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

• T.J. Hayes v. A.L. Lockhart
  869 F.2d 358· 8th Cir.· 1989-02-07
  The court held that the defendant's counsel was ineffective for failing to present mitigating evidence and failing to object to prosecutorial misconduct, which prejudiced the defendant's sentencing.
• Houston v. A.L. Lockhart
  866 F.2d 264· 8th Cir.· 1989-01-27
  The court held that the district court did not err in finding the in-custody statement voluntary and admissible for impeachment purposes, and any error was harmless.
• Castillo-Sicairos v. United States Parole Comm'n
  866 F.2d 262· 8th Cir.· 1989-01-25
  The court held that the Parole Commission did not abuse its discretion by considering information from dismissed counts when calculating the offense severity rating, and that the plea agreement did not prohibit such consideration.
• Hopkinson v. Shillinger
  866 F.2d 1185· 10th Cir.· 1989-01-23
  The dissenting judge would hold that the prosecutor's argument violated Caldwell v. Mississippi, diminishing the jury's sense of responsibility, and that a strict standard of review requires vacating the death sentence.
• Kelly v. Risley
  865 F.2d 201· 9th Cir.· 1989-01-09
  The court held that the majority miscalculates parole eligibility for the second (escape) sentence by not adhering to the completion requirement of MAR § 20.25.304(3).
• Crowe v. Sowders
  864 F.2d 430· 6th Cir.· 1989-01-04
• Grady Boutwell v. Eddie Nagle & the Attorney Gen. of the State of Ala.
  861 F.2d 1530· 11th Cir.· 1988-12-21
  A state prisoner is not entitled to credit against their sentence for time spent in out-of-state custody while challenging extradition, absent a state statute granting such credit.
• Mullings v. Meachum
  864 F.2d 13· 2d Cir.· 1988-12-21
  The court held that even if a single jury instruction on circumstantial evidence was potentially misleading when viewed in isolation, the overall jury charge, which repeatedly emphasized proof beyond a reasonable doubt, did not alter the state's burden of proof.
• Barfield v. State
  536 So. 2d 344· Fla. 1st DCA· 1988-12-21
  The court held that the appellant failed to demonstrate prejudice required for an ineffective assistance of counsel claim regarding the alleged juror alcohol consumption.
• Goodman v. Meko
  861 F.2d 1259· 11th Cir.· 1988-12-19
  The court held that the statute requiring mandatory release after serving two-thirds of a sentence applies to the remaining portion of the sentence at the time of reincarceration, not the original sentence.
• Huston v. Jones
  863 F.2d 30· 8th Cir.· 1988-12-15
  The court held that the appellant's third habeas corpus petition did not constitute an abuse of the writ, but that his claims of involuntariness were belied by the plea transcript.
• Cohen v. Captain Ann Vendrell
  535 So. 2d 320· Fla. 3d DCA· 1988-12-08
  A criminal defendant required to post a cash bond may satisfy this requirement with a corporate surety appearance bond, and mandamus lies to compel release upon posting such a bond.
• Nottlemann v. Welding
  861 F.2d 1087· 8th Cir.· 1988-11-23
  The court held that federal courts must dismiss habeas corpus actions when a petitioner has failed to exhaust state remedies.
• Toste v. Lopes
  861 F.2d 782· 2d Cir.· 1988-11-17
  The court held that a defendant's low intelligence level does not automatically invalidate a waiver of Miranda rights if the waiver was knowing and intelligent.
• Franklin v. Lynaugh
  860 F.2d 165· 5th Cir.· 1988-11-01
  The court affirmed the denial of habeas corpus relief, finding the petitioner's claims to be repetitive or improperly withheld until the last minute.
• MacHado v. Commanding Officer
  860 F.2d 542· 2d Cir.· 1988-10-28
  The court held that the district court did not make a sufficient inquiry to determine if the appellant was discharged before his court-martial, requiring a remand for further proceedings.
• Parks v. Brown
  860 F.2d 1545· 10th Cir.· 1988-10-28
  The court held that prosecutorial arguments minimizing the jury's sentencing responsibility constituted a Caldwell violation, requiring invalidation of the death penalty.
