Habeas Corpus

18,787 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 3,112 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• Ervin Devere Ellison v. Sachs
  769 F.2d 955· 4th Cir.· 1985-08-02 ·cited 4×·via Writ Of Habeas Corpus
  The court affirmed the conviction, finding the admission of the child victim's hearsay statements violated the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses.
• Bumgarner v. Bloodworth
  768 F.2d 297· 8th Cir.· 1985-07-24 ·cited 4×
  The state appealed an order dismissing drug trafficking charges against appellees, which were based on an investigation using a confidential informant, Robert Bennett, who had an agreement for a reduced sentence.
• Smith v. Zimmerman
  768 F.2d 69· 3d Cir.· 1985-07-16 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a federal court is bound by the presumption of correctness of state court factual findings, and that a state appellate court's reliance on a trial judge's post-trial opinion to clarify the basis for denying a jury trial waiver does not constitute a denial of f
• Schramm v. United States Parole Comm'n
  767 F.2d 509· 8th Cir.· 1985-07-15 ·cited 4×
  The Court held that the United States Parole Commission's practice of giving equal weight to prior misdemeanor and felony convictions in determining parole eligibility is not an abuse of discretion and does not violate the ex post facto clause or Congressional intent.
• FAY v. O.L. McCOTTER
  765 F.2d 475· 5th Cir.· 1985-07-15 ·cited 4×·via Habeas Corpus Petition
  The court held that a state trial judge's determination of jury deadlock, which forms the basis for a mistrial, is entitled to great deference on federal habeas review, and the record supported the finding of manifest necessity for the mistrial.
• Benson v. Armontrout
  767 F.2d 454· 8th Cir.· 1985-07-09 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the District Court erred in denying a Rule 60(b) motion for lack of jurisdiction, as an appeal had already been decided.
• Jacobson v. Henderson
  765 F.2d 12· 2d Cir.· 1985-06-13 ·cited 4×
  The court held that alleged jury misconduct, failure to produce a witness, and exclusion of testimony did not violate the petitioner's constitutional rights.
• Aldridge v. R.C. Marshall
  765 F.2d 63· 6th Cir.· 1985-06-11 ·cited 4×
  The court affirmed the denial of the habeas corpus petition, finding no constitutional violations in the petitioner's state court trial.
• 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.
• Barton v. A.L. Lockhart
  762 F.2d 712· 8th Cir.· 1985-05-22 ·cited 4×·via Habeas Corpus Relief
  A defendant is denied due process when a sentencing judge relies on materially false information in a presentence report and the defendant lacks a meaningful opportunity to rebut the inaccuracies.
• 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.
• Ford v. Ford
  749 F.2d 681· 11th Cir.· 1985-01-02 ·cited 4×·via Habeas Corpus Petition
  The court held that an actual conflict of interest existed due to dual representation of co-defendants with divergent interests, violating the Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel.
• 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.
• Lewis v. Procunier
  746 F.2d 1073· 5th Cir.· 1984-11-19 ·cited 4×·via Habeas Corpus Petition
  The court held that counsel's failure to object to a jury instruction variance did not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel because the petitioner suffered no prejudice under federal constitutional standards and Texas law at the time would not have guaranteed a reversal.
• 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.
• Linwood E. Briley v. E.L. Booker
  746 F.2d 225· 4th Cir.· 1984-10-09 ·cited 4×·via Habeas Corpus Relief
  The court affirmed the denial of habeas corpus relief, finding the petitioner abused the writ by raising new issues in a successive petition and that the claims lacked merit.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• Cooley v. Crispus NIX
  738 F.2d 345· 8th Cir.· 1984-07-09 ·cited 4×·via Habeas Corpus Relief
  Defense counsel's failure to interview alibi witnesses was not ineffective assistance of counsel when the defendant indicated the witnesses would not help or would harm his case.
• 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.
• Gomez v. McKASKLE
  734 F.2d 1107· 5th Cir.· 1984-06-25 ·cited 4×·via Writ Of Habeas Corpus
  The court held that the petitioner failed to demonstrate prejudice from counsel's alleged failures, thus not meeting the standard for ineffective assistance of counsel.
• United States ex rel. Ronald C. Huckstead v. Greer
  737 F.2d 673· 7th Cir.· 1984-06-19 ·cited 4×·via Federal Habeas Corpus
  The court held that the appellant did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel and that the omission of a jury instruction regarding the state's burden to disprove self-defense did not rise to the level of plain error or prejudice sufficient for federal habeas relief.
• 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.