Habeas Corpus

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

• Drew v. Collins
  964 F.2d 411· 5th Cir.· 1992-06-18 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the jury's consideration of parole eligibility did not prejudice the defendant, the dismissal of prospective jurors was proper, prosecutorial misconduct did not infect the trial with unfairness, the Texas capital sentencing statute allowed for consideration of
• Ira David Lustgarden v. Gunter
  966 F.2d 552· 10th Cir.· 1992-06-01 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the petitioner is not entitled to mandatory parole because Colorado sex offender parole statutes, as interpreted by Colorado courts, grant discretionary parole, and this interpretation was foreseeable, thus not violating due process.
• Adams v. Aiken
  965 F.2d 1306· 4th Cir.· 1992-05-19 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the jury instructions on reasonable doubt announced a new rule not retroactively applicable to this habeas corpus case, and that the defendant was competent throughout his trial. The court also found that the confession was admissible and that no Brady violati
• Allen v. Denis D. Dowd and William L. Webster
  964 F.2d 745· 8th Cir.· 1992-05-13 ·cited 4×
  A habeas petitioner is not 'in custody' under a conviction if the sentence has expired at the time the petition is filed, unless the petition specifically challenges a current sentence enhanced by the prior conviction.
• Flowers v. Ill. Dep't of Corr.
  962 F.2d 703· 7th Cir.· 1992-05-07 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the jury instructions violated due process and were not harmless error, entitling the petitioner to habeas relief, but that the double jeopardy claim failed due to jury confusion.
• MAY v. Collins
  961 F.2d 74· 5th Cir.· 1992-05-06 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the trial judge's televised remarks did not demonstrate inadequate state court factfinding procedures or warrant relief under Rule 60(b).
• Pittman v. Warden, Pontiac Corr. Ctr.
  960 F.2d 688· 7th Cir.· 1992-04-06 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the petitioner's trial counsel's strategic decisions regarding a motion to suppress identification testimony were within the range of competent professional assistance, and thus not constitutionally ineffective.
• Harmon v. Ryan
  959 F.2d 1457· 9th Cir.· 1992-03-26 ·cited 4×
  A state prisoner's failure to seek direct review in the state's highest court is excused if prior state court rulings created confusion or uncertainty about the necessity of such review, thus not barring federal habeas relief.
• Knox v. The State OF Wyo.
  959 F.2d 866· 10th Cir.· 1992-03-20 ·cited 4×
  The court held that an application for a certificate of probable cause, filed timely, can serve as a notice of appeal, but the appeal is dismissed for failure to exhaust state remedies.
• Kennedy v. Delo
  959 F.2d 112· 8th Cir.· 1992-03-19 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the petitioner procedurally defaulted on most claims and that the remaining claim regarding the jury instruction did not constitute a miscarriage of justice.
• Parks v. Reynolds
  958 F.2d 989· 10th Cir.· 1992-03-09 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the appellant's habeas corpus petition was successive and abusive, and therefore dismissed it, denying the request for a stay of execution.
• Grady v. Crabtree
  958 F.2d 874· 9th Cir.· 1992-03-05 ·cited 4×
  A federal prisoner released to a community treatment center under conditions of confinement is considered in custody and entitled to credit toward their sentence for that time.
• Clark v. Collins
  956 F.2d 68· 5th Cir.· 1992-02-27 ·cited 4×
  The court denied the defendant's request for a stay of execution and a certificate of probable cause to appeal, finding he failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a federal right or a substantial case on the merits.
• Ventura v. Meachum
  957 F.2d 1048· 2d Cir.· 1992-02-26 ·cited 4×
  The district court erred by failing to defer to state court findings of fact regarding the effect of the Yamin letter on the petitioner's guilty plea.
• Kerr v. Caspari
  956 F.2d 788· 8th Cir.· 1992-02-07 ·cited 4×
  The court affirmed the denial of the habeas corpus petition, finding no due process violation from the admission of prior bad acts evidence and no constitutional insufficiency of evidence.
• Adamson v. Lewis
  955 F.2d 614· 9th Cir.· 1992-01-30 ·cited 4×
  The dissenting judge argues that exceptional circumstances justify recalling the court's mandate to reconsider a prior en banc decision that incorrectly vacated a death sentence.
• MacDOUGALL v. McCAUGHTRY
  951 F.2d 822· 7th Cir.· 1992-01-10 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the petitioner failed to establish prejudice from his trial counsel's failure to present psychiatric testimony, as required for an ineffective assistance of counsel claim.
