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

• Piekarski v. Bogan
  912 F.2d 224· 8th Cir.· 1990-08-20
  The court held that the petitioner is not entitled to immediate parole eligibility based on the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, as amended.
• Coleman v. Jones
  909 F.2d 447· 11th Cir.· 1990-08-17
  A jury instruction that presumes malice from the use of a deadly weapon, while erroneous, was harmless because the defendant was convicted of a capital offense requiring intentional killing, not a lesser offense requiring malice.
• Davis v. Maynard
  911 F.2d 415· 10th Cir.· 1990-08-17
  The court held that the anti-sympathy instruction created a new rule not applicable on collateral review, but the aggravating circumstance instruction was unconstitutional under existing precedent.
• United Bros. of the Bay Area v. Freedman
  521 F. App'x 167· M.D. Fla.· 1990-08-06
• Abdul-Hakeem v. Koehler
  910 F.2d 66· 2d Cir.· 1990-08-01
  The court held that a prisoner's petition seeking a transfer of custody, even if framed as a challenge to conditions of confinement, must be treated as a petition for a writ of habeas corpus if the requested relief would require prison officials to cede custody.
• Guyer v. Beard
  907 F.2d 1424· 3d Cir.· 1990-07-20
  The court held that the district court properly dismissed the inmate's habeas petition because his refusal to sign a limited power of attorney form, necessary for mail delivery and inspection, was contumacious and made adjudication impossible.
• George v. Seabold
  909 F.2d 157· 6th Cir.· 1990-07-20
  The court held that the district court erred in granting the writ because the petitioner failed to exhaust his state remedies regarding his due process claim about his sentence. The issue should be decided by Kentucky state courts first.
• Goodwin v. C.A. Turner
  908 F.2d 1395· 8th Cir.· 1990-07-17
  A prison regulation prohibiting inmates from artificially inseminating their wives is reasonably related to legitimate penological interests, specifically the equal treatment of all inmates and the allocation of limited resources.
• Molaire v. Smith
  743 F. Supp. 839· S.D. Fla.· 1990-07-16
  The court held that the Board of Immigration Appeals abused its discretion by denying the motion to reopen and that the immigration judge violated the petitioner's due process rights.
• Clark v. Duckworth
  906 F.2d 1174· 7th Cir.· 1990-07-13
  The court held that the district court erred by granting habeas relief on a claim not raised by the petitioner, and that the petitioner's Dudley claim was procedurally defaulted. The case is remanded for reconsideration of the petitioner's ineffective assistance of counsel claim.
• Montoya v. United States Parole Comm'n
  908 F.2d 635· 10th Cir.· 1990-07-12
  The dissenting judge would uphold the Parole Commission's decision to go above parole guidelines, finding a rational basis for the determination of assaultive and aggressive behavior.
• Parker v. A.L. Lockhart
  907 F.2d 859· 8th Cir.· 1990-07-12
  The court held that the appellant failed to demonstrate a reasonable probability that the outcome of his trial would have been different had his counsel not stipulated that he fired the weapon, thus failing to meet the prejudice prong of the ineffective assistance of counsel stan
• Edwards v. A.L. Lockhart
  908 F.2d 299· 8th Cir.· 1990-07-10
  The court held that an inmate participating in the 814 work/study release program, which allows release from institutional life into the community, possesses a liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause and is entitled to due process protections prior to revocation from
• Flores v. State OF Minn.
  906 F.2d 1300· 8th Cir.· 1990-07-05 ·via Habeas Corpus Review
  The court held that the jury instructions on premeditation and intoxication, as well as the evidentiary rulings, did not violate due process and that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction.
• Race v. Pung
  907 F.2d 83· 8th Cir.· 1990-07-05
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction and that the petitioner's other claims did not warrant relief.
• Hamilton v. Jones
  907 F.2d 807· 8th Cir.· 1990-07-03
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the habeas corpus petition because the petitioner's case was not yet final when Batson v. Kentucky was decided.
• Christian v. Crawford
  907 F.2d 808· 8th Cir.· 1990-07-03
  An attorney appointed under the Criminal Justice Act is not a federal official for purposes of a Bivens action, and a pro se complaint alleging such should be dismissed if it fails to state a claim.
