Habeas Corpus

18,780 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count

• Holloway v. Wolff
  482 F.2d 110· 8th Cir.· 1973-07-05 ·cited 33×
  The court held that the defendant had standing to challenge the search, the consent obtained was invalid, and the arrest was not based on probable cause, making the search unconstitutional.
• Layton v. Carson
  479 F.2d 1275· 5th Cir.· 1973-06-18 ·cited 33×
  Federal courts need not require exhaustion of state remedies if it is plain that resort to state courts would be futile due to adverse precedent.
• Favre v. Henderson
  464 F.2d 359· 5th Cir.· 1972-06-13 ·cited 33×
• Woodard v. Beto
  447 F.2d 103· 5th Cir.· 1971-06-23 ·cited 33×
  The court held that the appellant's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and double jeopardy did not rise to federal constitutional proportions, thus denying habeas corpus relief.
• Hahn v. Burke
  430 F.2d 100· 7th Cir.· 1970-08-19 ·cited 33×
  The court held that the revocation of probation without a hearing violates the basic requirements of due process, and therefore, the revocation was a nullity.
• Schnautz v. Beto
  416 F.2d 214· 5th Cir.· 1969-09-11 ·cited 33×
• Wacker v. Bisson
  348 F.2d 602· 5th Cir.· 1965-06-23 ·cited 33×
  The court held that a declaratory judgment action does not provide an alternative or additional scope of review for extradition orders beyond that available through habeas corpus.
• Reed v. Beto
  343 F.2d 723· 5th Cir.· 1965-04-07 ·cited 33×
  The court held that while the petitioner had not technically exhausted state remedies, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals had consistently ruled on the issue, and no intervening Supreme Court decision suggested a change, thus the state remedy was not effectively available.
• United States ex rel. Melvin Vaughn v. LaVALLEE
  318 F.2d 499· 2d Cir.· 1963-06-17 ·cited 33×
  The court held that the appellant's habeas corpus petition contained insufficient allegations to warrant a hearing.
• Cleveland Roy Williams v. United States
  283 F.2d 59· 10th Cir.· 1960-10-05 ·cited 33×
  A federal prisoner seeking habeas corpus relief must first exhaust the remedy under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 unless that remedy is shown to be inadequate or ineffective.
• Marcello v. Ahrens
  212 F.2d 830· 5th Cir.· 1954-05-06 ·cited 33×
  The court held that the Administrative Procedure Act does not apply to deportation proceedings when a subsequent, exclusive statutory procedure is provided by Congress, and that the alien's due process rights were not violated.
• Wells v. Attorney General of the United States
  201 F.2d 556· 10th Cir.· 1953-01-22 ·cited 33×
  The court held that the federal government has the constitutional authority and duty to provide for the care and custody of mentally incompetent persons who come under its jurisdiction, regardless of the duration of their insanity.
• Kelly v. State Ex Rel. Morgan
  54 So. 2d 431· Fla.· 1951-10-16 ·cited 33×
  The Florida Supreme Court reversed a lower court's order discharging a defendant from prosecution. The Court held that a mistrial counts as a trial under the speedy trial statute, and continuances granted for good cause can toll the statute's time limits.
• Croft v. Culbreath
  150 Fla. 60· Fla.· 1942-03-03 ·cited 33×
  In this original habeas corpus proceeding, the Florida Supreme Court addresses whether a defendant charged with criminal contempt for allegedly procuring perjured testimony was properly convicted despite filing a sworn denial of the charges. The Court holds that a direct, specifi
• State v. McGreary
  123 Fla. 9· Fla.· 1936-02-21 ·cited 33×
  This case involves a habeas corpus proceeding where Antonio Florio challenged his arrest under an executive warrant of extradition issued by the Governor of Florida in response to a Connecticut requisition for charges of conspiracy and theft. The Florida Supreme Court reversed th
• Kirk v. Angus Morrison
  108 Fla. 144· Fla.· 1933-01-25 ·cited 33×
  John Kirk sought habeas corpus relief after arrest based on an affidavit charging him with maintaining a slot machine for gambling purposes. The Florida Supreme Court held that the affidavit was internally contradictory and insufficient to support commitment, but contained enough
• Liberis v. Harper
  89 Fla. 477· Fla.· 1925-06-03 ·cited 33×
  In this habeas corpus proceeding, the Florida Supreme Court held that while the City of Pensacola had statutory authority to regulate billiard tables and similar establishments, the arrest and detention of Charles Liberis was unlawful because the affidavit supporting the arrest w
• Ex parte Messer
  87 Fla. 92· Fla.· 1924-02-11 ·cited 33×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that a 1923 statute regulating the inter-county employment of laborers violates the liberty of contract protected by the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause. The court discharged the petitioner convicted under the statute because it imposes ar
