Habeas Corpus

18,785 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• Thomas v. Lewis
  945 F.2d 1119· 9th Cir.· 1991-09-27 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court properly dismissed the habeas corpus petition due to state procedural defaults and affirmed the denial of the motion to vacate.
• Peters v. Whitley
  942 F.2d 937· 5th Cir.· 1991-09-24 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the state trial court did not err in admitting the victim's testimony, nor was the photographic line-up impermissibly suggestive, and the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction.
• Raley v. Parke
  945 F.2d 137· 6th Cir.· 1991-09-19 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the 1980 guilty plea was validly entered, but the 1981 plea was not sufficiently proven to be knowing and intelligent. A conditional writ of habeas corpus was granted, allowing the state to hold a new evidentiary hearing on the 1981 plea.
• Russell v. Collins
  944 F.2d 202· 5th Cir.· 1991-09-18 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the petitioner's second habeas petition constituted an abuse of the writ because the claims raised could have been presented in the first petition and no cause or prejudice was shown, nor was there a showing of a fundamental miscarriage of justice.
• McCAFFERTY v. Leapley
  944 F.2d 445· 8th Cir.· 1991-09-17 ·cited 6×
  The admission of a child victim's out-of-court statements did not violate the defendant's Sixth Amendment confrontation clause rights because the statements possessed particularized guarantees of trustworthiness. Furthermore, any alleged trial errors were not so prejudicial as to
• Joseph E.L. Sullivan v. Freeman
  944 F.2d 334· 7th Cir.· 1991-09-13 ·cited 6×
  Federal public defenders do not have absolute immunity from malpractice suits under Illinois law, and the Westfall Act does not bar the suit at this stage due to procedural deficiencies.
• Brian A. Church v. Sullivan
  942 F.2d 1501· 10th Cir.· 1991-08-26 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court erred in finding procedural default for jury misconduct and due process claims, remanding for an evidentiary hearing on those issues. The court affirmed the dismissal of other claims.
• Stanley v. A.L. Lockhart
  941 F.2d 707· 8th Cir.· 1991-08-12 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the petitioner procedurally defaulted his claims by failing to file a timely appeal and did not establish cause for the default due to insufficient evidence of mental incompetence.
• Earnest Gilbert v. H.N. Scott
  941 F.2d 1065· 10th Cir.· 1991-08-09 ·cited 6×
  The court held that supervening legal authority (Coleman v. Thompson) requires analysis of procedural defaults under the cause and prejudice standard, not the deliberate bypass standard, and that petitioner's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel did not meet the Strickland
• Ouimette v. Moran
  942 F.2d 1· 1st Cir.· 1991-08-06 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the state prosecutor's failure to disclose the extensive criminal record and deals made with a key witness violated the petitioner's due process rights under Brady v. Maryland.
• Bedford v. Attorney Gen. OF the State OF Ala. & Charlie E. Jones
  934 F.2d 295· 11th Cir.· 1991-06-24 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the petitioner's claim was not procedurally barred because the state court did not clearly and expressly state that its judgment rested on a state procedural bar, and the state failed to demonstrate prejudice from the delay in filing the petition.
• Brewer v. Aiken
  935 F.2d 850· 7th Cir.· 1991-06-14 ·cited 6×
  The court held that there is a reasonable probability that the jury would have recommended against the death penalty had they known of Brewer's limited intellect and passive personality.
• Purvis v. Dugger
  932 F.2d 1413· 11th Cir.· 1991-06-10 ·cited 6×
  The dissenting judge would grant the writ of habeas corpus, finding that the admission of Purvis's confession violated Miranda, either due to custody issues or the improper admission of details obtained after custody began.
• Hart v. Stagner
  935 F.2d 1007· 9th Cir.· 1991-06-03 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a habeas court need only examine relevant portions of the state court record for harmless error analysis of a defective jury instruction on aiding and abetting, not the entire record. It also held that extensive pretrial publicity did not violate the defendant
• United States v. Laughlin
  933 F.2d 786· 9th Cir.· 1991-05-21 ·cited 6×
  The court held that ineffective assistance of counsel claims are generally not reviewable on direct appeal and that the defendant's other arguments for overturning probation revocation were without merit.
• Weidner v. Thieret
  932 F.2d 626· 7th Cir.· 1991-05-13 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the prior appellate decision regarding the procedure for gathering evidence on remand constituted the law of the case and was not subject to reconsideration under the new evidence or clearly erroneous exceptions.
• Taylor v. Wallace
  931 F.2d 698· 10th Cir.· 1991-04-30 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the record lacked sufficient indicia of reliability for confidential informant testimony, thus violating due process, and vacated the dismissal.
