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

• In the Interest of A.M.R. v. Coler
  555 So. 2d 1248· Fla. 2d DCA· 1989-11-15 ·cited 2×
  A juvenile committed to HRS petitioned for a writ of mandamus to compel HRS to comply with Florida law requiring placement in a commitment program within five days of commitment, rather than remaining in detention indefinitely. The appellate court granted the petition, holding th
• United States v. DeLUCA
  889 F.2d 503· 3d Cir.· 1989-11-15 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court erred in revoking the special parole term but did not err in failing to vacate the guilty plea.
• Avila v. Rivkind
  724 F. Supp. 945· S.D. Fla.· 1989-11-08 ·cited 2×
  The Attorney General has the ultimate authority to exclude an alien based on national security concerns, even if preliminary procedures suggested otherwise, and this decision is largely unreviewable by courts.
• Tino Fiumara v. O'Brien
  889 F.2d 254· 10th Cir.· 1989-11-06 ·cited 2×
  The Parole Commission did not abuse its discretion in using unconvicted murders to increase the appellant's offense severity rating, as there was sufficient evidence to establish a nexus between the murders and his racketeering and extortion offenses.
• Weaver v. Foltz
  888 F.2d 1097· 6th Cir.· 1989-11-02 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the District Court erred in dismissing a mixed habeas corpus petition without considering Granberry v. Greer, which allows consideration of exhausted issues in such petitions.
• Reutter v. Solem
  888 F.2d 578· 8th Cir.· 1989-11-02 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the prosecution's failure to disclose a key witness's pending sentence commutation hearing, which could have been used for impeachment, constituted a Brady violation because the undisclosed evidence was material to the outcome of the trial.
• Peters v. Egnor
  888 F.2d 713· 10th Cir.· 1989-11-02 ·cited 2×·via Writ Of Habeas Corpus
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support the magistrate's finding of probable cause for extradition on charges of theft by deception and forgery, and that the dual criminality requirement was satisfied.
• Anderson v. Butler
  886 F.2d 111· 5th Cir.· 1989-10-19 ·cited 2×
  Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 applies to habeas corpus petitions, but sanctions should only be imposed in exceptional circumstances, considering the prisoner's pro se status and the writ's unique nature.
• Wysinger v. Leoneal Davis
  886 F.2d 295· 11th Cir.· 1989-09-29 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the exclusion of persons aged eighteen to twenty-five and blacks from jury selection did not violate the Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial.
• Butzin v. Wood
  886 F.2d 1016· 8th Cir.· 1989-09-26 ·cited 2×·via Habeas Corpus Review
  The court held that the suspect's confession was not the product of interrogation requiring full Miranda warnings because he initiated the conversation and the statements were volunteered.
• Shoultes v. Laidlaw
  886 F.2d 114· 6th Cir.· 1989-09-18 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a federal habeas petition must be dismissed if it contains any unexhausted claims, and that local legislators, city attorneys, and judges are shielded by absolute immunity for actions taken within their official capacities.
• Satterwhite v. Lynaugh
  886 F.2d 90· 5th Cir.· 1989-09-11 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the appellant had not exhausted his state remedies because his claims were not fairly presented to the state courts.
• Mayo v. Lynaugh
  883 F.2d 358· 5th Cir.· 1989-09-01 ·cited 2×·via Federal Habeas Corpus
  The court denied the petition for rehearing, finding the record insufficient to support a claim based on Penry v. Lynaugh, despite the Supreme Court's decision potentially impacting prior circuit precedent.
• Victorino Villamarin Blancada v. Turnage
  883 F.2d 836· 9th Cir.· 1989-08-30 ·cited 2×·via Habeas Corpus Review
  The court held that immigration officials abused their discretion by denying a stay of deportation when the alien raised a non-frivolous legal challenge to a statute that had not been decided by the circuit or Supreme Court.
• Alton Waye v. Townley
  884 F.2d 762· 4th Cir.· 1989-08-30 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the inmate's claims were procedurally barred due to failure to object contemporaneously at trial and that the alleged instructional error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
• Moore v. Tate
  882 F.2d 1107· 6th Cir.· 1989-08-24 ·cited 2×
  The exclusion of expert testimony on eyewitness identification did not violate the petitioner's due process rights, as the trial afforded an adequate opportunity to assess the reliability of the identification through cross-examination.
