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

• Gomez v. The United States Dist. Court FOR the N. Dist. OF Cal.
  966 F.2d 463· 9th Cir.· 1992-05-05 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the petition for a writ of mandamus was moot due to subsequent events, including the Supreme Court's ruling and the expiration of the temporary restraining order.
• Nollie Lee Martin v. Singletary
  599 So. 2d 119· Fla.· 1992-05-05 ·cited 2×·via Writ Of Habeas Corpus
  Nollie Martin, a death row inmate, petitioned for habeas corpus relief and appealed the denial of his postconviction motion, seeking to stay his execution based on the U.S. Supreme Court's grant of certiorari in a related case. The Florida Supreme Court denied all relief, finding
• Howard v. United States
  962 F.2d 651· 7th Cir.· 1992-05-04 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a writ of error coram nobis is an extraordinary remedy requiring a petitioner to demonstrate ongoing civil disabilities arising from an erroneous conviction that cause present, serious harm, which the petitioner failed to do.
• Tate v. Wood
  963 F.2d 20· 2d Cir.· 1992-05-01 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court erred in summarily denying the habeas petition without a hearing, as petitioner may be entitled to relief on his Brady and ineffective assistance of counsel claims.
• Dunn v. Roberts
  963 F.2d 308· 10th Cir.· 1992-05-01 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the state trial court's refusal to fund a psychiatric expert for an indigent defendant, when her mental condition was a significant factor in her defense, violated her due process rights.
• Thomas v. Whalen
  962 F.2d 358· 4th Cir.· 1992-05-01 ·cited 2×
  The court affirmed the result because Pennsylvania law presumes state sentences are consecutive to prior sentences from different sovereigns unless expressly made concurrent.
• McDONALD v. Champion
  962 F.2d 1455· 10th Cir.· 1992-04-28 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals' interpretation of the first-degree felony murder statute to include attempted robbery was not an unforeseeable judicial enlargement violating due process, nor was the jury instruction failure a due process violation.
• Wilson v. Armontrout
  962 F.2d 817· 8th Cir.· 1992-04-24 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court correctly denied the habeas corpus petition because the petitioner's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and due process violations were without merit or procedurally barred.
• FOY v. J.F. Donnelly
  959 F.2d 1307· 5th Cir.· 1992-04-21 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the content of an accomplice's confession was not disclosed to the jury to the extent necessary to violate the petitioner's Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause rights, the evidence was sufficient to sustain a conviction for armed robbery, and the prosecutor d
• Griffin v. Delo
  961 F.2d 793· 8th Cir.· 1992-04-14 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the petitioner should have an opportunity to present new claims of constitutional error due to potential ineffective assistance of counsel.
• Palmer v. Clarke
  961 F.2d 771· 8th Cir.· 1992-04-10 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a double jeopardy challenge to a second conviction based on sufficiency of admissible evidence is affirmed, but a challenge to a third trial based on prosecutorial misconduct in admitting evidence requires further consideration.
• Reid v. Senkowski
  961 F.2d 374· 2d Cir.· 1992-04-09 ·cited 2×
  The court affirmed the denial of the habeas petition, finding that while the district court erred in its procedural bar analysis of the missing witness charge, the claim itself was without merit, and other claims were procedurally barred or without merit.
• Splunge v. Dick Clark and Indiana Attorney General
  960 F.2d 705· 7th Cir.· 1992-04-06 ·cited 2×·via Writ Of Habeas Corpus
  The court held that the prosecutor's peremptory challenge of a black potential juror, Ms. Brodie, was unconstitutional because the stated reason was a pretext for racial discrimination.
• Pierson v. O'Leary
  959 F.2d 1385· 7th Cir.· 1992-04-06 ·cited 2×
  The court held that prosecutorial misconduct and the admission of victim impact evidence did not deny the defendant due process, and that federal habeas corpus relief was unavailable for Fourth Amendment claims due to the state's opportunity for full and fair litigation. The cour
• Wiles v. Jones
  960 F.2d 751· 8th Cir.· 1992-04-03 ·cited 2×
  The court affirmed the dismissal of the federal habeas petition, finding no merit to the petitioner's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, constitutional violations, or jurisdictional defects.
• Edward v. Lawrence
  961 F.2d 113· 8th Cir.· 1992-04-02 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court erred by applying an improper harmless error standard and shifting the burden of proof when analyzing the prejudice prong of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim.