• Johnson v. Puckett
  929 F.2d 1067· 5th Cir.· 1991-04-29 ·cited 6×
  Discrimination in the selection of grand jury foremen violates the Equal Protection Clause, requiring a conviction to be set aside, even if the foreman's duties are ministerial.
• Palacios v. United States
  932 F.2d 31· 1st Cir.· 1991-04-26 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the imposition of a supervised release term was not a constitutional or jurisdictional error cognizable under § 2255, and the petitioner was not denied his right of allocution.
• Cowley v. Stricklin
  929 F.2d 640· 11th Cir.· 1991-04-25 ·cited 6×
  The state trial court's failure to provide the defendant with competent psychiatric assistance for his defense violated due process.
• Badea v. COX
  931 F.2d 573· 9th Cir.· 1991-04-25 ·cited 6×
  The court held that because the prisoner was paroled, his civil rights action challenging conditions of confinement was proper, even if it should have initially been a habeas corpus petition.
• Meeks v. Dugger
  576 So. 2d 713· Fla.· 1991-04-11 ·cited 6×
  Douglas Ray Meeks, a death row inmate, petitioned for habeas corpus relief claiming his two death sentences violated Hitchcock v. Dugger by restricting jury consideration to only statutory mitigating circumstances. The Florida Supreme Court found a Hitchcock violation but remande
• Helton v. Fauver
  930 F.2d 1040· 3d Cir.· 1991-04-10 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the New Jersey Supreme Court's interpretation of the state's juvenile law was not unforeseeable, and therefore its retroactive application to Helton did not violate due process.
• Inmates OF Orient Corr. Inst. v. Ohio State Adult Parole Auth.
  929 F.2d 233· 6th Cir.· 1991-03-26 ·cited 6×
  The court held that Ohio law does not create a constitutionally protected liberty interest in being released on parole at a specific time, even after an 'on or after' date has been set.
• Panuccio v. Kelly
  927 F.2d 106· 2d Cir.· 1991-03-06 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a defendant's Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel was not violated when counsel advised a guilty plea without fully disclosing a potential intoxication defense, if that defense had little chance of success and the potential sentence reduct
• Royal Russell Long v. Shillinger
  927 F.2d 525· 10th Cir.· 1991-03-06 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to prove actual injury resulting from the due process violation during extradition, thus limiting damages to nominal. The court also found no abuse of discretion in denying the appointment of counsel.
• Hill v. Lockhart
  927 F.2d 340· 8th Cir.· 1991-02-28 ·cited 6×
  The jury's selection of 'no evidence of any mitigating factor' impermissibly ignored undisputed evidence of the defendant's youth, which is a statutory mitigating factor.
• Buxton v. Collins
  925 F.2d 816· 5th Cir.· 1991-02-25 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the petitioner's claims were procedurally barred due to failure to object at trial, and that he failed to demonstrate cause and prejudice for the default. The court denied the application for a certificate of probable cause and a stay of execution.
• Allen v. Commonwealth OF Mass.
  926 F.2d 74· 1st Cir.· 1991-02-19 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the trial court's jury instructions did not shift the burden of proof or create a miscarriage of justice, and that counsel's failure to object to instructions or move to suppress identification did not constitute ineffective assistance.
• Valencia v. United States
  923 F.2d 917· 1st Cir.· 1991-01-23 ·cited 6×
  A guilty plea is not knowing and intelligent if the defendant is not informed of all essential elements of the charged offense, particularly when the court and prosecution also appear to misunderstand the jurisdictional requirements.
• Doyle v. Dugger
  922 F.2d 646· 11th Cir.· 1991-01-14 ·cited 6×
  The dissenting judge holds that trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance during the penalty phase by failing to consult psychiatrists regarding mitigating circumstances.
• Turner v. Armontrout
  922 F.2d 492· 8th Cir.· 1991-01-07 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a motion for a certificate of probable cause, filed by a pro se petitioner within the time limits, can serve as the functional equivalent of a notice of appeal, thus conferring jurisdiction.
• Rector v. Clark
  923 F.2d 570· 8th Cir.· 1991-01-02 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the Ford standard is the appropriate measure for competency to be executed and that the district court correctly applied it, affirming the denial of habeas corpus relief. The court also affirmed the district court's finding that the petitioner was competent to
• McKINNON v. A.L. Lockhart
  921 F.2d 830· 8th Cir.· 1990-12-31 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a procedural default in state court bars federal habeas review of claims unless the petitioner demonstrates both cause for the default and prejudice resulting from the state court's failure to address the claims.
