Habeas Corpus

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

• Henderson v. State
  543 So. 2d 344· Fla. 1st DCA· 1989-05-10 ·cited 6×
  Henderson challenges the constitutionality of Florida statutes preventing early release for certain offenders, arguing violations of equal protection, ex post facto doctrine, and First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The court affirmed the denial of his habeas corpus pet
• White v. Lewis
  874 F.2d 599· 9th Cir.· 1989-05-08 ·cited 6×
  A motion to dismiss is a proper pleading in a habeas corpus action, and a petitioner must demonstrate cause and prejudice for any procedural default in state court to be entitled to federal habeas relief.
• O'Callaghan v. State
  542 So. 2d 1324· Fla.· 1989-04-20 ·cited 6×
  John O'Callaghan was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the denial of his Rule 3.850 postconviction relief motion but granted his habeas corpus petition due to a Hitchcock violation in the penalty phase jury instructions, r
• Singleton v. A.L. Lockhart
  871 F.2d 1395· 8th Cir.· 1989-04-10 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the defendant's conviction was valid, but his death sentence should be reinstated, finding no constitutional error in jury selection or ineffective assistance of counsel, and that the prior vacating of the sentence was based on an overruled precedent.
• Lombard v. Lynaugh
  868 F.2d 1475· 5th Cir.· 1989-04-06 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a defendant constructively denied effective assistance of appellate counsel falls under the Penson v. Ohio standard, where prejudice is presumed, obviating the need for a Strickland analysis.
• Wycoff v. Crispus NIX
  869 F.2d 1111· 8th Cir.· 1989-03-13 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the petitioner's claims of prosecutorial misconduct and ineffective assistance of counsel did not rise to the level of constitutional violations, and therefore, habeas corpus relief was properly denied.
• Alford v. Rolfs
  867 F.2d 1216· 9th Cir.· 1989-02-09 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the petitioner's claims regarding the habitual criminal finding, right to counsel, and Eighth Amendment challenge to his life sentence lacked merit.
• Dewayne Hulsey v. Sargent
  865 F.2d 954· 8th Cir.· 1989-01-19 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the state court's finding that juror Creamer was properly excused for cause was fairly supported by the record, and the district court erred in vacating the death sentence.
• Archuleta v. Dareld Kerby
  864 F.2d 709· 10th Cir.· 1989-01-03 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the admission of identification testimony from a suggestive show-up procedure did not violate the petitioner's due process rights because the identification was reliable under the totality of the circumstances.
• Hall v. A.L. Lockhart
  863 F.2d 609· 8th Cir.· 1988-12-21 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the habeas petition without an evidentiary hearing, as the record was insufficient to determine deliberate abandonment.
• Hawkins v. Lynaugh
  862 F.2d 487· 5th Cir.· 1988-12-12 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the defendant failed to show substantial evidence that could not be expressed in the jury's deliberateness inquiry, and thus a stay of execution was not warranted.
• Sumpter v. Crispus NIX
  863 F.2d 563· 8th Cir.· 1988-12-07 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the defendant's confession was voluntary and his sentence did not violate double jeopardy principles.
• Fla. Parole & Prob. Comm'n v. Dornau
  534 So. 2d 789· Fla. 1st DCA· 1988-11-18 ·cited 6×
  The Florida Parole and Probation Commission appealed a mandamus order directing it to reinstate Frederick Dornau's presumptive parole release date (PPRD) without regard to a sentencing judge's objection to his release. The appellate court reversed, finding no statutory violation
• Shedelbower v. Estelle
  859 F.2d 727· 9th Cir.· 1988-10-12 ·cited 6×
  The court held that Shedelbower's confession was not obtained in violation of his constitutional rights, as he voluntarily initiated further communication after invoking his right to counsel.
• Fairchild v. A.L. Lockhart
  857 F.2d 1204· 8th Cir.· 1988-09-26 ·cited 6×
  The court affirmed the district court's rejection of the defendant's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and coerced confession.
• Schiselman v. United States Parole Comm'n
  858 F.2d 1232· 7th Cir.· 1988-09-23 ·cited 6×
  The Parole Commission improperly relied on information it had previously disregarded when setting a prisoner's parole date, and therefore, the prisoner is entitled to a new hearing.
• In re Hicks v. Duckworth
  856 F.2d 934· 7th Cir.· 1988-09-09 ·cited 6×
  A district court cannot transfer a habeas corpus action to a district where the action could not have been brought, even if that forum is more convenient.