• Bachman v. Leapley
  953 F.2d 440· 8th Cir.· 1992-01-09 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the admission of expert testimony regarding the credibility of child victims' statements in a rape case did not violate federal constitutional principles.
• Jones v. Armontrout
  953 F.2d 404· 8th Cir.· 1992-01-08 ·cited 4×
  A state prisoner is not entitled to federal habeas corpus relief based solely on a state court's alleged misinterpretation of state law, and there is no constitutional right to state-appointed counsel to monitor for future legislative changes that might reduce a sentence.
• McMULLEN v. United States
  953 F.2d 761· 2d Cir.· 1992-01-07 ·cited 4×
  The Supplementary Extradition Treaty is not a bill of attainder because it does not impose punishment without a judicial trial.
• Washington v. Murray
  952 F.2d 1472· 4th Cir.· 1991-12-19 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel regarding the failure to use exculpatory forensic evidence without an evidentiary hearing, and remanded that claim for further proceedings. Other claims of ineffective assistan
• Bellamy v. Cogdell
  952 F.2d 626· 2d Cir.· 1991-12-18 ·cited 4×
  The per se rule for Sixth Amendment right to counsel violations does not apply when the attorney was duly licensed at the time of trial and was mentally competent, despite pending disciplinary proceedings or prior statements of incapacity.
• Carey Dean Moore v. Clarke
  951 F.2d 895· 8th Cir.· 1991-12-12 ·cited 4×
  The court denied rehearing, with a dissenting judge arguing the Nebraska Supreme Court provided sufficient guidance to prevent arbitrary imposition of the death penalty.
• Grubbs v. Delo
  948 F.2d 1459· 8th Cir.· 1991-11-08 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the state failed to present sufficient evidence to support two aggravating circumstances found by the jury, which were necessary for the imposition of the death penalty.
• Wealot v. Armontrout
  948 F.2d 497· 8th Cir.· 1991-11-08 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the limitation of cross-examination designed to show a witness's motive for fabrication violated the defendant's Sixth Amendment right of confrontation, and this violation was not harmless error.
• Contella v. Contella
  589 So. 2d 325· Fla. 5th DCA· 1991-10-17 ·cited 4×
  Leonard Contella appeals from an order altering the date of his contempt commitment. The Florida appellate court affirms the commitment order, rejecting Contella's due process challenges and holding that the contempt proceeding was for indirect criminal contempt not requiring pur
• Moore v. Deputy Commissioner(S) OF Scihuntingdon
  946 F.2d 236· 3d Cir.· 1991-10-08 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court erred in granting a writ of habeas corpus, finding that the evidence was constitutionally sufficient to support the conviction and that trial counsel was not ineffective.
• D.S.A. v. Cir. Court Branch 1
  942 F.2d 1143· 7th Cir.· 1991-09-05 ·cited 4×
  The case is moot because the adjudication imposes no legal disabilities and there is no reasonable expectation of future legal dispute between the parties.
• Doherty v. Thornburgh
  943 F.2d 204· 2d Cir.· 1991-08-27 ·cited 4×
  The dissenting judge would reverse the district court's judgment and remand for bail to be set, arguing that indefinite confinement violates due process.
• Vincent v. Al Parke
  942 F.2d 989· 6th Cir.· 1991-08-23 ·cited 4×
  The admission of a co-defendant's out-of-court statement implicating the defendant violated the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause and was not harmless error.
• Pettaway v. Plummer
  943 F.2d 1041· 9th Cir.· 1991-08-23 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the Double Jeopardy Clause, through collateral estoppel, bars the State from retrying Pettaway on the theory that he personally shot the victim, because a prior jury necessarily determined this issue adversely to the prosecution.
• Stamper v. Muncie
  944 F.2d 170· 4th Cir.· 1991-08-19 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the circumstantial evidence was sufficient to support a rational trier of fact's finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and that trial counsel's actions regarding jury selection and responses to juror questions did not constitute ineffective assistance of
• Elbert Blango v. Thornburgh
  942 F.2d 1487· 10th Cir.· 1991-08-16 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the petitioner's transfer to a federal penitentiary was statutorily and constitutionally valid, and the district court did not err in denying his habeas corpus petition.
• Alvarez-Mendez v. Stock
  941 F.2d 956· 9th Cir.· 1991-08-12 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the Immigration Act of 1990 provides statutory authority for the Attorney General to detain aliens convicted of aggravated felonies who are subject to final orders of exclusion, and that such detention does not violate due process or international law.