• Buie v. Sullivan
  923 F.2d 10· 2d Cir.· 1990-12-28 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the timing of a witness's arrest, even if potentially impacting exculpatory testimony, does not violate a defendant's Sixth Amendment right to present a defense unless bad faith by the prosecution is shown and the absence of the testimony fundamentally undermi
• Van McDOUGALL v. Dixon
  921 F.2d 518· 4th Cir.· 1990-12-19 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the jury instructions did not unconstitutionally limit the consideration of mitigating evidence, nor did the omission of specific language in the fourth sentencing question constitute prejudicial error.
• Hayes v. Warden Hawes and Neil F. Hartigan
  921 F.2d 100· 7th Cir.· 1990-12-18 ·cited 6×
  The court held that appointed counsel's failure to argue the Posse Comitatus Act did not constitute ineffective assistance because the military's involvement was not pervasive enough to violate the statute, and the exclusionary rule would likely not apply.
• Glock v. Dugger
  752 F. Supp. 1027· M.D. Fla.· 1990-12-12 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the admission of codefendants' confessions, even if interlocking, was permissible under certain circumstances indicating reliability, and that counsel's performance did not constitute ineffective assistance.
• Bumgarner v. A.L. Lockhart
  920 F.2d 510· 8th Cir.· 1990-12-03 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the confinement prior to trial did not interfere with the defendant's ability to prepare his defense or obtain counsel, and that his waiver of counsel was knowing and intelligent.
• A.O. v. Chinault
  571 So. 2d 43· Fla. 2d DCA· 1990-10-31 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the Department's vague responses to habeas corpus petitions are inadequate and ordered discharge from detention if still confined.
• Mahorney v. Wallman
  917 F.2d 469· 10th Cir.· 1990-10-24 ·cited 6×
  The dissenting judge would affirm the district court's decision, arguing that the prosecutor's remarks, when viewed in the totality of the circumstances, did not deny the defendant due process.
• Ehrsam v. Rubenstein
  917 F.2d 764· 3d Cir.· 1990-10-23 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the challenged provisions of the Pennsylvania Mandatory Minimum Sentencing Act do not violate the Due Process Clause.
• Taylor v. Dugger
  567 So. 2d 1000· Fla. 1st DCA· 1990-10-08 ·cited 6×
  The court held that while the Florida Parole Commission violated the appellant's due process rights by failing to provide him with findings from his preliminary parole revocation hearing, the appellant must still demonstrate prejudice from this omission to be entitled to habeas c
• O.P. Hollis v. J.O. Davis & The Attorney Gen. of the State of Ala.
  912 F.2d 1343· 11th Cir.· 1990-09-25 ·cited 6×
  The court should affirm the district court's dismissal of the habeas corpus petition due to prejudice caused by the petitioner's delay in filing.
• Phillips v. Brennan
  912 F.2d 189· 7th Cir.· 1990-09-06 ·cited 6×
  The court held that if the Parole Commission fails to provide a prisoner with adequate notice of documents and witnesses to be used against him, it violates his due process rights, and the decision may not be upheld based on other evidence if the improperly considered factors con
• Rizzo v. Armstrong
  912 F.2d 1111· 9th Cir.· 1990-08-30 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the regulation mandating forfeiture of street time was an unreasonable interpretation of the statute and thus invalid, and that street time forfeiture is a discretionary decision for the Commission.
• Pulver v. Brennan
  912 F.2d 894· 7th Cir.· 1990-08-29 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the Parole Commission's failure to provide the petitioner with reasonable access to his files at least thirty days before his parole hearing violated 18 U.S.C. § 4208(b) and was not harmless error.
• Coleman v. Saffle
  912 F.2d 1217· 10th Cir.· 1990-08-28 ·cited 6×
  The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the denial of post-conviction relief, holding that the petitioner's claims regarding competency and fair trial were previously litigated and that newly discovered evidence was insufficient to warrant relief.
• Miller v. Sumner
  921 F.2d 202· 9th Cir.· 1990-08-08 ·cited 6×
  A pro se prisoner's notice of appeal is not deemed timely filed if deposited in a prison mailbox rather than submitted through the prison's official mail log system.
• Guinan v. Armontrout
  909 F.2d 1224· 8th Cir.· 1990-08-03 ·cited 6×
  The court affirmed the denial of habeas corpus relief, finding no due process violation in the denial of a psychiatric evaluation, no ineffective assistance of counsel, and no Eighth Amendment violation from jury instructions or prosecutorial remarks.