• Campbell v. Blodgett
  978 F.2d 1502· 9th Cir.· 1992-04-01 ·cited 2×
  A defendant's right to be present at all stages of a criminal trial, including jury selection, can be knowingly and voluntarily waived, even in a capital case, as long as it does not implicate Confrontation Clause issues.
• Coogan v. McCAUGHTRY
  958 F.2d 793· 7th Cir.· 1992-04-01 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the petitioner failed to demonstrate ineffective assistance of counsel or that newly discovered evidence warranted a new trial, thus denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
• Harris v. State OF Mo.
  960 F.2d 738· 8th Cir.· 1992-04-01 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the defendant's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and judicial bias were without merit, and affirmed the denial of his habeas corpus petition.
• Rust v. Clarke
  960 F.2d 72· 8th Cir.· 1992-03-26 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court's order lacked finality and remanded the case for a decision on all claims, staying the prior order pending further direction.
• Glass v. Higgins
  959 F.2d 88· 8th Cir.· 1992-03-13 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court did not err in dismissing the habeas petition without appointing counsel or holding an evidentiary hearing, and that the petitioner did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel.
• Williams v. Chrans
  957 F.2d 487· 7th Cir.· 1992-03-13 ·cited 2×
  The court affirmed the denial of habeas relief, holding that the trial court's finding of race-neutral reasons for peremptory strikes was not clearly erroneous, and the trial procedures did not prejudice the defendant.
• Mikel W. Houston v. A.L. Lockhart
  958 F.2d 826· 8th Cir.· 1992-03-11 ·cited 2×
  The court held that counsel's failure to secure a stipulation for polygraph results was not ineffective assistance because Arkansas law requires written stipulations and an objection would have been futile.
• Perez v. Irwin
  963 F.2d 499· 2d Cir.· 1992-03-11 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a jury instruction defining reasonable doubt as a doubt to a moral certainty violates the Due Process Clause and is not harmless error.
• Ruark v. Gunter
  958 F.2d 318· 10th Cir.· 1992-03-06 ·cited 2×
  A petitioner seeking collateral relief via habeas corpus must demonstrate a non-frivolous claim before being entitled to a free trial transcript.
• Whipple v. Duckworth
  957 F.2d 418· 7th Cir.· 1992-03-03 ·cited 2×·via Habeas Corpus Review
  The court held that the trial court's failure to instruct the jury on self-defense and defense of others did not violate the defendant's constitutional rights because the defendant did not present evidence of an imminent threat as required by Indiana law.
• Emile Pierre Duhamel v. Collins
  955 F.2d 962· 5th Cir.· 1992-03-02 ·cited 2×·via Federal Habeas Corpus
  The court held that the district court erred in finding ineffective assistance of counsel and in commuting the death sentence, as the petitioner failed to prove prejudice from alleged attorney errors and the court lacked authority to commute the sentence.
• Wellman v. State OF Me.
  962 F.2d 70· 1st Cir.· 1992-02-26 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the petitioner's guilty plea was not rendered involuntary by the state's retraction of pretrial detention credit, as he failed to demonstrate prejudice from the alleged misinformation or omission.
• Lane v. Richards
  957 F.2d 363· 7th Cir.· 1992-02-25 ·cited 2×
  A federal court must dismiss a habeas corpus petition if any claim within it is unexhausted in state court, even if other claims are exhausted.
• Delbert Wilkins v. Iowa
  957 F.2d 537· 8th Cir.· 1992-02-21 ·cited 2×·via Habeas Corpus Relief
  The court held that trial counsel's strategic decision to focus on justification rather than diminished capacity was reasonable, and the evidence was sufficient to support a first-degree murder conviction.
• Gross v. Heikien
  957 F.2d 531· 8th Cir.· 1992-02-20 ·cited 2×·via Federal Habeas Corpus
  The court held that a state court's decision on constitutional claims has collateral estoppel effect in a subsequent federal § 1983 action, even if the state proceedings were required by comity considerations for federal habeas corpus.
• Collins v. Lou Hesse
  957 F.2d 746· 10th Cir.· 1992-02-18 ·cited 2×
  A prisoner can raise a habeas corpus challenge to a conviction whose sentence has been fully served if that conviction was used to enhance a subsequent sentence the prisoner is currently serving.
• Montgomery v. Greer
  956 F.2d 677· 7th Cir.· 1992-02-10 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the failure to preserve photographs does not violate due process absent a showing of bad faith, and the in-court identification was reliable despite a suggestive lineup.
• Poole v. Kelly
  954 F.2d 760· D.C. Cir.· 1992-01-31 ·cited 2×
  Persons convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment under D.C. Code § 22-2404(b) are not eligible for good time credits under the D.C. Good Time Credit Act of 1986.