• Paran M. Hopkins v. Hopkins
  84 Fla. 500· Fla.· 1922-10-28 ·cited 33×
  A wife sought habeas corpus to obtain custody of two minor sons from their father. The lower court awarded one son to the father and one to the mother. The Florida Supreme Court reversed, holding that absent a showing the father is unfit or that the mother's custody would better
• Ex parte Turner
  73 Fla. 360· Fla.· 1917-02-14 ·cited 33×
  County commissioners were held in contempt by a circuit court for directing the release of a prisoner serving a sentence imposed by that court. The Florida Supreme Court held that interfering with a prisoner's custody is regulated by statute, not by court order, and therefore can
• Ex parte Corpus
  30 Fla. 529· Fla.· 1892-06-01 ·cited 33×
  C. Theisen challenged his detention under a Pensacola municipal ordinance requiring Board of Commissioners consent to sell liquor within 450 feet of a church. The Florida Supreme Court held the ordinance void as permitting arbitrary discrimination, because state law provides the
• Brant v. State
  197 So. 3d 1051· Fla.· 2016-06-30 ·cited 32×
  Charles Grover Brant appeals the denial of his motion for postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851 and petitions for habeas corpus following his death sentence for the murder and sexual assault of Sara Radfar. The Florida Supreme Court affirms the deni
• Dufour v. State
  69 So. 3d 235· Fla.· 2011-02-03 ·cited 32×
  Donald William Dufour challenges a postconviction order determining he is not mentally retarded, precluding a bar to his death sentence under Atkins v. Virginia. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court's determination that Dufour failed to establish all three require
• Peters v. State
  984 So. 2d 1227· Fla.· 2008-05-01 ·cited 32×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause rule established in Crawford v. Washington, which prohibits testimonial hearsay in criminal prosecutions without cross-examination opportunity, does not apply to probation or community control revocation
• Jones v. State
  949 So. 2d 1021· Fla.· 2006-12-14 ·cited 32×
  David Wyatt Jones challenges his death sentence for murdering Lori McRae by raising claims of ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's denial of post-conviction relief and habeas corpus petition, rejecting all ine
• Frederico Hernandez v. State
  884 So. 2d 281· Fla. 2d DCA· 2004-08-13 ·cited 32×
  Frederico Hernandez petitioned for relief alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel for failing to challenge a jury instruction on justifiable use of force. The court granted the petition, finding the instruction was reversible error, and reversed Hernandez's convictio
• Rooney v. State
  699 So. 2d 1027· Fla. 5th DCA· 1997-08-08 ·cited 32×
  Rooney appeals the denial of a habeas corpus petition challenging his 1992 convictions for arson, burglary, criminal mischief, and witness retaliation. The court affirmed the denial, finding the petition was successive and repetitive of claims previously raised and rejected in di
• Metzger v. Cochran
  694 So. 2d 842· Fla. 4th DCA· 1997-05-29 ·cited 32×
  A Florida appellate court granted a habeas corpus petition challenging the revocation of a defendant's bond in a manslaughter case. The trial court improperly revoked bond and ordered pretrial detention based solely on a violation of a release condition without making the require
• Bowersox v. Williams
  517 U.S. 345· U.S.· 1996-04-09 ·cited 32×
• Merdian v. Cochran
  654 So. 2d 573· Fla. 4th DCA· 1995-04-07 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the trial court improperly revoked the petitioner's bond without following the correct procedural rules and constitutional requirements for pretrial release.
• Cordova v. Collins
  953 F.2d 167· 5th Cir.· 1992-01-21 ·cited 32×
• Winfred Stokes v. Armontrout
  893 F.2d 152· 8th Cir.· 1989-12-28 ·cited 32×
  A federal court is precluded from reaching the merits of a habeas corpus claim if the petitioner procedurally defaulted by failing to raise the claim in state courts, absent cause and prejudice or a showing of innocence.
• Tompkins v. Dugger
  549 So. 2d 1370· Fla.· 1989-09-14 ·cited 32×
  Wayne Tompkins, sentenced to death for the murder of a 15-year-old girl, petitioned for habeas corpus relief and appealed the denial of his Rule 3.850 motion for postconviction relief. The Florida Supreme Court rejected all of his claims, including those challenging the denial of
• Sawyer v. Butler
  881 F.2d 1273· 5th Cir.· 1989-08-15 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the prosecutor's remarks in closing argument did not violate Caldwell v. Mississippi because they did not render the sentencing phase fundamentally unfair, and thus did not warrant a new sentencing hearing.
