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

• Ringstaff v. Howard
  861 F.2d 644· 11th Cir.· 1989-02-06 ·cited 2×·via Habeas Corpus Relief
• Benio Kalka v. Vasquez
  867 F.2d 546· 9th Cir.· 1989-02-03 ·cited 2×
  The court held that denying a prisoner full worktime credits for the period they were available but not assigned work does not violate equal protection, as the distinction is rationally related to the rehabilitative purpose of actual work performance and institutional security.
• In re Warden, Ky. State Penitentiary v. Gall
  865 F.2d 786· 6th Cir.· 1989-01-18 ·cited 2×
  The court held that mandamus relief was not appropriate because the district court's discovery orders did not constitute a clear usurpation of power, and the petitioner had not demonstrated a clear and indisputable right to the writ.
• United States v. Oliver
  865 F.2d 600· 4th Cir.· 1989-01-13 ·cited 2×
  A district court may dismiss a successive § 2255 motion without prior notice if it plainly appears from the face of the motion and prior proceedings that the movant is not entitled to relief, or if the failure to assert grounds previously constituted an abuse of procedure.
• Smith v. Armontrout
  865 F.2d 1515· 8th Cir.· 1989-01-12 ·cited 2×
  The court granted stays of execution and recalled mandates, allowing Gerald Smith to pursue his habeas corpus remedies and appeals on the merits of his convictions.
• Henderson v. A.L. Lockhart
  864 F.2d 1447· 8th Cir.· 1989-01-10 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court properly granted the writ of habeas corpus, finding that Henderson was denied effective assistance of counsel in pursuing his appeal, and that the underlying issue had merit.
• Lopez v. Riley
  865 F.2d 30· 2d Cir.· 1989-01-03 ·cited 2×
  Claims of deficiencies in a state grand jury proceeding are not cognizable in a federal habeas corpus proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 when a petit jury has subsequently convicted.
• Erling Knud Ove Hansen, Jr. v. Duggar
  536 So. 2d 1169· Fla. 1st DCA· 1988-12-30 ·cited 2×
  Hansen, a paroled murderer arrested on parole violation charges, petitioned for habeas corpus challenging the sufficiency and procedural adequacy of his preliminary parole revocation hearing. The court affirmed the denial of his petition, finding that the preliminary hearing sati
• Davis v. United States
  865 F.2d 164· 8th Cir.· 1988-12-30 ·cited 2×·via Habeas Corpus Petition
  The court held that the defendant failed to demonstrate prejudice from his counsel's alleged ineffectiveness, as the evidence of the victim's gonorrhea had low probative value and the prosecution's case was strong.
• Smith v. Armontrout
  865 F.2d 1514· 8th Cir.· 1988-12-08 ·cited 2×
  The court held that only the prisoner himself has standing to pursue appellate or collateral remedies, as established by a prior ruling.
• Vasquez v. Cooper
  862 F.2d 250· 10th Cir.· 1988-11-30 ·cited 2×
  The Fourteenth Amendment requires a state court to give credit against a sentence for pre-conviction jail time served due to inability to post bail, even if the sentence is less than the statutory maximum.
• Aschan v. C.J. Auger
  861 F.2d 520· 8th Cir.· 1988-11-18 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the appellant breached the pre-trial diversion agreement, thus forfeiting the bargained-for lesser charge, and that the state trial court did not misallocate the burden of proof.
• Daugherty v. Dugger
  699 F. Supp. 1517· M.D. Fla.· 1988-11-02 ·cited 2×
  The court denied the petition for writ of habeas corpus and motion for stay of execution, finding the claims without merit and, in some instances, an abuse of the writ.
• Bova v. Dugger
  858 F.2d 1539· 11th Cir.· 1988-11-01 ·cited 2×
  Denying a criminal defendant the right to consult with counsel during a court recess violates the Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel.
• Thurman Dickey v. Lewis
  859 F.2d 1365· 9th Cir.· 1988-10-20 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a jury instruction presuming intent to kill from the use of a deadly weapon, while unconstitutional, constituted harmless error given the overwhelming evidence of intent. The court also affirmed that no state procedural bar precluded federal review.
• Hicks v. Callahan
  859 F.2d 1054· 1st Cir.· 1988-10-20 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court erred in granting habeas corpus relief, as the Massachusetts felony-murder rule as applied at the time of petitioner's conviction was constitutional and supported by the evidence.
• Allen v. Redman
  858 F.2d 1194· 6th Cir.· 1988-10-06 ·cited 2×·via Habeas Corpus Review
  The court held that because sanity is not an element of the charged offenses under Michigan law, the petitioner's claims regarding the sufficiency of evidence and jury instructions on sanity do not present cognizable constitutional grounds for federal habeas corpus relief.
