Habeas Corpus

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

• Joseph v. Fair
  763 F.2d 9· 1st Cir.· 1985-05-23 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction and that the defendant was not unconstitutionally deprived of counsel when his sentence was reduced, as the reduction was based on a prior hearing where he was represented.
• Erling Knud Ove Hansen, Jr. v. Louie L. Wainwright
  468 So. 2d 1102· Fla. 1st DCA· 1985-05-16 ·cited 4×
  Hansen appealed the denial of his habeas corpus petition challenging his parole revocation. The court reversed, holding that the trial court properly granted his motion for reconsideration based on the Florida Supreme Court's decision in Miller v. Toles, which requires a parolee
• Brownstein v. Dir., Ill. Dep't OF Corr.
  760 F.2d 836· 7th Cir.· 1985-04-30 ·cited 4×
  A federal court may deny habeas relief based on a petitioner's "deliberate bypass" of state procedures, even if no procedural default occurred under state law, when the petitioner strategically sought an unentitled benefit.
• Boone v. Marshall
  760 F.2d 117· 6th Cir.· 1985-04-29 ·cited 4×
  The admission of co-conspirator statements under Ohio Rule of Evidence 801(D)(2)(e) does not violate the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause, and any such violation would be harmless error given overwhelming evidence of guilt.
• Fisher v. Rose
  757 F.2d 789· 6th Cir.· 1985-03-26 ·cited 4×
  The district court abused its discretion by barring retrial based on the state's delay in retrying the petitioner, as the petitioner was no longer held under the constitutionally defective conviction.
• Corcoran v. Wyrick
  757 F.2d 207· 8th Cir.· 1985-03-18 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a state court's factual finding regarding a habeas petitioner's understanding of potential punishment is presumed correct under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), and an erroneous statement by the sentencing judge does not invalidate a guilty plea if the petitioner was othe
• Rush v. Petrovsky
  756 F.2d 675· 8th Cir.· 1985-03-11 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the appellant failed to demonstrate that the application of the 1983 Parole Guidelines resulted in a more unfavorable parole determination than the 1982 Guidelines would have.
• Mullen v. United States Parole Comm'n & J.S. Petrovsky
  756 F.2d 74· 8th Cir.· 1985-03-05 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a state weapons charge dismissal for lack of prosecutorial merit is not equivalent to a finding of not guilty after trial and can be considered by the Parole Commission as new criminal conduct.
• Borning v. Burl Cain
  754 F.2d 1151· 5th Cir.· 1985-02-14 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the petition without considering the petitioner's claim of denial of meaningful access to the law library, which impacts the right to an effective direct appeal.
• Collins v. Scully
  755 F.2d 16· 2d Cir.· 1985-02-06 ·cited 4×
  The court held that erroneously admitted hearsay evidence was not sufficiently material to deny the defendant a fundamentally fair trial under the Due Process Clause.
• Patterson v. Gunnell
  753 F.2d 253· 2d Cir.· 1985-01-28 ·cited 4×
  The court held that while the Parole Commission has the authority to set a release date above the guidelines due to aggravating circumstances, it must provide the prisoner with notice and an opportunity to respond to those circumstances.
• Flynn v. Holbrook
  749 F.2d 961· 1st Cir.· 1984-12-07 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the continuous presence of armed, uniformed state troopers behind defendants during a lengthy trial, without a demonstrated necessity for such heightened security, violated the presumption of innocence and deprived the defendants of a fair trial.
• Mason v. Procunier
  748 F.2d 852· 4th Cir.· 1984-11-02 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a state is not constitutionally required to provide a defendant with a psychiatrist, and that the prisoner's claims were either foreclosed by precedent, barred by procedural default, or not supported by the evidence.
• Frye v. Procunier
  746 F.2d 1011· 4th Cir.· 1984-10-18 ·cited 4×
  The court's concurrence rests on binding precedent regarding ineffective assistance of counsel, despite the judge's personal view on the impropriety of the jury instruction.
• Coates v. Smith
  746 F.2d 393· 7th Cir.· 1984-10-17 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a habeas corpus petition is the proper avenue to challenge the execution of a sentence, not its validity, and that a subsequent administrative 'no benefit' ruling under the Youth Corrections Act, issued without a hearing, is ineffective.