• Lancaster v. Lanson Newsome
  880 F.2d 362· 11th Cir.· 1989-08-10 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the unconstitutional jury instruction regarding intent was harmless error because the evidence overwhelmingly established the defendant's intent to kill, and that Brady claims were procedurally defaulted.
• Byrd v. Armontrout
  880 F.2d 1· 8th Cir.· 1989-06-27 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the appellant failed to demonstrate ineffective assistance of counsel, that his claims regarding jury selection, newly discovered evidence, evidentiary rulings, and the death penalty were without merit, and thus affirmed the district court's denial of his peti
• Parker v. Dugger
  876 F.2d 1470· 11th Cir.· 1989-06-19 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the district court erred in granting habeas corpus relief based on its interpretation of the Tedder standard and that Parker's Stromberg claim was procedurally barred.
• Pugh v. Parish OF ST. Tammany
  875 F.2d 436· 5th Cir.· 1989-05-31 ·cited 32×
  The court held that a complaint filed in forma pauperis is not automatically frivolous for failing to state a claim, but this complaint was still properly dismissed as frivolous due to prosecutorial immunity and lack of arguable basis in law or fact.
• Lindsey v. Thigpen
  875 F.2d 1509· 11th Cir.· 1989-05-24 ·cited 32×
  The court denied all relief sought by the petitioner, including a stay of execution, appointment of new counsel, and certificates of probable cause, finding that his claims were procedurally barred, an abuse of the writ, or otherwise without merit.
• Zant v. Moore
  489 U.S. 836· U.S.· 1989-03-29 ·cited 32×
• Williams v. Kemp
  846 F.2d 1276· 11th Cir.· 1988-05-17 ·cited 32×
  The court affirmed the denial of the habeas corpus petition, finding no constitutional errors that rendered the trial or sentencing fundamentally unfair.
• Jones v. Thieret
  846 F.2d 457· 7th Cir.· 1988-05-11 ·cited 32×
  A federal court cannot grant habeas corpus relief based solely on a state court's error in interpreting state law, even if that error implicates a federal evidentiary standard like Jackson v. Virginia, unless the error amounts to a violation of federal constitutional law.
• Ortega v. O'Leary
  843 F.2d 258· 7th Cir.· 1988-03-21 ·cited 32×
  The court held that while the trial court erred in denying the defendant's request to testify and failing to ascertain a voluntary waiver, this error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given the cumulative nature of the proposed testimony and the overall strength of the prose
• Daugherty v. Dugger
  839 F.2d 1426· 11th Cir.· 1988-02-12 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the appellant failed to demonstrate prejudice from his counsel's alleged ineffectiveness regarding a jury instruction and the failure to present psychiatric testimony, and that his claim regarding prosecutorial discretion was procedurally barred.
• Foster v. State
  518 So. 2d 901· Fla.· 1987-12-03 ·cited 32×
  Charles Kenneth Foster, sentenced to death in 1975 for murder, challenged his sentence on grounds that the jury and judge were not instructed to consider nonstatutory mitigating factors. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the denial of his postconviction motion but granted his ha
• Messer v. Kemp
  831 F.2d 946· 11th Cir.· 1987-10-16 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the denial of a defendant's motion for independent psychiatric assistance, when sanity was a significant issue, violated due process under Ake v. Oklahoma.
• Serio v. Members OF La. State Bd. OF Pardons
  821 F.2d 1112· 5th Cir.· 1987-07-17 ·cited 32×
  Members of the Louisiana State Board of Pardons are absolutely immune from § 1983 damages claims. Claims for injunctive relief that are essentially attacks on a single parole hearing require exhaustion of state habeas corpus remedies.
• Rose v. Dugger
  508 So. 2d 321· Fla.· 1987-05-07 ·cited 32×
  James Franklin Rose sought habeas corpus relief and a stay of execution for his capital murder conviction, raising claims of inadequate appellate review, arbitrary imposition of the death penalty, ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, and improper jury communications. The
• Passman v. Blackburn
  797 F.2d 1335· 5th Cir.· 1986-08-22 ·cited 32×
  The court held that a pro se petitioner's knowledge of a claim for habeas corpus relief is judged by an actual knowledge standard, not a constructive knowledge standard, for purposes of the abuse of the writ doctrine.
• United States ex rel. Charles "Chuck" Miller v. Greer
  789 F.2d 438· 7th Cir.· 1986-04-09 ·cited 32×
  The court should affirm the district court's judgment because the prosecutor's improper inquiry did not affect the verdict and was harmless error.