while the police may have violated Davis's right to counsel by reinitiating interrogation, federal habeas relief was barred by Mississippi's procedural default rule. The court also found no constitutional violation regarding prosecutorial comments or the speed
• Smith v. Springer
  859 F.2d 31· 7th Cir.· 1988-08-31 ·cited 8×
  A federal court § 1983 lawsuit seeking monetary damages for fabricated evidence is not a collateral attack on a state court conviction, even if the plaintiff was previously incarcerated.
• Istvan Kele v. Carlson
  854 F.2d 338· 9th Cir.· 1988-08-15 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the Sentencing Reform Act's new parole guidelines do not apply to prisoners who will be on parole or release supervision at the expiration of the five-year transition period.
• McFADDEN v. Cabana
  851 F.2d 784· 5th Cir.· 1988-08-12 ·cited 8×
  A federal court may not grant habeas relief for denials of due process or ineffective assistance of counsel unless the petitioner demonstrates prejudice, meaning a reasonable probability that the outcome would have been different.
• Kurina v. Thieret
  853 F.2d 1409· 7th Cir.· 1988-08-03 ·cited 8×
  The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the habeas corpus petition, finding that most claims were waived due to procedural default without cause or prejudice, and the remaining claims lacked merit.
• Jones v. A.L. Lockhart
  851 F.2d 1115· 8th Cir.· 1988-07-15 ·cited 8×
  The court affirmed the district court's denial of the habeas petition regarding issues raised below, but dismissed without prejudice the issues raised for the first time on appeal.
• Oppel v. Meachum
  851 F.2d 34· 2d Cir.· 1988-06-22 ·cited 8×
  A federal habeas court should presume that a defendant was informed by his attorney of the elements of the crime charged when the defendant indicates this during the plea proceeding and offers no contrary evidence.
• Green v. Scully
  850 F.2d 894· 2d Cir.· 1988-06-20 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the totality of the circumstances, not just the presence of promises, determines confession voluntariness, and affirmed the denial of the habeas corpus petition.
• Rosario Joseph Dispensa v. Lynaugh
  847 F.2d 211· 5th Cir.· 1988-06-16 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the identification procedure was unnecessarily suggestive and unreliable, violating due process, and affirmed the district court's grant of habeas corpus relief.
• Miller v. Colin C.J. Angliker, M.D.
  848 F.2d 1312· 2d Cir.· 1988-05-20 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the State's suppression of material exculpatory evidence concerning Robert Lupinacci violated Miller's due process rights under Brady v. Maryland, requiring that the writ of habeas corpus be granted.
• Stano v. Dugger
  846 F.2d 1286· 11th Cir.· 1988-05-18 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the petitioner's claim that he proceeded pro se without a knowing and intelligent waiver of counsel is not frivolous and warrants further review.
• Reverend Nathaniel T. Grady v. LeFEVRE
  846 F.2d 862· 2d Cir.· 1988-05-13 ·cited 8×
  A federal court must dismiss a habeas corpus petition containing both unexhausted and exhausted claims, requiring the petitioner to present all claims to the state courts first.
• Butler v. Aiken
  846 F.2d 255· 4th Cir.· 1988-05-06 ·cited 8×
  The court held that a defendant's prior invocation of the right to counsel on one charge does not bar police from initiating interrogation on a different, uncharged offense, provided Miranda warnings are given and the right is voluntarily waived.
• Dickey Gaines v. Thieret
  846 F.2d 402· 7th Cir.· 1988-05-04 ·cited 8×
  The admission of a codefendant's statement implicating the defendant, even if not a direct confession, violated the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation and was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
• Royal Feaster v. Miksch
  846 F.2d 21· 6th Cir.· 1988-05-02 ·cited 8×
  When a federal damages action requires resolving issues that will determine the outcome of pending state criminal proceedings, federal courts must abstain under Younger v. Harris.
• Ruff v. Kincheloe
  843 F.2d 1240· 9th Cir.· 1988-04-08 ·cited 8×
  A district court must review the entire state court record to determine if a constitutional error in jury instructions was harmless, and has a duty to obtain the record if not provided by the parties.
• Estock v. Lane
  842 F.2d 184· 7th Cir.· 1988-03-16 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court properly granted the writ of habeas corpus because the state court's finding of no bona fide doubt as to the petitioner's competence was not supported by the record.
• Holloway v. Lynaugh
  838 F.2d 792· 5th Cir.· 1988-03-03 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the defendant's plea of 'true' to prior convictions for sentence enhancement was voluntary and intelligent under the totality of the circumstances.
• Brogdon v. Butler
  838 F.2d 776· 5th Cir.· 1988-02-29 ·cited 8×
  The court held that a prosecutor may impeach a defendant's trial testimony with prior inconsistent statements made after Miranda warnings, even if the defendant initially remained silent on some points, because the defendant voluntarily spoke and did not rely on the right to rema
• Wise v. Warden, Maryland Penitentiary
  839 F.2d 1030· 4th Cir.· 1988-02-23 ·cited 8×
  The court held that a federal habeas petitioner must exhaust state remedies, and new evidence presented in federal court may require the state courts to re-evaluate the claim's procedural posture and merits.
• Weeks v. Quinlan
  838 F.2d 41· 2d Cir.· 1988-01-25 ·cited 8×
  The court held that a federal prisoner paroled to the physical custody of state authorities under 28 C.F.R. § 2.32(a)(1) is considered paroled, and the Parole Commission may deny credit for time served in state prison if the parolee commits a new offense.
• Brewer v. J.D. Swinson
  837 F.2d 802· 8th Cir.· 1988-01-25 ·cited 8×
• Tasco v. Butler
  835 F.2d 1120· 5th Cir.· 1988-01-19 ·cited 8×
  The court agrees to reach the merits of the case, despite potential procedural default issues regarding Louisiana's contemporaneous objection rule.
• Demos v. W.E. Johnson
  835 F.2d 840· 11th Cir.· 1988-01-15 ·cited 8×
  The court affirmed the district court's finding of a Pate violation, holding that the state trial court erred by failing to inquire into the defendant's competency to stand trial.
• Isidoro Cruz-Sanchez v. Rivera-Cordero
  835 F.2d 947· 1st Cir.· 1987-12-30 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the victim's false statement about her pregnancy, even if considered perjury, did not constitute a constitutional violation affecting the outcome of the trial because the government was unaware of the falsity and the information was irrelevant to the rape char
• United States v. Smith
  835 F.2d 1048· 3d Cir.· 1987-12-29 ·cited 8×
  Orders denying bail pending disposition of a federal habeas corpus petition are appealable under the collateral order doctrine, and the appellant did not demonstrate a strong showing of likelihood of success on the merits to overcome the presumption of correctness for the custody