Habeas Corpus

18,779 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count

• Panzavecchia v. Louie L. Wainwright
  658 F.2d 337· 5th Cir.· 1981-10-05 ·cited 49×
  The admission of irrelevant and prejudicial evidence of a prior conviction, due to the denial of a severance motion, violated the petitioner's Fourteenth Amendment right to a fair trial, warranting habeas corpus relief.
• Thompson v. Estelle
  642 F.2d 996· 5th Cir.· 1981-04-17 ·cited 49×
  The admission of two prior uncounselled convictions was not improper, and the admission of the remaining two was harmless error.
• Amos Lumpkin v. Ricketts
  551 F.2d 680· 5th Cir.· 1977-05-02 ·cited 49×
  A state prisoner who failed to timely challenge grand jury composition under state law must show both cause and prejudice for federal habeas review, and ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to advise of appeal rights does not constitute cause for failing to challenge the
• Bromley v. Crisp
  561 F.2d 1351· 10th Cir.· 1977-04-12 ·cited 49×
• Cardaropoli v. Norton
  523 F.2d 990· 2d Cir.· 1975-09-29 ·cited 49×
  The court held that federal prisoners classified as 'Special Offenders' are entitled to basic due process protections before the designation is imposed, including notice, an opportunity to be heard, and a written statement of reasons.
• Kennedy v. Cardwell
  487 F.2d 101· 6th Cir.· 1973-10-30 ·cited 49×
  The court held that the state trial judge did not abuse his discretion in ordering the petitioner shackled during his trials, as the petitioner failed to meet his burden of proof in the habeas corpus proceeding.
• United States v. Yeager
  476 F.2d 613· 3d Cir.· 1973-03-30 ·cited 49×
  The court held that a prosecutor's comment on a defendant's consultation with an attorney after a crime, which suggests guilt, constitutes a violation of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel, and such error is not harmless when the defendant's credibility is central to the case.
• Hoover v. Beto
  467 F.2d 516· 5th Cir.· 1972-08-09 ·cited 49×
  The court held that the introduction of an unsworn confession without the declarant being subject to cross-examination denied the defendant a fair trial, and this error was not harmless.
• Brown v. Dixie Herlong Chastain
  416 F.2d 1012· 5th Cir.· 1969-08-04 ·cited 49×
  The district court erred in dismissing the case for lack of jurisdiction. Federal courts have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1343 to hear claims alleging deprivation of constitutional rights by state judicial officers. The Rooker-Feldman doctrine does not preclude this jurisdicti
• Covington v. Harris
  419 F.2d 617· D.C. Cir.· 1969-03-14 ·cited 49×
  The court held that the record was inadequate to determine if the hospital's decision to keep the appellant in maximum security was permissible and reasonable, requiring a remand for further proceedings.
• United States & Preston Smith v. Marchese
  341 F.2d 782· 9th Cir.· 1965-02-10 ·cited 49×
  The district court exceeded its authority under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 by modifying sentences and considering good time credits, as these actions were not authorized by the statute and encroached on executive functions.
• United States ex rel. Hirshberg v. Cooke
  336 U.S. 210· U.S.· 1949-02-28 ·cited 49×
  A naval court-martial does not have statutory jurisdiction to try a sailor for offenses committed during a prior enlistment if the sailor received an honorable discharge and proceedings were not instituted before discharge, even if the sailor subsequently re-enlisted.
• State of Fla. Ex rel. Daisy Wilson v. Quigg
  154 Fla. 348· Fla.· 1944-04-18 ·cited 49×
  The Florida Supreme Court reversed a habeas corpus judgment, holding that a circuit court cannot issue a search warrant for alleged violations of a municipal ordinance that is made returnable to a municipal court, as such warrants must comply strictly with state statutory provisi
• Coleman v. State ex rel. Costello Jackson
  140 Fla. 772· Fla.· 1939-11-28 ·cited 49×
  The Florida Supreme Court reversed a circuit court's order discharging a prisoner held under conviction for violating a liquor statute. The court held that the information adequately charged a crime, the statute was constitutional, and no element of knowledge was required for thi
• Snowden v. Brown
  60 Fla. 212· Fla.· 1910-06-01 ·cited 49×
  The court considered whether a statute prohibiting fishing with haul seines or drag nets in specific waters was unconstitutional due to its penalty provision being a local law. The court found the penalty provision unconstitutional but determined that a general statute prescribin
• Thanquarius Calhoun v. Warden, Baldwin State Prison
  92 F.4th 1338· 11th Cir.· 2024-02-15 ·cited 48×
  Thanquarius Calhoun was convicted of felony murder and other crimes after leading police on a high-speed chase that resulted in the death of his passenger, Marion Shore, when officers used a PIT maneuver to stop his vehicle. On federal habeas review, the Eleventh Circuit held tha
• Jones v. Sec'y, Fla. Dep't OF Corr., Attorney Gen., State of Fla.
