Habeas Corpus

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

• Malachowski v. City OF Keene
  787 F.2d 704· 1st Cir.· 1986-03-28 ·cited 32×
  The court held that federal courts should abstain from hearing claims for injunctive relief related to pending state juvenile delinquency proceedings and that various appellees were immune from damages claims or failed to state a claim under § 1983.
• Phillips v. Lane
  787 F.2d 208· 7th Cir.· 1986-03-20 ·cited 32×
  A state court's decision resting on adequate and independent state grounds, such as procedural default, bars federal habeas corpus review, even if the court also considered the merits of the claim.
• Wingo v. Blackburn
  783 F.2d 1046· 5th Cir.· 1986-02-24 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the state court's finding of specific intent to kill was supported by the evidence and that Wingo's other constitutional claims lacked merit.
• Alphonse Castaldi v. United States
  783 F.2d 119· 8th Cir.· 1986-01-31 ·cited 32×
  The court held that each counterfeiting of a different denomination of postage stamp constitutes a separate unit of prosecution under 18 U.S.C. § 501, and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing the petitioner to consecutive terms or imposing a sentence
• Golden v. Lanson Newsome
  755 F.2d 1478· 11th Cir.· 1985-03-25 ·cited 32×
  A criminal defendant's escape during trial does not automatically waive their Sixth Amendment right to counsel at sentencing; the waiver must be knowing and intelligent.
• Murray v. Maggio
  736 F.2d 279· 5th Cir.· 1984-07-16 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the defendant failed to demonstrate ineffective assistance of counsel under the Strickland standard, as counsel's actions were either strategic or not prejudicial.
• O'Bryan v. McKASKLE
  729 F.2d 991· 5th Cir.· 1984-03-29 ·cited 32×
  The court denied the applications for a stay of execution and a certificate of probable cause, finding the movant failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a federal right.
• Tinghitella v. State OF Cal.
  718 F.2d 308· 9th Cir.· 1983-10-12 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the Interstate Agreement on Detainers (IAD) and the Sixth Amendment speedy trial right do not require a state to return a prisoner for sentencing if the prisoner has not made a proper request for final disposition under the IAD and has waived the right to be p
• Geraghty v. United States Parole Comm'n & Attorney Gen. of United States & Superintendent
  719 F.2d 1199· 3d Cir.· 1983-10-06 ·cited 32×
• Green v. Zant
  715 F.2d 551· 11th Cir.· 1983-09-19 ·cited 32×
  The court held that material facts pertaining to the petitioner's federal constitutional claim were not adequately developed in the state court, necessitating an evidentiary hearing and findings of fact.
• Witt v. Louie L. Wainwright
  714 F.2d 1069· 11th Cir.· 1983-09-16 ·cited 32×
  Johnny Paul Witt was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death for the 1973 killing of an 11-year-old boy. On federal habeas review, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's rejection of Witt's challenges to the admission of his confession, the Florida Sup
• Brooks v. Francis
  716 F.2d 780· 11th Cir.· 1983-09-15 ·cited 32×
  The court held that while prosecutorial misconduct occurred during the sentencing phase, it did not render the guilt phase fundamentally unfair. However, the misconduct during sentencing was so prejudicial that it denied the defendant a fair sentencing hearing.
• Dawson v. Smith
  719 F.2d 896· 7th Cir.· 1983-09-12 ·cited 32×
  The court held that a prison inmate was not denied due process in a disciplinary proceeding where the charge was based on confidential informant information, as long as the informant's reliability was indicated and disclosure of specific facts would jeopardize institutional secur
• Coleman v. Turpen
  697 F.2d 1341· 10th Cir.· 1982-12-08 ·cited 32×
  The court held that a plaintiff stated a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for deprivation of property without due process, and that a prosecutor had qualified immunity for actions related to the sale of seized property, not just prosecutorial duties.