• Rudolph v. Parke
  856 F.2d 738· 6th Cir.· 1988-09-07 ·cited 2×·via Habeas Corpus Relief
  The court held that the admission of three invalid prior convictions was harmless error because the petitioner had sufficient valid prior convictions to support his persistent felony offender status, and thus, habeas relief was not warranted.
• Smart v. Leeke
  856 F.2d 609· 4th Cir.· 1988-09-06 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a jury instruction placing the burden of proving self-defense on the defendant in a South Carolina murder trial violated due process because self-defense is an element of murder in South Carolina, which the prosecution must disprove beyond a reasonable doubt.
• Morlett v. Lynaugh
  851 F.2d 1521· 5th Cir.· 1988-08-16 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the petitioner's claims regarding a defective indictment, admission of extraneous evidence, double jeopardy, and ineffective assistance of counsel were without merit and did not warrant federal habeas relief.
• Brown v. Armontrout
  853 F.2d 624· 8th Cir.· 1988-08-10 ·cited 2×
  The court held that because state remedies are no longer available, the issue of exhaustion is moot, and the case should be remanded for the district court to address procedural default and the merits of the habeas claims.
• Hatcher v. Jackson
  853 F.2d 212· 3d Cir.· 1988-08-08 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the state trial court's determination that a juror's vote was unequivocal, despite her subsequent emotional breakdown, did not constitute a due process violation.
• Liberatore v. Story
  854 F.2d 830· 6th Cir.· 1988-08-05 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the Parole Commission's interpretation of its guidelines was reasonable and that the Regional Commissioner acted within her authority. However, the case is remanded to determine if the petitioner was properly notified of and given an opportunity to respond to
• Flittie v. Solem
  867 F.2d 1053· 8th Cir.· 1988-08-04 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a petitioner challenging a prior conviction used for sentence enhancement is not considered 'in custody' for habeas corpus purposes if the sentence for that prior conviction has been fully served, as the enhancement is a collateral consequence.
• Fulghum v. Ford
  850 F.2d 1529· 11th Cir.· 1988-08-03 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the jury instructions on implied malice did not impermissibly shift the burden of proof and that a rational trier of fact could have found the defendant failed to prove insanity by a preponderance of the evidence.
• Reyes v. Quintana
  853 F.2d 784· 10th Cir.· 1988-08-02 ·cited 2×
  The court held that enhancing a sentence based on aggravating circumstances supported by the record, even if those circumstances relate to the defendant's conduct and character, does not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause, as it does not punish the defendant for an element the ju
• Pacheco v. Dugger
  850 F.2d 1493· 11th Cir.· 1988-08-02 ·cited 2×·via Federal Habeas Corpus
  The court affirmed the denial of the petition, finding no merit in the claims of improper sentencing guidelines, ex post facto violation, or ineffective assistance of appellate counsel.
• Pool v. Armontrout
  852 F.2d 372· 8th Cir.· 1988-07-26 ·cited 2×
  The court held that claims of prison official interference with appeals are cognizable in habeas corpus if they challenge the fact or length of confinement, but that the appellant failed to show his prior habeas appeal had merit, thus obviating the need for an evidentiary hearing
• Anderson Gene DuBOIS v. A.L. Lockhart
  859 F.2d 1314· 8th Cir.· 1988-07-20 ·cited 2×
  A state appellate court's reversal of a conviction based on a state statute requiring corroboration of accomplice testimony constitutes an evidentiary insufficiency, barring retrial under the Double Jeopardy Clause.
• Gholston v. Jones
  848 F.2d 1156· 11th Cir.· 1988-07-07 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the parole revocation was constitutionally sound, as the parolee had waived certain rights and the supervisor's report, containing an admission, was sufficiently reliable.
• Rubino v. Lynaugh
  849 F.2d 906· 5th Cir.· 1988-06-30 ·cited 2×
  The court certified a question to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals regarding whether the Texas carving doctrine, if still in effect, would have barred Rubino's second prosecution for attempted murder.
• LePAGE v. State OF Idaho & Arvon J. Arave
  851 F.2d 251· 9th Cir.· 1988-06-29 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a Massiah violation was harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt due to overwhelming independent evidence of guilt, and that other claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and due process violations were without merit or procedurally barred.
• Cannon v. A.L. Lockhart
  850 F.2d 437· 8th Cir.· 1988-06-28 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a new trial requires demonstrating that a juror failed to honestly answer a material question on voir dire and that a correct answer would have provided a basis for a challenge for cause.
