Habeas Corpus

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

• Davis v. State
  905 So. 2d 905· Fla. 3d DCA· 2005-04-13 ·cited 5×
  Joseph Davis appealed his convictions for first-degree murder, armed burglary with assault, unlawful possession of a firearm while engaged in a criminal offense, and stalking, claiming the trial court committed a Batson violation by allowing the State to peremptorily strike Afric
• T.B. v. State
  897 So. 2d 530· Fla. 4th DCA· 2005-03-02 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the trial court erred in assessing an additional point for aggravation based on prior criminal history when points for prior history were already accounted for.
• Reyes v. McCRAY
  879 So. 2d 1269· Fla. 3d DCA· 2004-08-11 ·cited 5×
  Richard Reyes petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus after a trial court ordered him to submit to a drug test at his arraignment without legal authorization, and then revoked his bail when the test was positive. The appellate court granted the petition, holding that the court lac
• Knox v. State
  873 So. 2d 1250· Fla. 5th DCA· 2004-05-28 ·cited 5×
  The court held that relitigation of the ex post facto claim regarding forfeiture of gain time is barred by collateral estoppel because the issue was previously adjudicated and the appellant waived any such claim by accepting the benefits of control release.
• Marcel S. Smith v. Crosby
  872 So. 2d 279· Fla. 4th DCA· 2004-03-24 ·cited 5×
  Marcel Smith petitioned for habeas corpus alleging his appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to argue that his attempted burglary conviction should be reversed under Delgado v. State. The court granted the petition, finding that appellate counsel's failure to raise a Delg
• Calixtro v. McCRAY
  858 So. 2d 1079· Fla. 3d DCA· 2003-09-24 ·cited 5×
  Rogelio Calixtro petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus challenging the modification of his pretrial release conditions, arguing his original bond terms should be reinstated. The Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's decision to increase his bond from $7,500
• Weldon v. State
  831 So. 2d 1252· Fla. 5th DCA· 2002-12-13 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the lower court should have allowed the inmate time to file a reply to the Commission's response before reconsidering the matter.
• Gibson v. Fla. Dep't OF Corr.
  828 So. 2d 422· Fla. 1st DCA· 2002-10-09 ·cited 5×
  The Court should ask whether a prisoner's lawful sentence removed a right enjoyed by free persons, rather than abstractly whether a right survives incarceration.
• Homerding v. Jenne
  804 So. 2d 349· Fla. 4th DCA· 2001-08-03 ·cited 5×
  Homerding sought habeas corpus review of an order increasing his pretrial detention bond following withdrawal of his guilty plea in a DUI manslaughter case. The Fourth District Court of Appeal granted the petition and remanded, holding that the State failed to demonstrate new inf
• Saucer v. State
  779 So. 2d 261· Fla.· 2001-01-25 ·cited 5×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that gain-time forfeiture sanctions under section 944.28(2)(a) cannot be applied in criminal or collateral criminal proceedings, including habeas corpus petitions challenging underlying convictions or sentences. The court clarified that the subject
• Brackett v. State
  773 So. 2d 564· Fla. 4th DCA· 2000-09-22 ·cited 5×
  Petitioner Brackett challenged the denial of bail in a capital sexual abuse case. The court held that while the state may rely on affidavits to establish probable cause, the trial court must still allow the defendant to present witness testimony addressing discretionary bail fact
• Tellis v. State
  779 So. 2d 352· Fla. 2d DCA· 2000-03-22 ·cited 5×
  Willie Howard Tellis petitioned for habeas corpus after his pretrial release was revoked when he failed to appear at arraignment, arguing that Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.160 mandated waiver of arraignment upon filing a written plea of not guilty. The court held that whi
• Williams v. Fla. Parole Comm'n
  760 So. 2d 959· Fla. 1st DCA· 2000-02-16 ·cited 5×
• Martin v. Jenne
  745 So. 2d 412· Fla. 4th DCA· 1999-10-27 ·cited 5×
  Brandon Martin sought habeas corpus relief from a $50,000 bond set pending retrial on a burglary charge after his conviction was reversed. The court granted the petition, finding the bond excessive because the trial court failed to hold an evidentiary hearing on Martin's financia
• Lachandra Winters v. Jenne
  765 So. 2d 54· Fla. 4th DCA· 1999-06-11 ·cited 5×
• Pedroza v. Tadlock
  705 So. 2d 1005· Fla. 4th DCA· 1998-02-04 ·cited 5×
  Pedro Pedroza, a prison inmate, appealed the denial of his habeas corpus petition challenging the Department of Corrections' determination that his administrative appeal of a disciplinary sanction was untimely filed. The court reversed, holding that Pedroza stated a prima facie c
• Small v. Superintendent Jeff Endicott & Kenosha Cnty. Cir. Court
  998 F.2d 411· 7th Cir.· 1993-06-22 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the district court properly dismissed the habeas corpus petition under Rule 4 because the petitioner failed to state a claim for relief on any of his grounds.
