Habeas Corpus

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

• Sawicki v. Johnson
  475 F.2d 183· 6th Cir.· 1973-03-22 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court erred in denying the petition for a writ of habeas corpus without an evidentiary hearing, as the appellant's allegations of inadequate representation and subsequent dismissal of counsel were not given serious consideration.
• Thomas v. Craven
  473 F.2d 1235· 9th Cir.· 1973-03-02 ·cited 6×
  The court held that while the district court erred in its interpretation of 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), this error did not lead to an incorrect result because there were no disputed factual issues.
• United States v. People OF the State OF Ill.
  473 F.2d 1382· 7th Cir.· 1973-02-16 ·cited 6×
  A guilty plea is voluntary and understandingly entered if the defendant is admonished of the maximum possible sentence, even if the judge fails to explain the difference between concurrent and consecutive sentences.
• Fuller v. State
  473 F.2d 1383· 5th Cir.· 1973-02-15 ·cited 6×
  The district court correctly dismissed the habeas petition without prejudice because the petitioner had not exhausted his state remedies.
• Williams v. Wolff
  473 F.2d 1049· 8th Cir.· 1973-02-13 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the denial of discovery motions and the prosecution's failure to disclose a potential witness did not violate the appellant's constitutional rights, as the evidence presented did not demonstrate a denial of due process or a Brady violation.
• Elliott v. Beto
  474 F.2d 856· 5th Cir.· 1973-02-12 ·cited 6×
  The court affirmed the denial of habeas corpus relief, finding no merit to the appellant's claims regarding his confession, lineup, and alleged perjured testimony.
• Palmer v. State
  273 So. 2d 135· Fla. 3d DCA· 1973-02-05 ·cited 6×
  Chester Palmer appeals from the denial of his third post-trial motion for relief from a 1968 robbery conviction under Rule 3.850, and contests a habeas corpus review of his prior appeal from denial of a second such motion. The court affirms both appeals, holding that the grounds
• Moreno v. Nelson
  472 F.2d 570· 9th Cir.· 1973-01-12 ·cited 6×
  The District Court did not abuse its discretion in declining to entertain the habeas petition because the appellant had not exhausted available state remedies.
• Geboy v. Gray
  471 F.2d 575· 7th Cir.· 1973-01-05 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the combined effect of belated counsel appointment and inadequate representation at a juvenile waiver hearing raises a question of fact as to whether the juvenile and his parents knowingly and intelligently waived procedural defects and juvenile court jurisdic
• Hoffa v. United States
  471 F.2d 391· 6th Cir.· 1973-01-03 ·cited 6×
• Goham v. Wolff
  471 F.2d 52· 8th Cir.· 1972-12-20 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the denial of leave to docket original habeas corpus petitions in the Nebraska Supreme Court, without opinion, does not constitute exhaustion of state remedies.
• Dietrich v. Captain G. L. Tarleton
  473 F.2d 177· D.C. Cir.· 1972-11-29 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the Navy's denial of a conscientious objector discharge application, based in part on invalid grounds, must be reconsidered on a record free of legal taint.
• Abner Lynch v. Henderson
  469 F.2d 1081· 5th Cir.· 1972-11-28 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the petitioner's grounds for appeal, including due process violations, double jeopardy, and denial of jury trial, were without merit, and the mootness of one claim rendered the appeal unsuccessful.
• United States ex rel. James L. Wright v. LaVALLEE
  471 F.2d 123· 2d Cir.· 1972-11-22 ·cited 6×
  A statement obtained in violation of Escobedo may be used to impeach a defendant's trial testimony, even if inadmissible in the prosecution's case-in-chief.
• United States v. Wilson
  471 F.2d 1072· D.C. Cir.· 1972-10-20 ·cited 6×
• Enoch Robinson v. Wolff
  468 F.2d 438· 8th Cir.· 1972-10-19 ·cited 6×
  The court affirmed the denial of writs of habeas corpus, finding that the petitioner had not exhausted state remedies for most claims and that the jurisdictional claim was without merit.
