Habeas Corpus

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

• Porretto v. Stalder
  834 F.2d 461· 5th Cir.· 1987-12-21 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the state's failure to disclose witness hypnosis did not violate Brady, the exclusion of impeachment testimony was not fundamentally unfair, and the admission of bail hearing testimony was harmless error.
• United States v. Hutchings
  835 F.2d 185· 8th Cir.· 1987-12-10 ·cited 8×
  The court held that a motion challenging the execution of a sentence is not cognizable under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, and a habeas corpus petition requires proper venue. However, a challenge to the validity of a sentence is cognizable under § 2255.
• La RUE v. McCARTHY
  833 F.2d 140· 9th Cir.· 1987-11-23 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the California Supreme Court's refusal to apply its new felony murder rule retroactively to the petitioner's case did not violate the federal Constitution's due process or equal protection clauses.
• Casale v. Fair
  833 F.2d 386· 1st Cir.· 1987-11-18 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the convictions, that certain claims were waived due to failure to raise them on direct appeal, that other claims were unexhausted, and that the appellants received effective assistance of counsel.
• Jeffers v. Ricketts
  832 F.2d 476· 9th Cir.· 1987-11-09 ·cited 8×
  The Arizona Supreme Court's construction of A.R.S. § 13-703(F)(6) to find aggravating circumstances was not unconstitutional, and federal courts should apply a deferential standard of review to such findings.
• Perry v. Leeke
  832 F.2d 837· 4th Cir.· 1987-11-05 ·cited 8×
  The dissent argues that the Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to counsel, and any complete denial of counsel, even for a short period, is a violation that mandates a new trial without a showing of prejudice.
• Meadows v. Manfred G. Holland
  831 F.2d 493· 4th Cir.· 1987-10-16 ·cited 8×
  The majority decision improperly overruled prior panel precedent (Adkins) by disregarding established principles of federal collateral review and habeas corpus jurisprudence.
• Sheley v. Dugger
  824 F.2d 1551· 11th Cir.· 1987-08-21 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the inmate's claims of procedural due process, Eighth Amendment, substantive due process, and equal protection violations were without merit, emphasizing deference to prison administrators' decisions.
• United States ex rel. Melvin Haywood v. O'Leary
  827 F.2d 52· 7th Cir.· 1987-08-05 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the witness's in-court identification was not unduly suggestive and was sufficiently reliable, and that the refusal to allow cross-examination on co-defendants' dispositions did not deny a fair trial.
• Hartman v. W.D. Blankenship
  825 F.2d 26· 4th Cir.· 1987-08-03 ·cited 8×
  The dissenting judge holds that the district court properly found the guilty plea involuntary due to the prosecution's broken promise regarding a sentencing recommendation.
• Sheary v. United States Parole Comm'n
  822 F.2d 556· 5th Cir.· 1987-07-28 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the Parole Commission's application of updated guidelines did not violate the ex post facto clause, its severity classification was proper, and the disparate treatment of a codefendant did not violate due process.
• Clark v. Wood
  823 F.2d 1241· 8th Cir.· 1987-07-07 ·cited 8×
  The court affirmed the district court's denial of habeas corpus relief, finding no constitutional error in the state convictions despite various claims of due process and Sixth Amendment violations.
• Thompson v. Dugger
  509 So. 2d 391· Fla. 1st DCA· 1987-07-07 ·cited 8×
  Michael Thompson, a Florida State Prison inmate, challenged the denial of his habeas corpus petition challenging his placement on Close Management Status. The court reversed, finding that Thompson did not receive adequate notice of the charges against him as required by Florida A
• Good v. Allain
  823 F.2d 64· 5th Cir.· 1987-06-23 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the plaintiff's complaint failed to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because the extradition procedures were legally authorized and followed. However, the dismissal should be without prejudice.
• United States ex rel. Alonzo Lewis v. Lane
  822 F.2d 703· 7th Cir.· 1987-06-17 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the petitioner failed to present substantial facts to doubt his competency, and therefore, the restoration hearing procedures were adequate and the conviction stands.
• Harris v. Reed
  822 F.2d 684· 7th Cir.· 1987-06-12 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the state appellate court did not excuse the procedural default by addressing the merits of the claim, thus precluding federal review.
• McFADDEN v. D.A. Garraghty
  820 F.2d 654· 4th Cir.· 1987-06-08 ·cited 8×
  The court held that breaks in custody, changes in interrogation location and interrogators, and proper Miranda warnings vitiated an initial violation of the Edwards rule, and that subsequent confessions were voluntary.