• Saldana v. The State OF NEW York
  850 F.2d 117· 2d Cir.· 1988-06-27 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the State's failure to allow the defendant to testify before the grand jury was harmless error under federal constitutional standards and that the defendant had not exhausted his state remedies.
• Vinston v. A.L. Lockhart
  850 F.2d 420· 8th Cir.· 1988-06-24 ·cited 2×
  The court affirmed the denial of the habeas corpus petition, finding the Sixth Amendment jury claim was procedurally defaulted and the identification procedures were not impermissibly suggestive.
• Bennett v. Soto
  850 F.2d 161· 3d Cir.· 1988-06-24 ·cited 2×
  The district court erred in denying the habeas corpus petition by mischaracterizing its jurisdictional basis and should have considered it under the Virgin Islands habeas corpus statute.
• Anderson v. Butler
  858 F.2d 16· 1st Cir.· 1988-06-22 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the failure to call promised expert witnesses, after explicitly stating they would testify, constituted ineffective assistance of counsel and was prejudicial as a matter of law.
• Stines v. T.C. Martin
  849 F.2d 1323· 10th Cir.· 1988-06-21 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a district court abused its discretion by granting a writ of habeas corpus based on the government's minor delay in responding, as the delay did not rise to the level of a due process violation.
• Herrmann v. Meese
  849 F.2d 101· 3d Cir.· 1988-06-17 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the Treaty's provision for adapting sentences is permissive, not mandatory, and the United States is not obligated to reduce a foreign sentence to match its domestic maximums.
• Bailey v. Spears
  847 F.2d 695· 11th Cir.· 1988-06-16 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the defendant's habeas corpus petition warranted an evidentiary hearing regarding his competency to stand trial and the applicability of an insanity defense.
• Bryant v. State OF Md.
  848 F.2d 492· 4th Cir.· 1988-06-08 ·cited 2×
  The court held that claims of error in state post-conviction proceedings cannot serve as a basis for federal habeas corpus relief, and a parole statute not creating a legitimate expectation of release does not implicate due process.
• Hodjatollah Tahamtani v. Lankford
  846 F.2d 712· 11th Cir.· 1988-06-08 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the defendant failed to demonstrate a reasonable probability that he would have insisted on going to trial but for his counsel's alleged errors, thus failing the prejudice prong of the ineffective assistance of counsel test.
• State v. Broom
  526 So. 2d 158· Fla. 2d DCA· 1988-05-23 ·cited 2×
  The Florida District Court of Appeal reversed a circuit judge's order granting bond to Anthony Broom pending review in the Florida Supreme Court of a previously-reversed habeas corpus petition. The court held that the circuit judge lacked authority to grant bond after the appella
• Reddy v. Coombe
  846 F.2d 866· 2d Cir.· 1988-05-16 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support the inference that the petitioner intended to rob the victim, thus sustaining his felony murder conviction.
• Fendler v. United States Bureau OF Prisons
  846 F.2d 550· 9th Cir.· 1988-05-11 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the Bureau of Prisons complied with the Privacy Act by including the inmate's rebuttal with his records, and that the inmate's claims for expungement and habeas corpus relief were moot or otherwise unmeritorious.
• Bishop v. State
  527 So. 2d 836· Fla. 4th DCA· 1988-05-11 ·cited 2×·via Habeas Corpus Petition
  Lawrence Bishop appeals the denial of his rule 3.850 motion for post-conviction relief in a first-degree murder and robbery case. The court affirms the denial, finding the allegations conclusory rather than factual and expressing concern about successive post-conviction motions r
• Williams v. Hayes
  846 F.2d 6· 4th Cir.· 1988-05-11 ·cited 2×
  The court held that pre-trial jail credit should be applied to the longer of two concurrent sentences to ensure fundamental fairness.
• Guizar v. Estelle
  843 F.2d 371· 9th Cir.· 1988-03-31 ·cited 2×
  A federal court must dismiss a habeas corpus petition containing both exhausted and unexhausted claims, and cannot rule on the merits of any claim within such a petition.
• Garrett v. Lynaugh
  842 F.2d 113· 5th Cir.· 1988-03-31 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the state's failure to test or preserve a vaginal sample for blood type did not violate due process, as the pathologist used the entire sample for necessary tests and no evidence remained to be preserved.
• Flournoy v. Marshall
  842 F.2d 875· 6th Cir.· 1988-03-22 ·cited 2×
  The court held that district courts must apply a de novo standard of review to magistrate's findings in habeas corpus cases referred under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), not the clearly erroneous standard.