• Cummins v. Cummins
  615 So. 2d 173· Fla. 5th DCA· 1993-02-24 ·cited 5×
  Robert Cummins petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus challenging his 180-day jail sentence for civil contempt of court regarding unpaid child support and alimony arrearages. The Florida District Court of Appeal granted the writ, finding the trial court erroneously determined Cum
• Woods v. Kuhlmann
  977 F.2d 74· 2d Cir.· 1992-10-13 ·cited 5×
  The court held that a temporary, partial closure of a trial to exclude a defendant's family members due to witness safety concerns did not violate the Sixth Amendment right to a public trial.
• Cyrus ZAL v. Steppe
  968 F.2d 924· 9th Cir.· 1992-07-01 ·cited 5×
  Attorneys do not possess independent First Amendment free speech rights within a courtroom; their speech is circumscribed by the client's trial rights and the need to preserve claims for appeal.
• Neal v. Kelly
  963 F.2d 453· D.C. Cir.· 1992-05-19 ·cited 5×
  The court held that a pro se prisoner must receive adequate notice before a court can treat a motion to dismiss as a motion for summary judgment, and that a verified complaint can serve as an affidavit in opposition to summary judgment.
• State v. The Honorable R. Grable Stoutamire
  602 So. 2d 564· Fla. 2d DCA· 1992-05-06 ·cited 5×
  The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services sought to prohibit trial court judges from ordering specific treatment placement for Juanita Weston Maxwell, a mentally ill defendant acquitted by reason of insanity and later convicted of robbery. The court denied the petition
• Merrill E. Fields v. Attorney Gen. OF the State OF Md.
  956 F.2d 1290· 4th Cir.· 1992-02-26 ·cited 5×
  A voluntary and intelligent guilty plea generally bars collateral review of antecedent constitutional claims, and the defendant failed to demonstrate prejudice or an actual conflict of interest for his ineffective assistance of counsel claim.
• Bradford v. Whitley
  953 F.2d 1008· 5th Cir.· 1992-02-21 ·cited 5×
  The court affirmed the denial of habeas corpus, holding that the use of a confession for impeachment purposes after the defendant invoked his right to counsel is permissible, and other claims of error were without merit.
• Asherman v. Meachum
  957 F.2d 978· 2d Cir.· 1992-02-13 ·cited 5×
• ROY v. Dugger
  592 So. 2d 1235· Fla. 1st DCA· 1992-01-31 ·cited 5×
  Robert Roy appealed the trial court's summary denial of his habeas corpus petition challenging the use of 'close management' confinement status at Florida State Prison as cruel and unusual punishment and a denial of due process. The appellate court reversed, finding that under pr
• Burkett v. Fulcomer
  951 F.2d 1431· 3d Cir.· 1991-12-20 ·cited 5×
  The majority found a constitutional violation due to delay in sentencing and appeal, while the dissent disagreed, emphasizing lack of demonstrable prejudice.
• Williams v. Meachum
  948 F.2d 863· 2d Cir.· 1991-11-07 ·cited 5×
  A defendant's waiver of the Sixth Amendment right to conflict-free counsel is valid if it is a knowing and intelligent choice, even if the trial court does not strictly follow model procedures, as long as the defendant understands the risks and consequences.
• Baker v. Kaiser
  929 F.2d 1495· 10th Cir.· 1991-04-08 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the denial of an out-of-time appeal after a violation of the right to counsel deprived the appellant of due process, and reversed the district court's denial of habeas corpus.
• Donovan J.R. Blissett v. Lefevre
  924 F.2d 434· 2d Cir.· 1991-01-22 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the petitioner's claims of a denied fair trial due to inadequate jury instructions on witness immunity, improper introduction of arrest evidence, and denial of defense witness immunity were without merit.
• Smith v. Jones
  923 F.2d 588· 8th Cir.· 1991-01-10 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the petitioner's claims were procedurally barred or without merit, and affirmed the denial of his habeas corpus petition.
• Sizemore v. Fletcher
  921 F.2d 667· 6th Cir.· 1990-12-20 ·cited 5×
  The court held that prosecutorial misconduct during closing arguments, including appeals to class prejudice and denigration of the right to counsel, constituted prejudicial error violating due process, warranting the grant of a writ of habeas corpus.