• Moore v. Hilton Butler
  819 F.2d 517· 5th Cir.· 1987-06-06 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the petitioner's fourth habeas corpus petition constituted an abuse of the writ and that his underlying contentions lacked merit, thus denying his application for a certificate of probable cause and stay of execution.
• Daniels v. Wood
  819 F.2d 195· 8th Cir.· 1987-05-22 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the trial court's alleged errors in failing to reread testimony, prosecutorial misconduct during closing arguments, and failure to disclose a witness statement did not rise to the level of constitutional violations sufficient to grant habeas corpus relief.
• Mulligan v. Kemp
  818 F.2d 746· 11th Cir.· 1987-05-14 ·cited 8×
  The court denied the petition for writ of habeas corpus and the motion for stay of execution, finding that claims were either an abuse of the writ or without merit.
• Gornick v. Greer
  819 F.2d 160· 7th Cir.· 1987-05-13 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the petitioner has not exhausted his state court remedies because claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, particularly those involving facts outside the trial record, can still be raised in Illinois post-conviction proceedings.
• Leatrice Little v. Armontrout
  819 F.2d 1425· 8th Cir.· 1987-05-06 ·cited 8×
  The court held that admitting the victim's posthypnotic identification testimony violated the petitioner's due process rights because the hypnosis procedure lacked essential safeguards and corroboration, rendering the identification unreliable.
• Pickens v. Butler
  814 F.2d 237· 5th Cir.· 1987-04-14 ·cited 8×
  The Constitution does not require a final revocation hearing if parole revocation is mandatory by law due to a felony conviction.
• United States ex rel. Edward Weismiller v. Lane
  815 F.2d 1106· 7th Cir.· 1987-03-30 ·cited 8×
  The court held that challenges to jury instructions were procedurally barred due to a state procedural default, and direct challenges to the Illinois Guilty But Mentally Ill (GBMI) statutes were without merit.
• Goble v. Matthews
  814 F.2d 1104· 6th Cir.· 1987-03-30 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the Parole Commission has the authority to reconsider a parole decision based on information previously overlooked or not adequately addressed, even if that information is not strictly 'new,' and affirmed the denial of habeas corpus relief.
• Miller v. Story
  814 F.2d 320· 6th Cir.· 1987-03-23 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the petitioner's argument that the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984 overrides his prior release date is without merit because the relevant section of the Act is not yet effective.
• Marrera v. Edwards
  812 F.2d 1517· 6th Cir.· 1987-03-05 ·cited 8×
  The court held that time spent on bond, even with personal difficulties, does not qualify for sentence credit under 18 U.S.C. § 3568 unless the conditions were tantamount to incarceration.
• Franklin v. Rose
  811 F.2d 322· 6th Cir.· 1987-02-13 ·cited 8×
  A habeas petitioner must fairly present the substance of a federal claim, including the legal theory, to the state courts to satisfy the exhaustion requirement.
• Beachem v. Attorney General OF Missouri
  808 F.2d 1303· 8th Cir.· 1987-01-13 ·cited 8×
  The court held that a guilty plea waives independent claims of constitutional violations and extradition defects, and that a minor technical error in lodging a detainer does not invalidate it.
• Feeney v. Auger
  808 F.2d 1279· 8th Cir.· 1986-12-31 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court correctly treated the suit as a habeas corpus petition but erred in dismissing it; the case should be dismissed without prejudice to allow pursuit of state remedies.
• Hosey Johnson v. Donald A. Cabana & the Attorney Gen. of the State of Miss.
  805 F.2d 579· 5th Cir.· 1986-12-11 ·cited 8×
  The dissenting judge would grant the writ, arguing that the defendant's attorney had a duty to examine the defendant's rap sheet to avoid a mistaken belief about prior convictions.
• George Jones M-2329 v. Zimmerman
  805 F.2d 1125· 3d Cir.· 1986-11-28 ·cited 8×
  The court held that denying suppression of an inculpatory statement implicitly ruled it voluntary, and that the failure to submit the voluntariness issue to the jury was not a constitutional error requiring reversal. The court also found no violation of the right to counsel.
• Hall v. A.L. Lockhart
  806 F.2d 165· 8th Cir.· 1986-11-25 ·cited 8×
  The court should afford Hall an evidentiary hearing on his claim of newly discovered evidence.
• Darrel Ray Leonard and Johnny A. Casselbury v. L.T. Hammond, Jr.
  804 F.2d 838· 4th Cir.· 1986-11-10 ·cited 8×
  A federal court must dismiss a habeas corpus petition if the petitioner has not first exhausted state remedies, even if the petitioner has been released from custody.