• Collins v. Wolff
  467 F.2d 359· 8th Cir.· 1972-10-04 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a package mailed at the highest applicable rate, without being insured, is presumed to be first-class mail and thus protected from postal inspection without a warrant.
• Ignatius J. Broussard, Jr. v. Patton
  466 F.2d 816· 9th Cir.· 1972-09-21 ·cited 6×
• Hollins v. Beto
  467 F.2d 951· 5th Cir.· 1972-09-19 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a prisoner's trial in prison clothing is inherently unfair, but relief requires showing the defendant did not waive the issue by failing to object.
• O'Dell Marshall v. United States
  465 F.2d 966· 9th Cir.· 1972-08-22 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a defendant's release from custody does not moot a § 2255 proceeding initiated while incarcerated, and that an invalid conviction does not taint a valid conviction from the same trial.
• Clifford v. Beto
  464 F.2d 1191· 5th Cir.· 1972-08-17 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the prisoner was not formally paroled because he never signed the parole agreement, and therefore, his incarceration was proper.
• United States ex rel. Gerardo Catena v. Elias
  465 F.2d 765· 3d Cir.· 1972-08-08 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the procedures of the New Jersey State Commission of Investigation comport with due process requirements because the Commission is a purely investigative body, not accusatory or adjudicatory.
• James v. Smith
  465 F.2d 379· 5th Cir.· 1972-08-08 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court's findings of fact were not clearly erroneous and that no evidentiary hearing was required.
• Mays v. Nelson
  464 F.2d 585· 9th Cir.· 1972-07-24 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the failure to provide assistance of counsel during parole revocation proceedings violated due process.
• Williams v. Mo. Dep't of Corr.
  463 F.2d 993· 8th Cir.· 1972-07-21 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the petitioner had not exhausted his state judicial remedies, which is a prerequisite for federal habeas corpus relief.
• Hersel A. Willey v. Ira M. Coiner
  464 F.2d 525· 4th Cir.· 1972-07-19 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the constitutional rights to a free transcript and court-appointed appellate counsel, established in Griffin and Douglas, apply retroactively to a 1954 conviction when a defendant was indigent and denied an appeal.
• Perez v. Turner
  462 F.2d 1056· 10th Cir.· 1972-07-17 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the inmate's confinement in prison, despite sexual assaults, did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment violating the Eighth Amendment, and thus habeas corpus relief was not warranted.
• Lieutenant John A. Strait v. Laird
  464 F.2d 205· 9th Cir.· 1972-07-13 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the appellant's late assertion of conscientious objector beliefs, while a close question, was not sufficient on its own to support a finding of insincerity.
• Conte v. Cardwell
  475 F.2d 698· 6th Cir.· 1972-06-29 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the affidavits were insufficient to support a delayed filing of the motion to reconsider, and the petition to rehear would be denied for untimely filing.
• Dombrowski v. Cady
  471 F.2d 280· 7th Cir.· 1972-06-02 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the warrantless search of the Ford's trunk was unreasonable and that evidence seized from it tainted the conviction, requiring reversal of the habeas denial.
• Dirring v. Commonwealth OF Mass.
  459 F.2d 953· 1st Cir.· 1972-05-26 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the petitioner has not exhausted state remedies regarding his claim of denied compulsory process, and the petition should be dismissed without prejudice on that ground.
• LeDENT v. Wolff
  460 F.2d 1001· 8th Cir.· 1972-05-19 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a federal court should not rule on a habeas corpus petition raising a Fourth Amendment search warrant issue until the petitioner has fully exhausted state remedies for claims regarding the truthfulness of the affidavit supporting the warrant.
