Habeas Corpus

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

• Baker v. W.J. Estelle, Jr.
  715 F.2d 1031· 5th Cir.· 1983-09-30 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a district court must provide a habeas petitioner an opportunity to justify delay in raising claims, and that a conviction based on a guilty plea without corroborating evidence under Texas law does not present a federal constitutional issue cognizable in habea
• King v. Ponte
  717 F.2d 635· 1st Cir.· 1983-09-14 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the undisclosed exculpatory evidence, even if considered, would not have affected the outcome of the trial, and thus affirmed the denial of the habeas corpus petition.
• Browne v. W.J. Estelle, Jr.
  712 F.2d 1003· 5th Cir.· 1983-08-26 ·cited 6×
  The court held that improperly sentencing a defendant under a mandatory statute, thereby depriving him of the discretion afforded by state law, violates due process and is cognizable in federal habeas corpus.
• Terry v. Duckworth
  715 F.2d 1217· 7th Cir.· 1983-08-25 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the petitioner's thirty-two month delay between charge and arrest did not violate his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial.
• Marks v. Rees
  715 F.2d 372· 7th Cir.· 1983-08-24 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a federal district court in Indiana lacked jurisdiction to hear a habeas petition challenging a prior Indiana conviction, as the petitioner was in custody in Kentucky and Indiana had no interest in his present confinement.
• Green v. W.J. Estelle, Jr.
  712 F.2d 995· 5th Cir.· 1983-08-22 ·cited 6×
  The court held that Texas law in 1981 did not procedurally bar Green's claims due to failure to object, as the relevant constitutional right had not yet been clearly established.
• Morris v. State OF Md.
  715 F.2d 106· 4th Cir.· 1983-08-09 ·cited 6×
  The dissenting judge held that erroneous jury instructions on lesser offenses were cured by the jury's first-degree murder verdict, thus the conviction was not fundamentally unfair.
• Russie v. United States Dep't OF Just.
  708 F.2d 1445· 9th Cir.· 1983-06-23 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the 180-day limitation in 18 U.S.C. § 4164 does not apply to special parole terms, and a mistakenly issued notice of discharge does not estop the Parole Commission from acting on a valid warrant.
• Haar v. Hanrahan
  708 F.2d 1547· 10th Cir.· 1983-06-01 ·cited 6×
  A defendant is entitled to a jury trial for multiple petty offenses arising from the same transaction only if they are actually threatened at the commencement of trial with an aggregate potential penalty of greater than six months imprisonment.
• Prado McGEE, Jr. v. W.J. Estelle, Jr.
  704 F.2d 764· 5th Cir.· 1983-05-09 ·cited 6×
• Stumbo v. Seabold
  704 F.2d 910· 6th Cir.· 1983-04-13 ·cited 6×
  The court held that egregious prosecutorial misconduct, particularly when evidence of guilt is weak, deprives a defendant of a fundamentally fair trial and due process of law.
• Pool v. Wyrick
  703 F.2d 1064· 8th Cir.· 1983-04-06 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a significant delay in state post-conviction proceedings may justify waiving the exhaustion requirement for federal habeas corpus relief and that a § 1983 claim based on such delay becomes ripe when the state proceedings are resolved or a specific timeframe ex
• Jones v. W.J. Estelle, Jr.
  699 F.2d 793· 5th Cir.· 1983-03-11 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court's finding of abuse of the writ was not supported by the evidence and must be reversed.
• Williams v. Louie L. Wainwright
  428 So. 2d 725· Fla. 1st DCA· 1983-03-09 ·cited 6×
• Wassall v. Honorable Judge J. Brendon Ryan
  705 F.2d 970· 8th Cir.· 1983-02-28 ·cited 6×
  Reprosecution is not barred by the Double Jeopardy Clause when the prosecutor's conduct, even if leading to a mistrial, was not intended to provoke the defendant into moving for a mistrial.
• Zelenka v. Israel
  699 F.2d 421· 7th Cir.· 1983-02-09 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a federal habeas petition must be dismissed if it contains any unexhausted claims, even if other claims are exhausted.
• Barefoot v. W.J. Estelle, Jr.
  697 F.2d 593· 5th Cir.· 1983-01-20 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the admission of psychiatric testimony on future dangerousness was not a constitutional violation, and the state court had jurisdiction to resentence. Therefore, the motion to stay execution was denied.