• Adolph Lott v. Lawrence
  564 So. 2d 197· Fla. 3d DCA· 1990-07-03
  Petitioner's habeas corpus petition for release based on the state's failure to timely file an information is denied as moot because the state filed the information before the court could grant relief, though the court found the state failed to demonstrate good cause for the dela
• ROY v. Coxon
  907 F.2d 385· 2d Cir.· 1990-06-29
  The court held that the district court should have reached the merits of the habeas petition because the state court's plain error analysis was not independent of federal law, and the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
• Buckley v. Collins
  904 F.2d 263· 5th Cir.· 1990-06-27
  The court held that the petitioner failed to demonstrate ineffective assistance of counsel, that the Texas rape statute was constitutional, and that the jury instructions were not fundamentally erroneous.
• Isham v. Collins
  905 F.2d 67· 5th Cir.· 1990-06-26
  The court held that the state did not introduce sufficient evidence to support the petitioner's murder conviction beyond a reasonable doubt.
• D.M. v. Korda
  562 So. 2d 407· Fla. 4th DCA· 1990-06-06
  The Fourth District Court of Appeal granted a habeas corpus petition for a detained child, finding that the trial court had violated Florida Statutes § 39.032 by detaining the child in contravention of law, and warned that judicial immunity does not shield judges from prospective
• Wilson v. (Warden) C.E. Jones & The Attorney Gen. of the State of Ala.
  902 F.2d 923· 11th Cir.· 1990-06-05 ·via Habeas Corpus Petition
  The court held that the defendant did not procedurally default his Batson claim in state court because the state's appellate brief argued the merits of the claim, not a procedural bar.
• Hogan v. Koenig
  920 F.2d 6· 9th Cir.· 1990-06-04
  The court held that California, not being a party to the treaty, is not bound by its provisions regarding consent to prisoner transfer and has the power to deny consent.
• Dees v. Caspiri
  904 F.2d 452· 8th Cir.· 1990-06-01
  The court held that the defendant's trial counsel's performance was not constitutionally ineffective, despite potential shortcomings, because the defendant failed to demonstrate prejudice. The court affirmed the denial of the habeas corpus petition.
• Rodriquez v. Scully
  905 F.2d 24· 2d Cir.· 1990-05-29
  A district court should not issue a certificate of probable cause unless the petitioner demonstrates both that the petition is not frivolous and that it presents a question deserving of appellate review.
• Carbray v. Champion
  905 F.2d 314· 10th Cir.· 1990-05-25
  The modification of the appellant's sentence by the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals did not violate the Due Process Clause, as the state appellate court had the authority under state law to exercise its discretion and modify the jury's sentence.
• Joiner v. Henman
  902 F.2d 1251· 7th Cir.· 1990-05-21
  The court held that supplemental parole violator warrants were validly issued and that time served on a state sentence is credited only for reparole guideline purposes, not against the expiration of the federal sentence.
• Jolly v. State
  571 So. 2d 7· Fla. 2d DCA· 1990-05-18
• Brockelbank v. State
  571 So. 2d 9· Fla. 2d DCA· 1990-05-18
  Incarcerated petitioner Brockelbank sought to reopen an appeal from his escape conviction, claiming denial of effective appellate counsel. The court treated his letter as a habeas corpus petition and denied relief, finding no valid appeal to reopen after the motion for postconvic
• R.C. v. Fryer
  561 So. 2d 31· Fla. 4th DCA· 1990-05-16 ·via Writ Of Habeas Corpus
• Weinstein v. United States Parole Comm'n
  902 F.2d 1451· 9th Cir.· 1990-05-11
  The court held that the appellant had exhausted his administrative remedies and that the Parole Commission's decision to reopen his case did not violate 28 C.F.R. § 2.28. However, the court remanded for a determination of whether the decision to go outside guidelines was based on
• Hammons v. The Sheriff OF Jefferson Cnty.
  901 F.2d 59· 5th Cir.· 1990-05-11
  Technical errors in a parole violator's warrant that do not prejudice the prisoner do not render the warrant defective.