• Thomas v. Ga. State Bd. OF Pardons & Paroles
  881 F.2d 1032· 11th Cir.· 1989-08-24 ·cited 2×·via Habeas Corpus Petition
  A prisoner's equal protection challenge to parole procedures, alleging racial and economic discrimination, can be brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 without exhausting state remedies, but claims seeking release or damages for parole denial must be brought as habeas corpus petitions r
• Earnest Smith v. A.L. Lockhart
  882 F.2d 331· 8th Cir.· 1989-08-16 ·cited 2×
  The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the habeas petition, finding that grounds for relief were either procedurally barred due to failure to demonstrate cause and prejudice, or without merit.
• Anselmo v. Sumner
  882 F.2d 431· 9th Cir.· 1989-08-14 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the prisoner's federal constitutional claims are procedurally barred because the state's highest court relied on an independent and adequate state procedural ground (unreasonable delay in filing habeas petition) to deny relief.
• Latroy Darnell RAY v. Duckworth
  881 F.2d 512· 7th Cir.· 1989-08-09 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying a third competency hearing and that the defendant's confession was voluntary.
• Mason v. A.L. Lockhart
  881 F.2d 573· 8th Cir.· 1989-08-08 ·cited 2×
  The court held that sufficient evidence existed to support a jury's finding of premeditation and deliberation for first-degree murder, thus denying habeas corpus relief.
• Slicker v. Dugger
  878 F.2d 1380· 11th Cir.· 1989-08-04 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the petitioner failed to plead or prove sufficient prejudice due to his attorney's performance, thus his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel must fail.
• Waldon v. Cowley
  880 F.2d 291· 10th Cir.· 1989-07-31 ·cited 2×
  A habeas petitioner is not considered 'in custody' for a conviction that has fully expired, even if it might be used for future sentence enhancement.
• Foster v. Wash. State Bd. OF Prison Terms & Parole
  878 F.2d 1233· 9th Cir.· 1989-07-12 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the State of Washington's Sentencing Reform Act, as amended, does not violate constitutional protections and that the district court did not err in denying the habeas corpus petition or appointed counsel.
• Isley v. Dugger
  877 F.2d 47· 11th Cir.· 1989-07-12 ·cited 2×
  The court held that allowing psychiatrists to relate a defendant's statements used in their sanity determination does not violate the Fifth Amendment, especially when the defense raises the insanity issue.
• Denver O'Dell v. Armontrout
  878 F.2d 1076· 8th Cir.· 1989-06-28 ·cited 2×
  The court should not support the unjust jury verdict of guilty for felony murder.
• Rev. Timothy L. Lewis v. Attorney General OF the United States and Warden
  878 F.2d 714· 3d Cir.· 1989-06-28 ·cited 2×
  The court held that Lewis is entitled to good time credit earned after the district court's 1982 finding that he could not benefit from YCA treatment. However, he is not entitled to relief for the period preceding that finding.
• Quenton N. Brown v. Butler
  876 F.2d 427· 5th Cir.· 1989-06-28 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the state's use of rebuttal psychiatric testimony, based on the defendant's non-Mirandized statements, violated the Fifth Amendment, but the error was harmless because the defendant failed to establish a necessary element of his insanity defense.
• Paster v. Lynaugh
  876 F.2d 1184· 5th Cir.· 1989-06-27 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the petitioner's claims were procedurally barred or unsupported by the record, and thus denied his motions for a certificate of probable cause and a stay of execution.
• United States v. Glomb
  877 F.2d 1· 5th Cir.· 1989-06-23 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a defendant's flight and failure to report to prison constituted a valid waiver of his right to have his Fourth Amendment claim reviewed, thus affirming the district court's denial of his habeas petition.
• Hemon v. Off. OF Pub. Guardian
  878 F.2d 13· 1st Cir.· 1989-06-22 ·cited 2×
  Federal habeas corpus jurisdiction does not extend to state court guardianship disputes, as these matters fall under the traditional purview of state domestic relations law and implicate federalism and finality concerns.
• Rivers v. Turner
  874 F.2d 771· 11th Cir.· 1989-06-06 ·cited 2×
  A defendant's trial counsel is not ineffective for strategically choosing not to pursue an insanity defense or to question competency to stand trial, if those decisions are based on reasonable professional judgment and do not prejudice the defense.
• Campas v. Zimmerman
  876 F.2d 318· 3d Cir.· 1989-05-31 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the habeas corpus petition solely on the grounds of delay without fully addressing exhaustion and prejudice issues, especially with an augmented record.