• Tippitt v. A.L. Lockhart
  859 F.2d 595· 8th Cir.· 1988-10-17 ·via Writ Of Habeas Corpus
  A custodial statement given in exchange for a fulfilled promise not to prosecute for an additional crime is not per se involuntary; voluntariness is determined by the totality of the circumstances.
• Solheim v. Armstrong
  859 F.2d 755· 9th Cir.· 1988-10-14
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying the habeas corpus petition because the initial notice of parole was void due to lack of final approval, and the subsequent decision to set parole at 60 months was supported by good cause.
• Cambridge v. Duckworth
  859 F.2d 526· 7th Cir.· 1988-10-07
  The court held that the inadvertent mention of a withdrawn guilty plea, followed by a curative instruction, did not violate the defendant's due process rights or Fifth Amendment privilege, and any error was harmless.
• Dunckhurst v. Deeds
  859 F.2d 110· 9th Cir.· 1988-10-07
  The court held that the trial court's jury instructions, when viewed as a whole, adequately informed the jury of the State's burden to prove all elements of first-degree murder beyond a reasonable doubt, including the absence of adequate provocation, thus satisfying due process.
• White v. A.L. Lockhart
  857 F.2d 1218· 8th Cir.· 1988-09-27
  The court held that the denial of a continuance was not a constitutional error, and thus affirmed the dismissal of the habeas petition.
• Pilotto v. United States Parole Comm'n
  857 F.2d 474· 8th Cir.· 1988-09-19
  The court held that the Parole Commission did not abuse its discretion in departing from the guidelines to set a longer presumptive parole date, as the reasons provided were sufficiently documented and unique.
• Morgan v. Sullivan
  856 F.2d 1188· 8th Cir.· 1988-09-16
  The court held that the Parole Commission did not abuse its discretion in determining parole eligibility and that the revised parole guidelines do not violate the ex post facto clause.
• Woomer v. Aiken
  856 F.2d 677· 4th Cir.· 1988-09-14
  The court held that the admission of psychiatric testimony regarding future dangerousness did not violate the defendant's Fifth or Sixth Amendment rights, and that the defendant received effective assistance of counsel.
• Singleton v. Thigpen
  856 F.2d 126· 11th Cir.· 1988-09-12 ·via Federal Habeas Corpus
  The court held that the denial of an evidentiary hearing was proper because the petitioner failed to establish cause and prejudice to overcome a procedural bar on his claim of diminished capacity to waive Miranda rights.
• Davis v. State OF Tenn. & Larry Lack
  856 F.2d 35· 6th Cir.· 1988-09-02
  A jury instruction error regarding malice is harmless when a conviction is based on the felony murder rule, as malice is automatically supplied in such cases.
• Kearns v. State
  530 So. 2d 479· Fla. 5th DCA· 1988-09-01
• Littlefield v. Caton
  856 F.2d 344· 1st Cir.· 1988-09-01
  The court held that a state prisoner is not constitutionally entitled to good-time credits awarded under statutes later declared unconstitutional as applied to previously sentenced individuals, even if those credits accelerated discharge dates.
• Malek v. Shortridge
  855 F.2d 584· 8th Cir.· 1988-08-30
  The court held that the sentencing judge's promise to intercede for parole was not broken, and Malek's commitment to improve prison conditions was not an additional punishment.
• Wiles v. Roof
  854 F.2d 671· 4th Cir.· 1988-08-19
  The court held that jury instructions impermissibly shifting the burden of proof regarding malice were harmless error because malice is not an element of voluntary manslaughter.
• Adams v. Dugger
  850 F.2d 1495· 11th Cir.· 1988-08-02
  The court held that the petitioner's sentence was not disproportionate and did not violate the Eighth Amendment, and that the trial court did not deny due process by failing to consider the presentence investigation report.
• Monroe v. Hilton Butler
  883 F.2d 331· 5th Cir.· 1988-07-26
  The court denied the application for a certificate of probable cause and a stay of execution, finding no substantial showing of a federal right denial.