• Smith v. Duckworth
  856 F.2d 909· 7th Cir.· 1988-09-06 ·cited 6×
  The court held that while the state court's implicit finding of a voluntary Miranda waiver is entitled to deference, a remand is necessary for an evidentiary hearing on the voluntariness of the confession itself due to insufficient record evidence.
• Williams v. Armontrout
  855 F.2d 578· 8th Cir.· 1988-08-29 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court properly dismissed the successive habeas corpus petition under Rule 9(b) because prior petitions were decided on the merits and the ends of justice did not require reaching the merits of the current petition.
• Wright v. A.L. Lockhart
  854 F.2d 309· 8th Cir.· 1988-08-17 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the petitioner's claims were either procedurally barred or without merit, and thus affirmed the denial of his habeas corpus petition.
• Buffalo v. Sunn
  854 F.2d 1158· 9th Cir.· 1988-08-16 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court erred in resolving a factual dispute regarding 'cause' for a procedural default based solely on conflicting affidavits, and therefore, a remand for an evidentiary hearing is required.
• Flowers v. Warden, Conn. Corr. Inst., Somers
  853 F.2d 131· 2d Cir.· 1988-08-04 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the 17-month delay in bringing the defendant to trial, while lengthy and due to institutional dysfunction, did not violate his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial because there was no bad faith, negligence, or tactical maneuvering by the state, and the def
• Lorin Andre v. Guste
  850 F.2d 259· 5th Cir.· 1988-07-28 ·cited 6×
  A petitioner cannot avoid dismissal of a successive habeas petition under Rule 9(b) by simply refiling the same petition after failing to appeal the dismissal of the first petition.
• Escalera v. Coombe
  852 F.2d 45· 2d Cir.· 1988-07-13 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the record was insufficient to determine if the attorney's failure to comply with the alibi notice statute was willful, requiring a remand for an evidentiary hearing under the standards set by Taylor v. Illinois.
• Jackson v. Dugger
  529 So. 2d 1081· Fla.· 1988-06-16 ·cited 6×
  Carl Jackson challenges his death sentence under Hitchcock v. Dugger, arguing the trial court erroneously instructed the jury to consider only statutorily enumerated mitigating circumstances. The Florida Supreme Court finds the Hitchcock error was harmless beyond a reasonable dou
• Gilliard v. Scroggy
  847 F.2d 1141· 5th Cir.· 1988-06-14 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the prisoner's guilty plea was knowing and voluntary, his counsel was not ineffective, and the prosecutor's remarks did not taint the sentencing hearing.
• Thomas v. Dugger
  846 F.2d 669· 11th Cir.· 1988-06-07 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court erred in limiting the scope of the remand to only laches and early parole, and that the plea discrepancy issue was not properly adjudicated below.
• Cook v. Norm Maleng
  847 F.2d 616· 9th Cir.· 1988-06-02 ·cited 6×
  A prisoner is considered 'in custody' for habeas corpus purposes to challenge a prior conviction if that conviction was used to enhance a current or future sentence, even if the sentence for the prior conviction has expired.
• Kramer v. Butler
  845 F.2d 1291· 5th Cir.· 1988-05-26 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the petitioner did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel and the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a motion to dismiss without prejudice.
• Scott v. Dugger
  686 F. Supp. 1488· S.D. Fla.· 1988-05-26 ·cited 6×
  The court denied the petition for writ of habeas corpus, finding no basis for federal relief and lifting the stay of execution.
• Haymon v. Higgins
  846 F.2d 1145· 8th Cir.· 1988-05-12 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction for carrying a concealed weapon, reversing the grant of habeas corpus.
• Alphonso McBRIDE v. State
  524 So. 2d 1113· Fla. 4th DCA· 1988-05-11 ·cited 6×
  McBride appealed the trial court's denial of his motion for post-conviction relief, arguing the court erred by denying it based on the two-year filing deadline. Although the appellate court agreed the trial court used the wrong reason for denial, it affirmed the denial because th
• Brown v. Lynaugh
  843 F.2d 849· 5th Cir.· 1988-05-02 ·cited 6×
  The court held that allowing the presiding trial judge to testify as a witness for the state violated the defendant's due process right to a fundamentally fair trial.