• Early X. Johnson v. A.L. Lockhart
  944 F.2d 388· 8th Cir.· 1991-08-12 ·cited 4×
  A state prisoner's procedural default of federal claims in state court bars federal habeas review unless the prisoner demonstrates cause and prejudice, or a fundamental miscarriage of justice. Ineffective assistance of post-conviction counsel does not constitute cause.
• Cortinas v. United States Parole Comm'n
  938 F.2d 43· 5th Cir.· 1991-08-09 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the Parole Commission had the authority to revoke parole and forfeit street time, and that Cortinas's claims of unreasonable delay, ex post facto violation, and double jeopardy were without merit.
• Mahoney v. Vondergritt
  938 F.2d 1490· 1st Cir.· 1991-07-24 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the trial judge did not err in conducting a private interview with a juror without defense counsel present, nor in summarily dismissing the habeas corpus petition.
• Richards v. Bellmon
  941 F.2d 1015· 10th Cir.· 1991-07-19 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the complaint and that the case should be remanded for further proceedings consistent with supervening authority.
• Spaziano v. Dugger
  584 So. 2d 1· Fla.· 1991-07-03 ·cited 4×
  Joseph Robert Spaziano petitions for habeas corpus relief, arguing that the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Parker v. Dugger requires the Florida Supreme Court to reconsider his death sentence, which was imposed by the trial judge despite a jury recommendation for life imprisonm
• Greyson v. Kellam
  937 F.2d 1409· 9th Cir.· 1991-07-01 ·cited 4×
  The court held that even if the rule barring retrial for prosecutorial misconduct intended to provoke a mistrial could apply when the mistrial motion was denied, this case did not require such an extension because the state court found no evidence of prosecutorial intent to provo
• Chandler v. Richards
  935 F.2d 915· 7th Cir.· 1991-07-01 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court correctly applied the presumption of correctness under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) to state court findings of fact when reviewing a habeas petition for insufficient evidence, and that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction.
• Mathis v. Hood
  937 F.2d 790· 2d Cir.· 1991-06-28 ·cited 4×
  The court affirmed the district court's grant of habeas relief, finding that the petitioner's appellate counsel had an actual conflict of interest that constituted a per se violation of the Sixth Amendment, making a showing of prejudice unnecessary.
• van Poyck v. Dugger
  582 So. 2d 108· Fla. 1st DCA· 1991-06-28 ·cited 4×
  A death row inmate challenged the summary denial of his habeas corpus petition challenging his confinement in a high-security lockdown cell rather than regular death row. The court found his allegations sufficiently facially plausible to warrant an evidentiary hearing rather than
• Kingsley v. Bureau OF Prisons
  937 F.2d 26· 2d Cir.· 1991-06-24 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the inmate was denied his right to call witnesses at his disciplinary hearing, entitling him to relief on his habeas corpus petition. However, the court affirmed the dismissal of the Bivens claim, finding the alleged cruel and unusual punishment did not meet t
• Ramer v. Dareld Kerby
  936 F.2d 1102· 10th Cir.· 1991-06-18 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a prisoner's due process rights were not violated by a prison's policy on calling witnesses when the prisoner refused to follow the policy's procedure for submitting written questions, thereby waiving the right to present witness testimony.
• Eckert v. Tansy
  936 F.2d 444· 9th Cir.· 1991-06-17 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the exclusion of alibi testimony did not violate the defendant's Sixth Amendment rights, his counsel's performance was not ineffective, and the imposition of consecutive life sentences did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment.
• Washington v. Dugger
  579 So. 2d 922· Fla. 3d DCA· 1991-06-04 ·cited 4×
  Petitioner's habeas corpus petition alleging appellate counsel incompetency was denied, but the court permitted him to pursue a Rule 3.850 motion to challenge an allegedly illegal general sentence.
• Griffin v. A.L. Lockhart
  935 F.2d 926· 8th Cir.· 1991-05-29 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the state trial court violated due process by permitting the defendant to withdraw his competency motion without an adequate evidentiary hearing, despite evidence raising sufficient doubt about his mental competency.
• Emil Carsetti v. State OF Me.
  932 F.2d 1007· 1st Cir.· 1991-05-14 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the petitioner's due process claim was not procedurally barred from federal habeas review because the state court's denial of appeal did not clearly and expressly state it rested on a procedural default, and the merits of both the ineffective assistance and du
• Renaldo Grey v. Hoke
  933 F.2d 117· 2d Cir.· 1991-05-09 ·cited 4×
  The court held that petitioner's prosecutorial misconduct and sentencing claims were procedurally barred due to failure to properly present them to the highest state court, and the Fourth Amendment claim was barred by Stone v. Powell. Therefore, the petition was affirmed.