Habeas Corpus

18,792 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 3,111 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• C.J. v. Cornelle Rolle
  608 So. 2d 117· Fla. 3d DCA· 1992-11-03 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a juvenile charged with a felony and released while awaiting final disposition of a prior case meets the statutory criteria for detention.
• Herta Spitzweiser-Wittgenstein v. Newton
  978 F.2d 1195· 10th Cir.· 1992-11-03 ·cited 2×·via Habeas Corpus Petition
  The district court erred in relying on the presumption of correctness under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) to uphold the state court's competency finding, as material facts were not adequately developed in state court.
• L.C. Markham v. Dick Clark
  978 F.2d 993· 7th Cir.· 1992-11-02 ·cited 2×
  A state prisoner must exhaust available state administrative remedies before seeking federal habeas corpus relief, and failure to do so, even through forfeiture, bars federal review.
• Satter v. Leapley
  977 F.2d 1259· 8th Cir.· 1992-10-19 ·cited 2×
  The court affirmed the dismissal of the habeas petition, holding that the appellant procedurally defaulted his Double Jeopardy claim by abandoning the sufficiency of evidence issue in state post-conviction proceedings.
• Bohlen v. Caspari
  979 F.2d 109· 8th Cir.· 1992-10-16 ·cited 2×
  The Double Jeopardy Clause applies to Missouri's persistent offender sentencing proceedings, barring a second enhancement hearing after the state failed to prove prior convictions in the first instance.
• Hays v. A.J. Arave
  977 F.2d 475· 9th Cir.· 1992-10-07 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the prisoner waived his right to be present at sentencing by impeding efforts to procure his presence and failing to exhaust remedies under the Interstate Agreement on Detainers (IAD).
• Jamison v. A.L. Lockhart
  975 F.2d 1377· 8th Cir.· 1992-09-24 ·cited 2×
  The court held that an alleged conflict of interest by trial counsel could constitute sufficient cause to excuse a procedural default in raising an ineffective assistance of counsel claim.
• Chakouian v. Moran
  975 F.2d 931· 1st Cir.· 1992-09-23 ·cited 2×·via Habeas Corpus Relief
  The court affirmed the dismissal of the habeas corpus petition, holding that the petitioner failed to establish a prima facie case of racial discrimination in the prosecutor's use of peremptory challenges.
• Forbes v. Trigg
  976 F.2d 308· 7th Cir.· 1992-09-15 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the Indiana Department of Corrections' rule allowing officials to refuse to appear as witnesses in disciplinary hearings violates due process, but affirmed the denial of the habeas corpus petition on other grounds.
• Jones v. Caspari
  975 F.2d 460· 8th Cir.· 1992-09-11 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the appellant failed to demonstrate cause and prejudice for his procedural defaults and that his claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and constitutional violations lacked merit.
• Hunley v. Godinez
  975 F.2d 316· 7th Cir.· 1992-09-11 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court correctly granted a writ of habeas corpus because the burglary of jurors during deliberations created circumstances justifying a presumption of implied bias, violating the defendant's right to a fair and impartial jury.
• Neal v. Grammer
  975 F.2d 463· 8th Cir.· 1992-09-11 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the appellant's sentence was not cruel and unusual punishment, his counsel was not ineffective, his guilty plea had a factual basis and was voluntary, and he was not denied due process by the refusal of a continuance.
• Jeffries v. Blodgett
  974 F.2d 1179· 9th Cir.· 1992-09-09 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying the habeas corpus petition, affirming the denial of relief.
• Demouchette v. Collins
  972 F.2d 651· 5th Cir.· 1992-09-09 ·cited 2×·via Federal Habeas Corpus
  The court denied the motion for a certificate of probable cause and the motion for a stay of execution.
• Bellamy v. Cogdell
  974 F.2d 302· 2d Cir.· 1992-09-08 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the petitioner did not suffer a per se denial of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel because his attorney's alleged incapacity due to illness did not fall under the narrow circumstances where prejudice is presumed.
• McINTYRE v. Trickey
  975 F.2d 437· 8th Cir.· 1992-09-04 ·cited 2×
  The Eighth Circuit held that prosecuting McIntyre for stealing a car after he had already been prosecuted for tampering with the same car violated the Double Jeopardy Clause, as the conduct constituting the tampering offense was used to prove essential elements of the stealing ch
• Hendricks v. Vasquez
  974 F.2d 1099· 9th Cir.· 1992-09-02 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court erred in failing to conduct an evidentiary hearing on the petitioner's ineffective assistance of counsel claim, but otherwise affirmed the denial of the petition.