• GEE v. Clair Cripe
  853 F.2d 510· 7th Cir.· 1988-07-21 ·via Writ Of Habeas Corpus
  The court held that the district court's transfer rule, which required inmates with pending litigation to remain in the Marion prison, was invalid as it usurped the Attorney General's statutory authority to designate prisoner confinement locations.
• Laurence Hurd v. Eloy Mondragon
  851 F.2d 324· 10th Cir.· 1988-07-07
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying the motion to withdraw the habeas petition and in dismissing the petition with prejudice, as the withdrawal motion was untimely and addressed to the court's discretion.
• Ruiz Velez v. State
  528 So. 2d 933· Fla. 5th DCA· 1988-07-07 ·via Writ Of Habeas Corpus
  The court granted the petition for writ of habeas corpus, allowing a belated appeal of the conviction.
• Clay v. Lynaugh
  849 F.2d 908· 5th Cir.· 1988-06-30
  The court is certifying a question to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals regarding whether the Texas carving doctrine, if still in effect, would have barred the petitioner's conviction for aggravated rape.
• Flugence v. Butler
  848 F.2d 77· 5th Cir.· 1988-06-29
  A subsequent diagnosis of mental illness does not automatically entitle a habeas petitioner to an evidentiary hearing if the record, including prior competency evaluations and the plea colloquy, does not clearly and substantially raise doubt about competency at the time of the pl
• Huckelbury v. Dugger
  847 F.2d 732· 11th Cir.· 1988-06-20
  The court held that the district court correctly granted summary judgment because no interrogation occurred, and the advice from counsel was not a recommendation to confess.
• Aimone v. Scully
  849 F.2d 87· 2d Cir.· 1988-06-13
  The court held that the denial of a severance motion was not an abuse of discretion and that a nunc pro tunc ruling allowing the state to appeal a dismissal did not violate double jeopardy principles.
• Moore v. Dubois
  848 F.2d 1115· 10th Cir.· 1988-06-09
  The Parole Commission did not abuse its discretion or violate due process by rejecting a hearing examiner's credibility determination and relying on a victim's affidavit, as due process in parole revocation does not require the decision-maker to personally hear live testimony.
• Jones v. Lanson Newsome
  846 F.2d 62· 11th Cir.· 1988-05-27
  The court affirmed the denial of the habeas corpus petition, holding that the in-court identifications were reliable under the totality of the circumstances.
• Jaster Lee Marbley v. A.L. Lockhart
  846 F.2d 1161· 8th Cir.· 1988-05-23
  A habeas petitioner must demonstrate both deficient performance by counsel and prejudice resulting from that deficiency to warrant relief.
• Donnie Moore v. Al Parke
  846 F.2d 375· 6th Cir.· 1988-05-18
• Robinson v. State
  523 So. 2d 1281· Fla. 4th DCA· 1988-05-04 ·via Writ Of Habeas Corpus
  The court held that the motion for post conviction relief was timely, reversing the summary denial.
• Jones v. Baer
  848 F.2d 494· 5th Cir.· 1988-04-29
• Kelly v. Trickey
  844 F.2d 557· 8th Cir.· 1988-04-14
  The court held that the petitioner failed to exhaust state remedies because his federal constitutional claim was not fairly presented to the state courts, and affirmed the denial of his habeas corpus petition.
• Magna v. Dugger
  523 So. 2d 734· Fla. 4th DCA· 1988-04-13
  Ralph Magna petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus challenging his 1976 first-degree murder conviction on grounds of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel and denial of due process. The court denied the petition, finding that Magna failed to preserve his arguments at trial
• Mikolon v. United States
  844 F.2d 456· 7th Cir.· 1988-04-13 ·via Habeas Corpus Relief
  The court held that the petitioner's claim that inaccurate charts in his presentence report prejudiced his parole chances did not warrant vacating his sentence, as the original sentencing was not fundamentally unfair and the primary concern was parole eligibility, not sentence le
• Rayford Conner v. Bowen
  842 F.2d 279· 11th Cir.· 1988-04-12
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the petitioner's request for a continuance, and the denial did not render the trial fundamentally unfair.