• Padilla v. Hon. Harold J. Ackerman
  460 F.2d 477· 9th Cir.· 1972-05-05 ·cited 6×
  The court held that federal courts should not enjoin pending state criminal proceedings absent special circumstances, even in civil rights actions, and that declaratory relief is subject to the same standard.
• Grantham v. Louie L. Wainwright
  261 So. 2d 508· Fla. 2d DCA· 1972-05-03 ·cited 6×
• Elliott Charles Ricehill v. Lou V. Brewer
  459 F.2d 537· 8th Cir.· 1972-05-02 ·cited 6×
• Kemp v. Major General Bradley
  457 F.2d 627· 8th Cir.· 1972-04-04 ·cited 6×
  The Army's denial of a conscientious objector discharge based on a "depth of conviction" standard, rather than sincerity, was unlawful.
• Wedding v. Wingo
  456 F.2d 245· 6th Cir.· 1972-03-16 ·cited 6×
  The federal court held that the petition for writ of habeas corpus presented factual issues requiring an evidentiary hearing.
• Smith v. United States
  456 F.2d 121· 3d Cir.· 1972-03-14 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the jury instructions and the court's comments on appellate review did not constitute reversible error, and the failure to object to the jury array did not deprive the petitioner of effective assistance of counsel.
• Brinks v. State OF Ala. & W. S. Furlow
  465 F.2d 446· 5th Cir.· 1972-03-01 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the evidence presented met the standard for reasonable doubt of the accused's sanity, and the trial court erred in denying the statutory sanity inquiry.
• Glass v. Heyd
  457 F.2d 562· 5th Cir.· 1972-02-07 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the refusal to reveal names was unjustified, and the finding of contempt was correct.
• Young v. State OF Md.
  455 F.2d 679· 4th Cir.· 1972-02-07 ·cited 6×
  The admission of the trenchcoat, even if illegally seized, was harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt because the defendant admitted the act of intercourse and wearing the coat, and the coat's stains did not prejudice his defense.
• Grene v. Britton
  455 F.2d 473· 5th Cir.· 1972-01-26 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the prisoner's petition sufficiently alleged facts that, if proven, would entitle him to relief regarding denial of access to the courts.
• Erving v. Sigler
  453 F.2d 843· 8th Cir.· 1972-01-14 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the state trial judge's ruling overruling an objection to a confession did not constitute a reliable determination of voluntariness as required by Jackson v. Denno.
• Edwards v. Swenson
  454 F.2d 1106· 8th Cir.· 1972-01-14 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the confession was voluntarily given and admissible, and that the arrest, even if illegal, did not taint the confession or render the trial unfair.
• Ottis Mayo Jones v. United States
  453 F.2d 351· 5th Cir.· 1972-01-07 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the various motions and that the rulings were without error.
• United States ex rel. George E. Davis v. Yeager
  453 F.2d 1001· 3d Cir.· 1971-12-30 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the state court records were inadequate to justify the District Court's denial of the petition without an evidentiary hearing, requiring a remand.
• Jones v. Cupp
  452 F.2d 1091· 9th Cir.· 1971-12-29 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a guilty plea is valid even if induced by a prior coerced confession, provided the plea itself was voluntary and intelligently entered with competent counsel. It also held that the prospective application of a reduced criminal penalty does not violate equal pr
• Eisen v. Picard
  452 F.2d 860· 1st Cir.· 1971-12-14 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the trial court's failure to properly consider the defendant's insanity in determining the voluntariness of his confessions requires reversal.
• Cassasa v. Nelson
  452 F.2d 1083· 9th Cir.· 1971-12-10 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the introduction of evidence of uncharged offenses, even if potentially improper under state law, did not rise to the level of a constitutional violation cognizable by a federal court.
• Childs v. Cardwell
  452 F.2d 541· 6th Cir.· 1971-12-10 ·cited 6×
  The Sixth Circuit held that the admission of hearsay testimony, even if erroneous, was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given the overwhelming eyewitness identification and the defendant's failure to object at trial.