• Pacelli v. Robert deVITO
  972 F.2d 871· 7th Cir.· 1992-08-25 ·cited 2×·via Writ Of Habeas Corpus
  The court held that the defendants did not violate the Constitution by continuing to detain the plaintiff because there was no evidence they knew of the writ of habeas corpus or intended to violate his rights, and state law violations are not actionable under § 1983.
• McCANN v. Armontrout
  973 F.2d 655· 8th Cir.· 1992-08-25 ·cited 2×·via Habeas Corpus Relief
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying petitioner's request for an evidentiary hearing or in denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus, as the issues could be resolved on the state court record and petitioner failed to demonstrate ineffective assista
• Perez v. Groose
  973 F.2d 630· 8th Cir.· 1992-08-21 ·cited 2×·via Habeas Corpus Petition
  The court held that substantial evidence supported the conviction, and a rational fact-finder could have found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
• Galindo v. Ylst
  971 F.2d 1427· 9th Cir.· 1992-08-05 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the exclusion of the victim's statement did not deprive the defendant of constitutional rights, and the defendant waived his claim regarding impeachment with a prior conviction by not testifying.
• Gilley v. Collins
  968 F.2d 465· 5th Cir.· 1992-08-04 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the evidence was insufficient to support Richard Gilley's conviction for marijuana possession because the state failed to establish an affirmative link between him and the contraband.
• Shaw v. Delo
  971 F.2d 181· 8th Cir.· 1992-08-04 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the petitioner failed to demonstrate cause for not raising claims in his first federal habeas petition and did not establish actual innocence, thus the second petition was properly dismissed.
• Sims v. Livesay
  970 F.2d 1575· 6th Cir.· 1992-08-03 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the petitioner's trial counsel's failure to investigate crucial physical evidence, specifically a quilt with gunshot residue, constituted ineffective assistance of counsel under the Strickland standard. This failure prejudiced the outcome of the trial.
• John L. v. Adams
  969 F.2d 228· 6th Cir.· 1992-07-17 ·cited 2×
  Incarcerated juveniles possess a constitutional right of access to the courts, which necessitates state provision of attorney access for claims related to their incarceration and constitutional rights, but not for purely state law matters.
• Pentecost v. State
  602 So. 2d 677· Fla. 1st DCA· 1992-07-15 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial court erred in summarily denying the motion for post-conviction relief based on ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to file a timely appeal.
• Amirault v. Fair
  968 F.2d 1404· 1st Cir.· 1992-07-08 ·cited 2×·via Habeas Corpus Petition
  The court held that the petitioner's Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury and right to a fair trial were not violated by a juror's nondisclosure of a past trauma or by prosecutorial remarks.
• Mikail Muwwakkil v. Hoke
  968 F.2d 284· 2d Cir.· 1992-07-07 ·cited 2×
  While the thirteen-year delay in processing the defendant's direct appeal violated his due process rights, habeas corpus relief is not warranted without a showing of prejudice to the appeal's outcome.
• Duffy v. United States
  966 F.2d 307· 7th Cir.· 1992-07-06 ·cited 2×
  The court held that military personnel's claims against the government for injuries arising from military service are barred by the Feres/Chappell doctrine, and that claims against federal employees for torts committed within the scope of employment are exclusively handled by the
• Billy-Eko v. United States
  968 F.2d 281· 2d Cir.· 1992-07-02 ·cited 2×
  A federal defendant's failure to raise constitutional claims on direct appeal constitutes a procedural default barring review in a § 2255 petition, absent cause and prejudice.
• United States v. Vinay Sood
  969 F.2d 774· 9th Cir.· 1992-07-02 ·cited 2×
  The court held that collateral relief is warranted when an intervening decision establishes that the defendant's conduct was not criminal under the statute for which they were convicted.
• Emil Bozilov v. Seifert
  983 F.2d 140· 9th Cir.· 1992-06-26 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the extradition order was proper because the dual criminality requirement was satisfied, probable cause existed, and the extradition request was timely filed through the diplomatic channel.
• Maxwell v. State
  603 So. 2d 490· Fla.· 1992-06-25 ·cited 2×·via Habeas Corpus Petition
  Chester Levon Maxwell appeals his death sentence, claiming the trial court committed a Hitchcock error by failing to properly consider and weigh nonstatutory mitigating evidence during the penalty phase. The Florida Supreme Court vacates the death sentence and remands for a new p
• Russaw v. State
  600 So. 2d 558· Fla. 5th DCA· 1992-06-19 ·cited 2×
  Eric Russaw sought appellate review of his sentence but could not afford the filing fee. His public defender failed to pursue proper indigency procedures, and the trial judge's dismissive denial of indigency was not communicated to Russaw. The appellate court transferred the case
• Russ v. Uppah
  972 F.2d 300· 10th Cir.· 1992-06-19 ·cited 2×
  Parole board members are entitled to absolute immunity for actions taken in their official duties, but parole officers are entitled only to qualified immunity for such actions.