• Cooper v. Scroggy
  845 F.2d 1385· 6th Cir.· 1988-04-26 ·cited 6×
  The court held that Calloway's confession was unconstitutionally admitted, but Cooper's confession was not. However, Cooper's Sixth Amendment rights were violated by the admission of Calloway's confession against him.
• Coleman v. O'Leary
  845 F.2d 696· 7th Cir.· 1988-04-25 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a state prisoner's procedural default in state court, based on waiver or invited error under state law, bars federal habeas review unless the prisoner demonstrates cause and prejudice, or meets the narrow 'actual innocence' exception.
• Johnson v. Chrans
  844 F.2d 482· 7th Cir.· 1988-04-21 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in excluding hearsay evidence because Illinois' interest in applying its evidentiary rules to exclude untrustworthy evidence substantially outweighed the defendant's right to present the statements, and the excluded evidence lacked
• Lowenfield v. Butler
  843 F.2d 183· 5th Cir.· 1988-04-12 ·cited 6×
  The dissenting judge would grant a stay and remand for the district court to make a finding on whether the petitioner is entitled to a hearing on his competence to be executed.
• Bergen McNEELEY v. Arvon Arave
  842 F.2d 230· 9th Cir.· 1988-03-17 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the appellant failed to exhaust state remedies by not petitioning the Idaho Supreme Court for review, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in failing to certify the issue.
• Ward v. A.L. Lockhart
  841 F.2d 844· 8th Cir.· 1988-03-09 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the evidence was insufficient to support the burglary conviction, violating due process, and that the case should be remanded for an evidentiary hearing on claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and improper sentencing.
• Riley Bradford White v. Meachum
  838 F.2d 1137· 10th Cir.· 1988-02-05 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the prisoner must exhaust state remedies by seeking review in the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals before filing a federal habeas corpus petition.
• Holtan v. Black
  838 F.2d 984· 8th Cir.· 1988-02-04 ·cited 6×
  The court vacated the district court's ruling on the unconstitutionality of the death penalty statute as applied, finding the issue not ripe for review, and remanded the case for state court determination of aggravating circumstances.
• Williams v. State
  519 So. 2d 723· Fla. 5th DCA· 1988-02-04 ·cited 6×
• Schneider v. Lynaugh
  835 F.2d 570· 5th Cir.· 1988-01-12 ·cited 6×
  When a defendant introduces testimony concerning his mental state, even from non-psychiatric witnesses, the prosecution may rebut this evidence with testimony from a court-appointed psychiatrist, as the defendant waives his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.
• Valles v. Lynaugh
  835 F.2d 126· 5th Cir.· 1988-01-08 ·cited 6×
  The court affirmed the district court's rejection of the habeas petition, finding no merit in the appellant's contentions.
• Thomerson v. A.L. Lockhart
  835 F.2d 1257· 8th Cir.· 1987-12-30 ·cited 6×
  The dissenting judge holds that the prosecution presented insufficient evidence of premeditation and deliberation to sustain a first-degree murder conviction.
• Errol B. Resnick v. United States Parole Comm'n
  835 F.2d 1297· 10th Cir.· 1987-12-21 ·cited 6×
  The court held that applying the parole statute and guidelines in effect at the time of the parole hearings, rather than at the time of the offenses, did not violate the ex post facto clause or due process rights, as the denial was based on the seriousness of the offenses and had
• United States v. Lane
  834 F.2d 645· 7th Cir.· 1987-11-24 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the petitioner failed to demonstrate ineffective assistance of counsel or other constitutional violations, and therefore, the denial of his habeas corpus petition was affirmed.
• Dick v. Kemp
  833 F.2d 1448· 11th Cir.· 1987-11-24 ·cited 6×
  A jury instruction that unconstitutionally shifted the burden of persuasion on intent was not harmless error because the issue of intent was squarely before the jury and the evidence of intent was not overwhelming.
• Augustus Marshall v. Young
  833 F.2d 709· 7th Cir.· 1987-11-17 ·cited 6×
  The court held that trial counsel's failure to investigate bullet caliber was not ineffective assistance, and the admission of hearsay testimony did not violate the confrontation clause.
• Wells v. Murray
  831 F.2d 468· 4th Cir.· 1987-10-13 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a "reasonable likelihood" of prejudice, not a "strong possibility," is the standard for determining if a defendant is entitled to voir dire when events outside the trial may have biased the jury.