• Denham v. Deeds
  954 F.2d 1501· 9th Cir.· 1992-01-27 ·cited 2×·via Writ Of Habeas Corpus
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying the petition for a writ of habeas corpus, affirming the conviction.
• United States ex rel. James Schiano # 12699-054 v. Luther
  954 F.2d 910· 3d Cir.· 1992-01-23 ·cited 2×
  The Parole Commission violated its regulations by failing to disclose material relied upon in making a parole determination, even if that material was a co-conspirator's file. However, the Commission did not err in determining the appellant's role in the conspiracy.
• Anderson v. McELROY
  953 F.2d 803· 2d Cir.· 1992-01-17 ·cited 2×
  The BIA abused its discretion by denying a stay of deportation without a reasoned opinion, and the district court erred in upholding that denial.
• Cardinal v. United States
  954 F.2d 359· 6th Cir.· 1992-01-16 ·cited 2×
  The patent for township 51-33 was issued in error because the land had already been designated as reservation property under the La Pointe Treaty before the Canal Act became fully effective.
• Edmundson v. C.A. Turner
  954 F.2d 510· 8th Cir.· 1992-01-16 ·cited 2×
  The court held that it has jurisdiction to review claims of double counting by the Parole Commission, even if it generally lacks jurisdiction to review substantive decisions.
• Cornell v. Crispus NIX
  953 F.2d 1103· 8th Cir.· 1992-01-15 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the petitioner's claim was not procedurally barred and that the newly discovered evidence of witness recantation was material and likely to produce an acquittal, warranting a conditional grant of habeas corpus.
• United States ex rel. John Farese # 12136-054 v. Luther
  953 F.2d 49· 3d Cir.· 1992-01-07 ·cited 2×
  The Parole Commission erred in basing the petitioner's offense severity rating on the total amount of drugs distributed by co-conspirators when there was no evidence that the petitioner controlled or could have foreseen their actions, violating its own regulations.
• Monroe v. Collins
  951 F.2d 49· 5th Cir.· 1992-01-03 ·cited 2×
  The court held that brief, isolated, and substantially correct comments about parole by jurors, even if violating state law, do not necessarily rise to the level of a federal constitutional violation warranting habeas relief.
• Brown v. Vasquez
  952 F.2d 1164· 9th Cir.· 1991-12-31 ·cited 2×
  A district court has jurisdiction to stay the execution of a state prisoner to appoint counsel to assist in preparing a federal habeas corpus petition.
• Randolph v. Delo
  952 F.2d 243· 8th Cir.· 1991-12-26 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the prisoner's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to raise a Batson challenge were without merit, and the district court did not err in denying the habeas petition.
• Wise v. Armontrout
  952 F.2d 221· 8th Cir.· 1991-12-24 ·cited 2×
  A federal habeas petitioner is procedurally barred from raising claims if they failed to meet state procedural requirements, unless they show cause and prejudice, and there is no constitutional right to counsel in state post-conviction proceedings to establish cause.
• Holland v. Collins
  950 F.2d 169· 5th Cir.· 1991-12-17 ·cited 2×
  The dissenting judge argues that the majority erred in granting a stay of execution because the movant failed to demonstrate a constitutional violation or satisfy the legal standards for a stay. The dissenting judge contends that the issues raised by the petitioner regarding the
• Arnold v. Cody
  951 F.2d 280· 10th Cir.· 1991-12-16 ·cited 2×
  The court held that applying the amended Oklahoma Prison Overcrowding Emergency Powers Act to Petitioner violated the ex post facto clause because it was retrospective and disadvantageous.
• Shackelford v. Shirley
  948 F.2d 935· 5th Cir.· 1991-12-13 ·cited 2×·via Habeas Corpus Petition
  A state statute criminalizing telephone harassment, which requires intent to terrify, intimidate, or harass and a threat of injury, is constitutional on its face and as applied, as it targets true threats rather than protected political speech.
• Heiser v. Ryan
  951 F.2d 559· 3d Cir.· 1991-12-13 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a defendant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on his habeas petition alleging his guilty plea was involuntary due to counsel's threat to withdraw, and that extreme delays in state court adjudication may violate due process.
• Claudie Wallace v. Cody
  951 F.2d 1170· 10th Cir.· 1991-12-09 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a state prisoner seeking a speedier release due to improper calculation of earned credits need not exhaust state remedies if such remedies would be futile.