• McNEIL v. Blackburn
  802 F.2d 830· 5th Cir.· 1986-10-20 ·cited 8×
  The court held that a timely but unsigned notice of appeal satisfies jurisdictional requirements and that the district court erred in summarily dismissing a habeas corpus petition without requiring a state response.
• Ward v. United States Parole Comm'n
  804 F.2d 64· 7th Cir.· 1986-10-20 ·cited 8×
  The court held that Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 23(a) requires only a deferential review of the Attorney General's determination of need for a prisoner transfer pending habeas corpus appeal, limited to ensuring the court's ability to adjudicate the case effectively.
• Piercy v. Black
  801 F.2d 1075· 8th Cir.· 1986-10-01 ·cited 8×
  The court held that a state prisoner's claim that one state's sentences should run concurrently with another state's sentences does not implicate federal constitutional rights and is not grounds for federal habeas corpus relief.
• Kealohapauole v. Edwin Shimoda and the Attorney General
  800 F.2d 1463· 9th Cir.· 1986-09-29 ·cited 8×
  The admission of an autopsy videotape, even if unpleasant, does not violate due process if it is probative of the cause of death and not unduly inflammatory, especially when presented clinically with expert testimony.
• Stacey v. Solem
  801 F.2d 1048· 8th Cir.· 1986-09-24 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the totality of circumstances showed a voluntary and intelligent guilty plea, and that counsel's actions did not constitute ineffective assistance.
• Harker v. State OF Md.
  800 F.2d 437· 4th Cir.· 1986-09-16 ·cited 8×
  The court held that while the police procedures in administering hypnosis were flawed, the identification of the defendant was sufficiently reliable apart from the hypnosis, rendering the error harmless.
• Watson v. Blackburn
  798 F.2d 872· 5th Cir.· 1986-09-02 ·cited 8×
• Erling Knud Ove Hansen, Jr. v. Louie L. Wainwright
  493 So. 2d 38· Fla. 1st DCA· 1986-08-12 ·cited 8×
  Hansen challenges the revocation of his parole on habeas corpus grounds. While the court found the revocation was erroneous as to the felony charge due to failure to provide a timely preliminary hearing under Miller v. Toles, it affirmed the revocation because it was alternativel
• Phillips v. A.I. Murphy and Michael Turpen
  796 F.2d 1303· 10th Cir.· 1986-07-16 ·cited 8×
  The court held that a federal evidentiary hearing was not required because the petitioner's claims were incredible and unsupported by specifics, and the state court's findings of historical fact were entitled to a presumption of correctness. The court also held that the failure t
• Bennett v. Scroggy
  793 F.2d 772· 6th Cir.· 1986-06-19 ·cited 8×
  The Sixth Circuit held that the trial court's denial of a continuance to secure a witness violated the appellant's Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights, warranting a grant of habeas corpus relief.
• United States ex rel. Rickie Cole v. Lane
  793 F.2d 155· 7th Cir.· 1986-06-11 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court erred in applying 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) to the ultimate issue of confession voluntariness, which is a question of law, not a finding of fact. The case must be reexamined in light of Miller v. Fenton.
• Darl "Hunk" Havens v. State OF Ind.
  793 F.2d 143· 7th Cir.· 1986-06-10 ·cited 8×
  The court held that a prosecutor's prior representation of a defendant does not violate due process if the prior representation is unrelated to the current charges and no privileged information was used.
• Esquivel v. O.L. McCOTTER
  791 F.2d 350· 5th Cir.· 1986-06-07 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the Batson v. Kentucky rule should not be applied retroactively to federal habeas proceedings, and vacated the district court's stay of execution.
• Moyer Reed Plaster v. United States
  789 F.2d 289· 4th Cir.· 1986-04-29 ·cited 8×
  Prosecutorial immunity agreements are generally not enforceable unless the recipient has performed their obligation and suffered actual prejudice by some self-incriminating act.
• Carlo Raimondo v. Belletire
  789 F.2d 492· 7th Cir.· 1986-04-21 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the amendments to Illinois statutes governing the commitment of persons found not guilty by reason of insanity did not violate the constitutional guarantees against ex post facto punishment, due process, or equal protection.
• Sammons v. G.H. Rodgers
  785 F.2d 1343· 5th Cir.· 1986-04-04 ·cited 8×
  A federal district court has jurisdiction to consider a habeas corpus petition challenging the use of prior state convictions for federal parole eligibility, even if those convictions occurred in another state.