• United States ex rel. Melvin Lee Smith v. Rowe
  746 F.2d 386· 7th Cir.· 1984-10-17 ·cited 4×
  The prosecutor's comments on the petitioner's post-arrest silence did not violate the Due Process Clause because the petitioner had not received Miranda warnings, and the silence was not induced by the state.
• Brewster v. Bordenkircher
  745 F.2d 913· 4th Cir.· 1984-10-05 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the trial court's failure to articulate reasons for compelling the defendant to wear manacles during trial violated his due process rights, and this error was not harmless.
• White v. State
  456 So. 2d 1302· Fla. 2d DCA· 1984-10-05 ·cited 4×
  The court held that claims that could have been raised on direct appeal are procedurally barred in a motion for postconviction relief. The court also held that ineffective assistance of appellate counsel must be raised by writ of habeas corpus.
• Sweazea v. Mo. Bd. OF Prob. & Parole
  742 F.2d 482· 8th Cir.· 1984-08-31 ·cited 4×
  The court affirmed the dismissal, holding that the inmate failed to state a claim for due process or equal protection violations regarding his parole decision.
• In the Interest of M.S.
  455 So. 2d 557· Fla. 4th DCA· 1984-08-27 ·cited 4×
  The court reviewed a habeas corpus petition concerning a child's dependency adjudication, finding the petition procedurally flawed but suggesting mandamus to compel an evidentiary hearing due to delays and lack of proper procedure.
• Magby v. Donald Wawrzaszek & the Attorney Gen. of the State of Ariz.
  741 F.2d 240· 9th Cir.· 1984-08-21 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court erred in finding procedural default on the involuntariness claim, and remanded for consideration of that claim on the merits.
• Doby v. S.C. Dep't OF Corr.
  741 F.2d 76· 4th Cir.· 1984-08-16 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the trial judge impermissibly relied on the truthfulness of the appellant's confession when determining its admissibility, violating due process.
• Amrut Narandas Patel v. Landon
  739 F.2d 1455· 9th Cir.· 1984-08-10 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the appellant's departure and return on advance parole did not strip him of his right to deportation proceedings, and his status must be adjudicated accordingly.
• Charles v. Foltz
  741 F.2d 834· 6th Cir.· 1984-08-03 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the use of prior uncounseled misdemeanor convictions for impeachment purposes did not violate due process, and any instructional error regarding malice was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
• Austad v. Risley
  739 F.2d 428· 9th Cir.· 1984-07-31 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court correctly denied habeas corpus relief, as the state court's findings on mental fitness and impartiality of the jury were entitled to deference.
• Stewart v. Israel
  738 F.2d 889· 7th Cir.· 1984-07-16 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the jury instructions, when read as a whole, adequately informed the jury that the state bore the burden of proving all elements of arson beyond a reasonable doubt, thus not violating the due process clause.
• McKINNEY v. Israel
  740 F.2d 491· 7th Cir.· 1984-07-16 ·cited 4×
  The court held that even if counsel's performance was inadequate, there was no reasonable probability that the outcome would have been different, thus no prejudice occurred.
• Smith v. Louie L. Wainwright
  737 F.2d 1036· 11th Cir.· 1984-07-12 ·cited 4×
  The court granted a certificate of probable cause and a stay of execution pending appeal.
• Washington v. Louie L. Wainwright
  737 F.2d 922· 11th Cir.· 1984-07-12 ·cited 4×
  The court affirmed the district court's denial of the habeas corpus petition, finding no constitutional error in the denial of relief.
• Kathie Boudin v. Thomas
  737 F.2d 261· 2d Cir.· 1984-06-26 ·cited 4×
  A prisoner's claim for release from administrative segregation into the general population is not a 'civil action' under the Equal Access to Justice Act if it is treated as a habeas corpus petition.
• Shriner v. State
  452 So. 2d 929· Fla.· 1984-06-15 ·cited 4×
  Carl Shriner appealed the denial of his post-conviction motion for relief in a capital murder case. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the denial, rejecting claims that he was excluded from bench conferences and that his counsel was ineffective during sentencing. The decision was
• Russell v. Wyrick
  736 F.2d 462· 8th Cir.· 1984-06-11 ·cited 4×
  The dissenting judge would remand for factual findings on jury selection fairness, disagreeing with the majority's affirmance.
• McKinley Robinson v. Wyrick
  735 F.2d 1091· 8th Cir.· 1984-06-06 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the state trial court did not err in denying the motion to sever offenses and that the in-court identification was admissible.