• Lopez v. O.L. McCOTTER
  875 F.2d 273· 10th Cir.· 1989-05-17 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the state court's construction of the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act was unforeseeable and could not be retroactively applied to criminalize conduct privileged under common law, but the bail bondsman's privilege does not extend to assaulting a peace officer.
• Gates v. Zant
  880 F.2d 293· 11th Cir.· 1989-05-17 ·cited 2×
• United States Parole Comm'n v. Viveros
  874 F.2d 699· 9th Cir.· 1989-05-12 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a special parole term for a drug offense must be served after, and not concurrently with, a regular parole term for a different offense.
• Buckley Andre Bruner v. E.P. Perini
  875 F.2d 531· 6th Cir.· 1989-05-12 ·cited 2×
  The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of a writ of habeas corpus, holding that the prosecutor's peremptory challenge of the sole black juror was not "systematic exclusion" under pre-Batson precedent and that the identification testimony was reliable.
• Smart v. Leeke
  873 F.2d 1558· 4th Cir.· 1989-05-04 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the burden of persuasion for self-defense, as defined by South Carolina law, cannot constitutionally be placed on the defendant because it negates an element of the crime rather than being an affirmative defense.
• Dobson v. State
  542 So. 2d 1047· Fla. 3d DCA· 1989-05-02 ·cited 2×
  The admission of a codefendant's confession was harmless error because there was ample evidence to support the conviction independently. The denial of the motion for post-conviction relief was also affirmed.
• Lindsey v. Thigpen
  875 F.2d 1516· 11th Cir.· 1989-05-01 ·cited 2×
  The court denied the application for a certificate of probable cause to appeal the district court's denial of the habeas corpus petition.
• Newman v. Frey
  873 F.2d 1092· 8th Cir.· 1989-04-28 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a state prisoner's failure to pursue a claim of prosecutorial impropriety in state postconviction proceedings creates a procedural bar to federal habeas corpus review, absent a showing of cause and prejudice.
• Montana Horner v. United States Parole Comm'n
  870 F.2d 1489· 9th Cir.· 1989-03-24 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the Parole Commission did not improperly deny early termination of parole, Horner's waiver of counsel was valid, and he was not denied access to adverse information.
• Armenia v. Dugger
  867 F.2d 1370· 11th Cir.· 1989-03-16 ·cited 2×
  A Florida statute imposing felony punishment on a strict liability basis for causing death by operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated does not violate the due process clauses of the U.S. Constitution.
• Neville v. Butler
  867 F.2d 886· 5th Cir.· 1989-03-15 ·cited 2×
  A conviction for both felony murder and the underlying felony violates the Double Jeopardy Clause, even after a guilty plea.
• Wilson v. Lane
  870 F.2d 1250· 7th Cir.· 1989-03-15 ·cited 2×·via Habeas Corpus Petition
  Appellants, acting as next-friends, lack standing to challenge the constitutionality of the Illinois death penalty statute or to pursue post-conviction remedies on behalf of an inmate who has knowingly and voluntarily waived such actions.
• Atwell Junior Conner v. Director of Division of Adult Corrections
  870 F.2d 1384· 8th Cir.· 1989-03-14 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial court's jury instructions were improper because they failed to require a causal connection between the underlying felony and the homicide, thus potentially convicting the defendant of felony murder without proof of a necessary element.
• Burge v. Butler
  867 F.2d 247· 5th Cir.· 1989-03-10 ·cited 2×
  A defendant sentenced under a statute that does not apply to his crime, and which was not in effect at the time of the offense, is deprived of liberty without due process of law.
• Rickie N. McNAIR v. Dugger
  866 F.2d 399· 11th Cir.· 1989-02-23 ·cited 2×·via Writ Of Habeas Corpus
  The court held that the district court improvidently granted the writ of habeas corpus because the petitioner failed to demonstrate prejudice from counsel's alleged deficient performance.
• Parron v. Quick
  869 F.2d 87· 2d Cir.· 1989-02-21 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the petitioner's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel was not exhausted because the state appellate division likely affirmed on procedural grounds, not the merits of the underlying speedy trial claim.
• Redner v. Citrus Cnty.
  710 F. Supp. 318· M.D. Fla.· 1989-02-13 ·cited 2×
  The court held that abstention was not warranted, and granted dismissal in part for claims related to damages and statutory notice, while denying dismissal for injunctive relief and dismissing claims based on unconstitutional bond conditions and conspiracy.