• Hiram B. Bailey v. Oliver
  695 F.2d 1323· 11th Cir.· 1983-01-17 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the petitioner's third habeas corpus petition was properly denied as successive, because the grounds were previously adjudicated after an evidentiary hearing and the ends of justice did not require further consideration.
• Williams v. Maggio
  695 F.2d 119· 5th Cir.· 1983-01-10 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and that the defendant received effective assistance of counsel.
• Williams v. Bordenkircher
  696 F.2d 464· 6th Cir.· 1983-01-03 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the trial court did not err by failing to sua sponte hold an evidentiary hearing on the appellant's competency to plead guilty, as the appellant's remarks did not create substantial doubt.
• Uptain v. United States
  692 F.2d 8· 5th Cir.· 1982-11-22 ·cited 6×
  The court held that an attorney serving as the prosecution's chief witness and then continuing to represent the defendant constitutes ineffective assistance of counsel, violating the Sixth Amendment.
• Hammer v. Meachum
  691 F.2d 958· 10th Cir.· 1982-10-27 ·cited 6×
  A state prisoner's knowing and informed bypass of state procedures, including failure to appeal, precludes federal habeas corpus relief.
• Towndrow v. Henderson
  692 F.2d 262· 2d Cir.· 1982-10-26 ·cited 6×
  The court affirmed the dismissal of the habeas corpus petition, finding that the claims raised were either unexhausted or forfeited due to failure to present them on direct appeal.
• United States ex rel. Theodore Ross v. Franzen
  688 F.2d 1181· 7th Cir.· 1982-09-24 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the trial court's failure to submit a straight 'not guilty' verdict form to the jury violated the defendant's Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to have a jury determine guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
• Rupert Ray Dixon v. Dupnik
  688 F.2d 682· 9th Cir.· 1982-09-23 ·cited 6×
  The court held that prosecuting an individual under Arizona Revised Statutes section 13-3970 for committing a felony while released on recognizance, after conviction for the underlying felony, violates the Double Jeopardy Clause because the conviction subsumes the elements of the
• Hernandez v. United States Attorney General
  689 F.2d 915· 10th Cir.· 1982-09-22 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a federal prisoner not in the custody of the Attorney General cannot compel the Bureau of Prisons to contract for treatment services under the Federal Youth Corrections Act.
• Jensen v. Satran
  688 F.2d 76· 8th Cir.· 1982-09-20 ·cited 6×
  The court affirmed the dismissal of the habeas corpus petition, finding no material issue of fact and that the prison disciplinary procedures were not constitutionally infirm.
• Smith v. Anderson
  689 F.2d 59· 6th Cir.· 1982-09-13 ·cited 6×
  The court held that requiring joint representation over a timely objection based on conflicting interests, without adequate inquiry, violates the Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel.
• United States v. Fraser
  688 F.2d 56· 8th Cir.· 1982-09-09 ·cited 6×
  The court held that it lacked jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to address the Parole Commission's records, but suggested the Commission correct any errors.
• Hanahan v. Luther
  693 F.2d 629· 7th Cir.· 1982-08-27 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court correctly applied the rational basis standard of review for parole revocation decisions and that any procedural errors were harmless.
• Michael v. Costello
  418 So. 2d 443· Fla. 1st DCA· 1982-08-25 ·cited 6×
  Costello, a prisoner in Close Management I (CM-1) confinement, sought habeas corpus relief, alleging improper placement without a hearing. The appellate court vacated the trial court's dismissal and remanded, finding that Costello stated a preliminary basis for relief that was no
• Gentry v. Ellis C. MacDOUGALL
  685 F.2d 322· 9th Cir.· 1982-08-24 ·cited 6×
  The court held that Arizona law authorized consecutive sentences for multiple deaths from a single act of drunk driving, and the Double Jeopardy Clause does not prohibit such legislative authorization.
• Lewis v. Boone
  418 So. 2d 319· Fla. 1st DCA· 1982-07-29 ·cited 6×
  Donald Lewis challenged his detention for 32 days under Florida's Uniform Interstate Extradition Act, arguing that failure to serve him with a governor's warrant or recommit him within 30 days violated the statute and entitled him to habeas corpus relief. The Florida District Cou
• United States v. Green
  680 F.2d 183· D.C. Cir.· 1982-05-21 ·cited 6×
  The court denied the petition for rehearing and the suggestion for rehearing en banc.