• Valerio Ernest Miranda v. Cooper
  967 F.2d 392· 10th Cir.· 1992-06-17 ·cited 2×
  The court held that Miranda failed to exhaust available state remedies by not fairly presenting his federal constitutional claims to the state courts, and his claims lack merit.
• Beam v. Paskett
  966 F.2d 1563· 9th Cir.· 1992-06-12 ·cited 2×·via Procedural Default In Habeas Corpus
  The court held that the use of dual juries in a non-capital case does not violate the Constitution unless prejudice is shown, and that Beam's death sentence was unconstitutional due to reliance on a vague aggravating factor and impermissible use of sexual history.
• Bridge v. Collins
  963 F.2d 767· 5th Cir.· 1992-06-11 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the major thrust of the petitioner's mitigating evidence was not substantially beyond the scope of the special questions posed to the jury, and therefore, his death sentence was not imposed in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments.
• Thompkins v. Cohen
  965 F.2d 330· 7th Cir.· 1992-06-03 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the defendant failed to prove his trial judge knew of his lawyer's conflict of interest and that the prosecutor's improper conduct likely caused a miscarriage of justice.
• Carroll Olson v. Hart
  965 F.2d 940· 10th Cir.· 1992-06-03 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a pro se litigant's complaint, even if styled as a mandamus petition, could be construed as a habeas corpus petition or a Section 1983 claim for deprivation of due process rights, and thus should not have been dismissed on abstention grounds.
• Squires v. Dugger
  794 F. Supp. 1568· M.D. Fla.· 1992-05-26 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the petitioner's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and Brady violations lacked merit, and that procedural default barred one claim.
• Holland v. Collins
  962 F.2d 417· 5th Cir.· 1992-05-22 ·cited 2×
  The court denied the application for a certificate of probable cause and vacated the stay of execution, finding no substantial showing of a federal right denial.
• Moss v. Collins
  963 F.2d 44· 5th Cir.· 1992-05-22 ·cited 2×
  The court held that Moss was not denied effective assistance of appellate counsel because he had no nonfrivolous issues to raise on appeal, and therefore, the district court erred in granting habeas relief.
• Miller v. Duckworth
  963 F.2d 1002· 7th Cir.· 1992-05-13 ·cited 2×·via Habeas Corpus Petition
  The court held that a prisoner is not entitled to a lay advocate unless illiterate or the case is complex, and that denying a request to call witnesses is permissible if it poses a security risk.
• Dugger v. Jackson
  598 So. 2d 280· Fla. 1st DCA· 1992-05-13 ·cited 2×
  The circuit court lacked jurisdiction to hear the inmate's petition because the Interstate Corrections Compact subjects inmates to the sending state's jurisdiction, requiring the receiving state to act solely as its agent.
• Celedonio Santana v. Chandler
  961 F.2d 514· 5th Cir.· 1992-05-12 ·cited 2×·via Habeas Corpus Relief
  The court denied the motion for appointment of counsel, finding that the issues, while complex, were sufficiently addressed by existing circuit precedent and legal scholarship to not require additional attorney assistance.
• McLEAN v. Moran
  963 F.2d 1306· 9th Cir.· 1992-05-11 ·cited 2×·via Habeas Corpus Relief
  The court held that the application of Nev.Rev.Stat. § 484.381(1) as a mandatory conclusive presumption violated the petitioner's due process right to have the state prove every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.
• Bland v. Singletary
  601 So. 2d 1222· Fla. 1st DCA· 1992-05-11 ·cited 2×·via Writ Of Habeas Corpus
  Larry Bland petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus challenging the sufficiency of the burglary information under which he was convicted, arguing it failed to allege the essential element of intent to commit an offense. The Florida appellate court denied the petition, holding that
• Jenkins v. Purkett
  963 F.2d 1117· 8th Cir.· 1992-05-08 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial was not violated, as the delay was not inordinate, there was good reason for it due to lack of timely notice, and the defendant failed to allege prejudice.
• Brewer v. Crispus NIX
  963 F.2d 1111· 8th Cir.· 1992-05-08 ·cited 2×
  The court held that excluding individuals over sixty-five from jury duty does not violate the Sixth Amendment's fair-cross-section requirement, and that the State did not violate Brady v. Maryland by failing to disclose the exact timing of a witness's immunity grant.