• Roderick v. Trickey
  902 F.2d 9· 8th Cir.· 1990-04-26
  The court held that a state court's factual findings regarding a guilty plea are presumed correct and that a habeas petitioner's claims contradicting his statements at the plea hearing are insufficient to warrant relief.
• Manning v. Crispus NIX
  901 F.2d 671· 8th Cir.· 1990-04-19
  The court held that the denial of funds for an investigator was not reversible error absent evidence of prejudice, and that having a married couple serve on a jury does not per se violate constitutional rights.
• Thompson v. Purkett
  901 F.2d 670· 8th Cir.· 1990-04-18 ·via Habeas Corpus Petition
  The court affirmed the denial of the petition for writ of habeas corpus, finding the appellant failed to meet the standard for ineffective assistance of counsel.
• Madonna v. U.S. Parole Comm'n
  900 F.2d 24· 3d Cir.· 1990-04-13
  The court held that the parole guidelines for Category Eight offenses contain no upper limit, meaning no upward departure from the guidelines occurred in this case.
• Risken v. United States
  899 F.2d 728· 8th Cir.· 1990-03-29 ·via Writ Of Habeas Corpus
  The court held that the district court correctly denied the appellant's motions to correct his presentence investigation report and his sentence, as the claims were either not properly raised or had already been rejected on direct appeal.
• Robinson v. United States
  897 F.2d 903· 7th Cir.· 1990-03-20
  The court held that a defendant's decision to make an unsworn statement to the jury during closing arguments, even if it contained incriminating admissions and contradicted his attorney's defense strategy, did not constitute a waiver of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel when h
• Anderson v. United States
  898 F.2d 751· 9th Cir.· 1990-03-19
  The court affirmed the district court's denial of the habeas petition, finding no merit to the petitioner's claims regarding his federal sentence, due process, or custodial status.
• Velasquez v. Leonardo
  898 F.2d 7· 2d Cir.· 1990-03-07 ·via Federal Habeas Corpus
  Federal habeas review is precluded when a state court explicitly relies on a procedural default, even if it also rules on the merits.
• Rayburn Paulk v. Braxton
  562 So. 2d 699· Fla. 1st DCA· 1990-02-26
  The court held that incarceration for civil contempt was improper because the arrearage had been reduced to judgment, making incarceration an unavailable remedy, and because the order for incarceration was oral.
• Adams v. Armontrout
  897 F.2d 332· 8th Cir.· 1990-02-26
  A habeas corpus petition must state specific, particularized facts supporting each ground for relief to substantially comply with Rule 2(c) of the Section 2254 Rules.
• Birr v. Shillinger
  894 F.2d 1160· 10th Cir.· 1990-01-22
  The court held that a federal habeas court must defer to a state court's determination that the state legislature intended cumulative punishments, thus finding no double jeopardy violation.
• Simmons v. Christensen
  894 F.2d 1041· 9th Cir.· 1990-01-18
  The Bureau of Prisons' rejection of a Parole Commission's recommendation to reduce a sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 4205(g) did not violate the prisoner's constitutional rights, and federal courts lack jurisdiction to review such decisions.
• Abbott v. Parke
  893 F.2d 868· 6th Cir.· 1990-01-16
  The admission of Abbott's statements, obtained after he invoked his Sixth Amendment right to counsel, was not harmless error and violated his constitutional rights.
• Bateman v. Gardner
  293 F. App'x 468· S.D. Fla.· 1990-01-12
• Larrinaga v. State
  554 So. 2d 1233· Fla. 5th DCA· 1990-01-11 ·via Habeas Corpus Relief
• Williams v. A.L. Lockhart
  893 F.2d 191· 8th Cir.· 1990-01-05
  The court held that the district court misread the appellant's state post-conviction relief petition, which did challenge the conviction for which he was incarcerated, thus he had exhausted state remedies.
• Fullan v. Comm'r OF Corr. OF the State OF NEW York & the Justices of the App. Div.
  891 F.2d 1007· 2d Cir.· 1989-12-12
  The dissenting judge holds that the petitioner's custody is not in violation of federal law and that he has not exhausted state remedies, thus federal habeas jurisdiction is improper.