  906 F.3d 1339· 11th Cir.· 2018-10-29 ·cited 48×
  Philip Walter Jones was convicted of aggravated domestic battery in 2006 and sentenced to 20 years imprisonment. Six years after his conviction became final, he filed a Rule 3.850 motion alleging newly discovered evidence that his trial counsel failed to inform him of a ten-year
• Wood v. Milyard
  566 U.S. 463· U.S.· 2012-04-24 ·cited 48×
  The Supreme Court held that while federal courts have discretion to consider a forfeited statute of limitations defense in habeas corpus cases, they may not do so when a state deliberately waives the defense. The Court reversed the Tenth Circuit's dismissal of Wood's federal habe
• Walton v. State
  847 So. 2d 438· Fla.· 2003-05-29 ·cited 48×
  Jason Dirk Walton appeals the denial of his motion for postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 challenging his conviction for three counts of first-degree murder and three death sentences. The Florida Supreme Court affirms the trial court's denial, fi
• Graham v. Collins
  950 F.2d 1009· 5th Cir.· 1992-01-03 ·cited 48×
  The dissent argues that the jury's assessment of mitigating factors, such as youth and family circumstances, is not fully captured by questions about deliberateness and future danger.
• Christopher v. State
  583 So. 2d 642· Fla.· 1991-05-30 ·cited 48×
  William Christopher appeals his murder convictions and death sentence for killing Bertha Skillin and George Ahern. The Florida Supreme Court affirms his convictions but vacates his death sentence because the trial judge failed to issue written sentencing findings prior to pronoun
• Wilson v. O'Leary
  895 F.2d 378· 7th Cir.· 1990-02-07 ·cited 48×
  The court held that the statement made to Assistant State's Attorney Gainer was inadmissible as it was a mere relay of a coerced confession, and the state forfeited its harmless error argument. Statements made to Officer Dubois after Miranda warnings were admissible as they were
• Smittie v. A.L. Lockhart
  843 F.2d 295· 8th Cir.· 1988-03-31 ·cited 48×
  A federal court must dismiss a habeas petition if the petitioner fails to demonstrate cause and prejudice for not exhausting state remedies, even if state remedies are futile.
• Alexander v. Dugger
  841 F.2d 371· 11th Cir.· 1988-03-28 ·cited 48×
  The court held that while the petitioner demonstrated cause for his procedural default in state court, he failed to demonstrate actual prejudice from the alleged constitutional errors, thus barring federal habeas relief.
• Campbell v. Kincheloe
  829 F.2d 1453· 9th Cir.· 1987-10-06 ·cited 48×
  The dissenting judge argues that the failure of Campbell's counsel to present mitigating circumstances at sentencing deprived him of his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel.
• Marino v. Vasquez
  812 F.2d 499· 9th Cir.· 1987-03-09 ·cited 48×
  The court held that jury misconduct involving an unauthorized dictionary definition of malice and an out-of-court experiment created a reasonable possibility of prejudice, warranting habeas relief for murder and attempted murder convictions, but not for felony false imprisonment.
• Booker v. Jabe
  775 F.2d 762· 6th Cir.· 1985-10-29 ·cited 48×
  The systematic use of peremptory challenges to exclude jurors based on race violates the Sixth Amendment's guarantee of an impartial jury, even if it does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment under Swain v. Alabama.
• Wilson v. Mintzes
  761 F.2d 275· 6th Cir.· 1985-05-01 ·cited 48×
  The court held that the trial judge acted unreasonably in denying the defendant's request for substitute counsel, thus violating the Sixth Amendment right to counsel of choice.
• Willie v. Maggio
  737 F.2d 1372· 5th Cir.· 1984-08-06 ·cited 48×
  The court held that jurors exposed to a co-defendant's voir dire, which presented a defense theory but no evidence, were not presumptively biased. The court also found no violation of Edwards v. Arizona regarding the defendant's confession.
• McCRAE v. Louie L. Wainwright
  439 So. 2d 868· Fla.· 1983-09-15 ·cited 48×
  James McCrae, a death row inmate, petitioned for habeas corpus relief challenging his conviction for first-degree murder and death sentence. The Florida Supreme Court rejected all three claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and denial of due process, holding that issues not
• Shriner v. Louie L. Wainwright
  715 F.2d 1452· 11th Cir.· 1983-09-09 ·cited 48×
  The court held that the denial of the habeas corpus petition was proper, as there were no constitutional infirmities in the state proceedings regarding Shriner's conviction or sentence.
• Hill v. Linahan
  697 F.2d 1032· 11th Cir.· 1983-02-11 ·cited 48×
  The court held that the district court erred by dismissing the habeas petition under Rule 9(a) without providing the petitioner notice and an opportunity to be heard, and because the respondent failed to make a particularized showing of prejudice caused by the delay.