• Wright v. A.L. Lockhart
  914 F.2d 1093· 8th Cir.· 1990-09-20 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the denial of compulsory process for certain witnesses, the denial of a mistrial after jurors read a newspaper article, and the procedural bar of a competency claim were not grounds for habeas corpus relief.
• Prieto v. Gluch
  913 F.2d 1159· 6th Cir.· 1990-09-11 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the prior litigation barred claims regarding § 1252(a) and jurisdiction, and that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(i) does not create a private cause of action for incarcerated aliens.
• Doyle J. Williams v. Armontrout
  912 F.2d 924· 8th Cir.· 1990-08-15 ·cited 5×
  The dissenting opinion argues that the state trial court's refusal to instruct the jury on first-degree (felony) murder in a capital case violated due process and equal protection. This refusal stemmed from an inconsistent and arbitrary application of Missouri law by the state ap
• Smith v. Puckett
  907 F.2d 581· 5th Cir.· 1990-08-07 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the photographing of the petitioner without counsel was not a critical stage, and showing the photograph to witnesses before trial did not violate due process or render identification testimony unreliable. Furthermore, the petitioner failed to demonstrate inef
• Koch v. Puckett
  907 F.2d 524· 5th Cir.· 1990-08-02 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the petitioner's conclusory allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel, conflict of interest, perjured testimony, and prosecutorial misconduct did not warrant habeas relief or an evidentiary hearing.
• Cruz v. Warden OF Dwight Corr. Ctr. & Neil F. Hartigan
  907 F.2d 665· 7th Cir.· 1990-07-16 ·cited 5×
  The court held that a habeas petitioner must fairly present all factual allegations and legal theories to state courts before seeking federal habeas relief, and that a pending state post-conviction petition constitutes an available and meaningful state remedy.
• Derick Lynn Peterson v. Murray
  904 F.2d 882· 4th Cir.· 1990-05-24 ·cited 5×
  The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of the habeas petition, finding no constitutional error in the petitioner's capital murder conviction and death sentence.
• Gullett v. Armontrout
  894 F.2d 308· 8th Cir.· 1990-01-19 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the habeas corpus petition on successive petition and abuse of the writ grounds.
• Lyonel DOR v. Dist. Dir.
  891 F.2d 997· 2d Cir.· 1989-12-08 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the appellant's continued detention by the INS is legal and that the terms of the court's stay of deportation have been satisfied, allowing for the vacation of the stay.
• Carroll F. Youngblood v. Lynaugh
  882 F.2d 956· 5th Cir.· 1989-09-08 ·cited 5×
• Gore v. Dugger
  763 F. Supp. 1110· M.D. Fla.· 1989-08-17 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the trial court erred by precluding mitigating evidence regarding Petitioner's drug and alcohol abuse and cousin's dominance, violating the Eighth Amendment, and granted a new sentencing hearing on that claim.
• MaDONNA v. United States
  878 F.2d 62· 2d Cir.· 1989-06-20 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the appellant failed to state a claim for fraud on the court and failed to plead fraud with the particularity required by rule.
• Smith v. State
  543 So. 2d 316· Fla. 5th DCA· 1989-05-04 ·cited 5×
  Smith appeals the denial of his Rule 3.850 motion for post-conviction relief, in which he claimed ineffective assistance of appellate counsel for failing to raise five issues on direct appeal of his cocaine trafficking conviction. The court affirmed the trial court's denial, hold
• Philippe Serge Langelier v. Gerry Coleman
  861 F.2d 1508· 11th Cir.· 1988-12-20 ·cited 5×
  The court held that a driver does not have a constitutional right to consult with an attorney before deciding whether to submit to a blood alcohol test under Florida's implied consent law.
• Fassler v. United States
  858 F.2d 1016· 5th Cir.· 1988-10-27 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the appellant's request for release from pretrial confinement was moot due to his subsequent conviction and legal detention.
• OEN Yin-Choy v. Robinson
  858 F.2d 1400· 9th Cir.· 1988-10-05 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the extradition treaty does not bar extradition due to Hong Kong's reversion to China, and that the evidence presented was sufficient to establish probable cause for the charges.
• Berryhill v. Zant
  858 F.2d 633· 11th Cir.· 1988-09-29 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the trial court's voir dire procedure was constitutionally inadequate to unearth prejudice given the significant possibility of prejudice from pretrial publicity.
• Francois v. Murray Henderson
  850 F.2d 231· 5th Cir.· 1988-07-26 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the state trial judge's denial of release was not supported by the record and that the patient was not mentally ill or dangerous under Louisiana law, thus requiring deinstitutionalization. The court also noted that recent changes in Louisiana law may violate t