• Sizemore v. Dist. Court
  735 F.2d 204· 6th Cir.· 1984-06-01 ·cited 4×
  The Sixth Circuit held that the district court erred in granting the writ of habeas corpus based on a Magistrate's improper evidentiary hearing and that a Magistrate lacks authority to grant bail pending adjudication.
• Wayne v. White
  735 F.2d 324· 8th Cir.· 1984-05-31 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a state prisoner's federal habeas corpus petition may be dismissed for deliberate bypass of state remedies, even if state remedies are technically unavailable.
• Peak v. Petrovsky
  734 F.2d 402· 8th Cir.· 1984-05-25 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the Parole Commission acted within its discretion by considering conduct underlying dismissed counts for offense severity classification, and that the Government did not breach the plea agreement.
• Peeler v. Wyrick
  734 F.2d 378· 8th Cir.· 1984-05-15 ·cited 4×
  The court held that even if witness intimidation occurred, its impact was harmless error given the overwhelming evidence of guilt, thus affirming the denial of the habeas corpus petition.
• Orison F. McDONALD, II v. Burrows
  731 F.2d 294· 5th Cir.· 1984-05-07 ·cited 4×
  The court held that extradition proceedings are not criminal in nature and thus do not implicate the Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial, nor can delays in extradition be reviewed in a federal habeas corpus proceeding.
• Fuentes v. Moran
  733 F.2d 176· 1st Cir.· 1984-05-04 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the police conduct did not violate Fuentes's Fifth or Sixth Amendment rights, and thus affirmed the denial of his habeas corpus petition.
• Harts v. State OF Ind.
  732 F.2d 95· 7th Cir.· 1984-04-20 ·cited 4×
  A one-year suspension of driving privileges does not constitute 'custody' for the purposes of federal habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
• Lacy v. Gabriel
  732 F.2d 7· 1st Cir.· 1984-04-11 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a Sixth Amendment confrontation clause claim, raised sua sponte by the district court and not exhausted in state courts, renders a habeas petition "mixed" and requires dismissal of that claim, but the petition is not considered mixed if the petitioner only rai
• J.B. v. Lumpee
  450 So. 2d 1286· Fla. 2d DCA· 1984-03-22 ·cited 4×
• United States v. Winter
  730 F.2d 825· 1st Cir.· 1984-03-20 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the appellant was not entitled to credit on his federal sentence for time spent in state custody, as the state confinement was not exclusively the product of federal action and the constitutional claim was not properly raised.
• Chamberlain v. Celeste
  729 F.2d 1071· 6th Cir.· 1984-03-19 ·cited 4×
  The petitioner is not a fugitive and therefore not extraditable because he satisfied the judgment against him through service of his sentence in Ohio as agreed by Arizona.
• Isidoro Cruz-Sanchez v. Cordero
  728 F.2d 1531· 1st Cir.· 1984-03-09 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the petitioner had not exhausted his state remedies regarding his claim for a new trial based on new evidence, and thus his federal habeas petition was properly dismissed.
• Denton v. Ricketts
  728 F.2d 489· 10th Cir.· 1984-03-02 ·cited 4×
  The federal district court and its magistrate failed to comply with the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) by relying on an informal investigatory hearing rather than a formal, adversarial evidentiary hearing.
• United States ex rel. Theodore Bacon v. DeROBERTIS
  728 F.2d 874· 7th Cir.· 1984-02-17 ·cited 4×
  The court affirmed the grant of summary judgment, holding that any prosecutorial misconduct before the grand jury was remedied by a fair trial, and the failure to give a lesser included offense instruction did not constitute a fundamental miscarriage of justice.
• Egerstaffer v. Israel
  726 F.2d 1231· 7th Cir.· 1984-02-09 ·cited 4×
  The use of hearsay evidence at a probation revocation hearing is not per se unconstitutional if it bears substantial indicia of trustworthiness, and participation in a violent incident like pointing a gun is a sufficient ground for revocation.
• Johnson v. Scully
  727 F.2d 222· 2d Cir.· 1984-01-27 ·cited 4×
  The conduct of the state trial judge, though disquieting and extensive, did not transgress constitutional standards for a fair trial under the Due Process Clause.
• Watkins v. Callahan
  724 F.2d 1038· 1st Cir.· 1984-01-13 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the post-telephone call statements were admissible, the Massachusetts felony murder theory was constitutional, and the denial of a continuance did not violate the Sixth Amendment.