• Bullard v. Estelle
  665 F.2d 1347· 5th Cir.· 1982-01-20 ·cited 48×
  The double jeopardy clause bars a second enhancement proceeding when evidence in the first was insufficient, and this principle applies retroactively.
• Darrett Bernard Baker v. Honorable Don Metcalfe
  633 F.2d 1198· 5th Cir.· 1981-01-09 ·cited 48×
  The court held that prosecutorial overreaching sufficient to bar retrial under double jeopardy requires bad faith, intentional, or grossly negligent misconduct that seriously prejudices the defendant.
• Alvon O'Neal Haley v. Estelle
  632 F.2d 1273· 5th Cir.· 1980-12-17 ·cited 48×
  The district court erred in dismissing the second habeas corpus petition under Rule 9(b) for abuse of the writ.
• Trujillo v. Trujillo
  378 So. 2d 812· Fla. 3d DCA· 1979-12-11 ·cited 48×
  A Florida appellate court reversed a trial court's modification of a New York custody decree, holding that Florida lacked jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act to modify the decree after the mother's drug charges were dismissed. The court emphasized that F
• Swicegood v. State OF Ala.
  577 F.2d 1322· 5th Cir.· 1978-08-11 ·cited 48×
  The court held that while the Fourth Amendment claim regarding the arrest was barred by Stone v. Powell, the lineup identification procedures were so suggestive and unreliable as to violate due process.
• Dunkerley v. Hogan
  579 F.2d 141· 2d Cir.· 1978-06-05 ·cited 48×
  The dissenting judge believes the trial judge did not abuse his discretion by declaring a mistrial due to the defendant's sudden illness, finding manifest necessity for the action.
• Hooker v. Klein
  573 F.2d 1360· 9th Cir.· 1978-05-03 ·cited 48×
  The court affirms the denial of the writ of habeas corpus, but the concurring opinion suggests a broader review for the government in extradition cases.
• Reynolds v. Mabry
  574 F.2d 978· 8th Cir.· 1978-05-02 ·cited 48×
  The court held that the petitioner failed to demonstrate ineffective assistance of counsel and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting a continuance.
• Petition of Josette Geisser v. United States
  554 F.2d 698· 5th Cir.· 1977-06-22 ·cited 48×
  The court should not enforce plea bargain provisions that attempt to modify or abrogate a U.S. treaty, as treaties are the supreme law of the land.
• Vardaman S. Dunn v. Koehring Co.
  546 F.2d 1193· 5th Cir.· 1977-02-11 ·cited 48×
  The court held that Koehring was liable to Hyde for abuse of process and malicious prosecution, affirming the trial court's finding with modifications to damages. The court reversed the lower court's finding that Koehring was not liable to Dunn, holding Koehring liable for abuse
• Meeks v. Craven
  482 F.2d 465· 9th Cir.· 1973-07-20 ·cited 48×
  The court held that the defendant's demands to represent himself at trial were not unequivocal, and therefore, he was not denied his constitutional right to self-representation.
• Davis v. State
  277 So. 2d 300· Fla. 2d DCA· 1973-04-19 ·cited 48×
  Earl Davis appealed his guilty pleas and sentences for robbery, extortion, breaking and entering, and petit larceny, claiming he was denied the right to appeal. The court held that Davis's guilty pleas were freely and voluntarily given with full knowledge of consequences, but rem
• United States ex rel. John BEY v. Conn. State Bd. OF Parole
  443 F.2d 1079· 2d Cir.· 1971-05-17 ·cited 48×
  The court held that a parolee facing revocation of parole is entitled to legal representation under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
• Amos Lumpkin v. Lamont Smith
  439 F.2d 1084· 5th Cir.· 1971-03-17 ·cited 48×
  The court held that a petitioner is denied effective assistance of counsel when appointed counsel fails to advise them of their right to appeal, the procedure, time limits, and the right to appointed counsel on appeal.
• Lexington Steve Lamb v. Beto
  423 F.2d 85· 5th Cir.· 1970-02-16 ·cited 48×
  The court held that the appellant's claims of denial of counsel, inadequate representation, and involuntary guilty pleas were not supported by the record, affirming the denial of his habeas corpus petition.
• Hudson v. Hardy
  424 F.2d 854· D.C. Cir.· 1970-02-12 ·cited 48×
  The court held that the issue of mootness, raised for the first time on rehearing, requires further discussion and should be presented to the District Court on remand.
• Byrd v. Smith
  407 F.2d 363· 5th Cir.· 1969-02-04 ·cited 48×
  The court held that a petitioner denied an out-of-time appeal due to counsel's ineffectiveness is entitled to relief, modifying the district court's order to require an out-of-time appeal rather than immediate retrial or release.
• Luna v. Beto
  395 F.2d 35· 5th Cir.· 1968-05-07 ·cited 48×