• Gov't of the Virgin Islands v. Leycock
  678 F.2d 467· 3d Cir.· 1982-05-20 ·cited 6×
  The court held that while the defendant presented a case for bail pending appeal, the district court should first hold an evidentiary hearing to develop a full record, as the defendant bears the burden of proving no flight risk or danger.
• Houston v. Housewright
  678 F.2d 757· 8th Cir.· 1982-05-20 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the appellant's failure to file a timely appeal was due to his own inaction, not ineffective assistance of counsel, and affirmed the denial of his habeas corpus petition.
• United States ex rel. John Kirk v. Dir., Dep't OF Corr., State OF Ill.
  678 F.2d 723· 7th Cir.· 1982-05-19 ·cited 6×
  The rule forbidding trial judges from inquiring as to the jury's numerical division, established in Brasfield v. United States, is an exercise of the Supreme Court's supervisory jurisdiction over federal courts and is not binding on the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.
• Elbert James Hinkle v. Scurr
  677 F.2d 667· 8th Cir.· 1982-05-12 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the appellant's claims regarding inadequate psychiatric examination, ineffective assistance of counsel, and an improper jury instruction on voluntary intoxication did not warrant habeas corpus relief.
• United States ex rel. David G. Stevens v. The Cir. Court OF Milwaukee Cnty.
  675 F.2d 946· 7th Cir.· 1982-04-20 ·cited 6×
  A federal court should not grant pretrial habeas corpus relief to enjoin a state criminal trial on double jeopardy grounds when the defendant has not yet undergone a trial, even if a prior guilty plea was entered.
• Jackson v. Estelle
  672 F.2d 505· 5th Cir.· 1982-04-08 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the state appellate court's finding of no prejudice from the denial of a mistrial transcript was presumed correct under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), and the appellant failed to overcome this presumption.
• Wade v. Lockhart
  674 F.2d 721· 8th Cir.· 1982-03-31 ·cited 6×
  The court held that while the exhaustion requirement for state remedies is not excused, the district court should not have dismissed the petition due to the significant and unexplained delay in state court proceedings.
• Theodis Maxwell v. Mabry
  672 F.2d 683· 8th Cir.· 1982-03-16 ·cited 6×
  The court affirmed the district court's denial of relief, holding that the appellant's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and Fourth Amendment violations were properly rejected.
• Ford v. Parratt
  673 F.2d 232· 8th Cir.· 1982-03-15 ·cited 6×
  The dissenting judge would affirm the district court's denial of habeas corpus relief, finding no demonstrated prejudice from counsel's alleged failure to investigate a rumor.
• Beryl Eaton v. Holbrook
  671 F.2d 670· 1st Cir.· 1982-03-05 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court improperly exercised its discretion in granting bail pending habeas corpus review because the appellee had not clearly demonstrated exhaustion of state remedies for her federal constitutional claim.
• Lagasse v. Vestal
  671 F.2d 668· 1st Cir.· 1982-03-01 ·cited 6×
  The exclusion of evidence of the decedent's violent conduct, which the appellant did not know about, did not violate his constitutional right to a fair trial.
• Arias v. Rogers
  676 F.2d 1139· 7th Cir.· 1982-02-11 ·cited 6×
  Once deportation proceedings have commenced with reasonable promptness after an arrest, the legality of an alien's detention can no longer be tested via a habeas corpus proceeding.
• Turoso v. The Cleveland Mun. Court
  674 F.2d 486· 6th Cir.· 1982-02-04 ·cited 6×
  The dissenting judge argues that the majority's attempt to save the Ohio obscenity statute by reinterpreting it is unconstitutional and violates the First Amendment.
• Dobbert v. Strickland
  532 F. Supp. 545· M.D. Fla.· 1982-01-30 ·cited 6×
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support a finding of premeditation for first-degree murder and that the admission of marital and collateral crimes evidence did not violate constitutional rights. The sentencing procedures were also found to be constitutional.
• Moore v. Wyrick
  668 F.2d 1007· 8th Cir.· 1982-01-27 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the habeas corpus petition for failure to exhaust state remedies without determining if the claim was previously considered or if further exhaustion would be futile.
• Cruz v. Alexander
  669 F.2d 872· 2d Cir.· 1982-01-22 ·cited 6×
  The court held that 18 U.S.C. § 3504 does not apply to state prosecutors and that the state's denial of wiretapping was adequate. Therefore, the district court erred in vacating the conviction.