• Raulerson v. State
  420 So. 2d 567· Fla.· 1982-08-26 ·cited 32×
  James David Raulerson was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death. After a federal habeas corpus petition succeeded, requiring a new sentencing hearing, Raulerson appealed the trial court's denial of his Rule 3.850 post-conviction motion and his death sentence. Th
• Angel v. Overberg
  682 F.2d 605· 6th Cir.· 1982-07-16 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the prosecutor's rebuttal arguments, while potentially improper, were not so egregious as to render the petitioner's trial fundamentally unfair, and thus habeas relief was not warranted.
• Vaughan v. Estelle
  671 F.2d 152· 5th Cir.· 1982-03-25 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the habeas petition as an abuse of the writ without affording the petitioner a reasonable opportunity to explain his failure to raise claims in a prior petition.
• Lenza v. Wyrick
  665 F.2d 804· 8th Cir.· 1981-12-02 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the petitioner was afforded a full and fair opportunity to litigate his Fourth Amendment claim in state court, that the hearsay testimony was admissible under the state of mind exception and did not violate the Confrontation Clause, and that there was sufficie
• Hines v. Enomoto
  658 F.2d 667· 9th Cir.· 1981-10-05 ·cited 32×
  The majority's conclusion that the state's inadvertent provision of fewer peremptory challenges than statutorily required violates the Due Process Clause is foreclosed by Supreme Court precedent.
• United States ex rel. Melvin Haywood v. Wolff
  658 F.2d 455· 7th Cir.· 1981-08-18 ·cited 32×
  The dissenting judge would affirm the district court's judgment, disagreeing with the majority's conclusion that unreliable witness testimony was admissible.
• Runnels v. Hess
  653 F.2d 1359· 10th Cir.· 1981-07-13 ·cited 32×
  The court held that enforcement of Oklahoma's contemporaneous objection rule in this case fails to serve a legitimate state interest and should not bar review of the federal question.
• Sanford K. Bronstein v. Louie L. Wainwright
  646 F.2d 1048· 5th Cir.· 1981-06-04 ·cited 32×
  The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the habeas corpus petition, finding no constitutional violations that rendered the petitioner's state trial fundamentally unfair.
• Batten v. Scurr
  649 F.2d 564· 8th Cir.· 1981-05-19 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the state's evidentiary rulings do not raise a federal constitutional question reviewable by writ of habeas corpus unless they directly implicate constitutional rights.
• Braxton v. Estelle
  641 F.2d 392· 5th Cir.· 1981-04-03 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the petitioner's numerous complaints were without merit and affirmed the District Court's denial of his § 2254 petition.
• Cherry v. Dir., State Bd. OF Corr.
  635 F.2d 414· 5th Cir.· 1981-01-27 ·cited 32×
  The court concurred that the trial judge's sua sponte grant of a mistrial was violative of manifest necessity standards, but denied habeas relief because the Jorn decision does not retroactively apply to the pre-Jorn mistrial.
• Lincoln Isaac v. Engle
  646 F.2d 1129· 6th Cir.· 1980-12-12 ·cited 32×
• Weddell v. Meierhenry
  636 F.2d 211· 8th Cir.· 1980-12-11 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the crimes were not committed in 'Indian Country,' prosecutorial remarks were not grounds for relief, and an illegal arrest does not void a conviction.
• Claxton Council Davis v. McALLISTER
  631 F.2d 1256· 5th Cir.· 1980-12-05 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support the petitioner's forgery conviction, reversing the district court's grant of habeas corpus.
• Good v. Wille
  382 So. 2d 408· Fla. 4th DCA· 1980-04-09 ·cited 32×
  Petitioner Good challenges a $500,000 bail set in a drug trafficking case as excessive. The court holds that while the amount is not inherently improper, it is excessive under the particular facts of this case given Good's financial condition and circumstances, and remands for a
• Sindona v. Grant
  619 F.2d 167· 2d Cir.· 1980-03-21 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the first habeas petition was properly denied, but the second habeas petition, which claimed the Treaty barred extradition due to dual prosecution, was improperly granted.
• Mata v. Sumner
  611 F.2d 754· 9th Cir.· 1979-12-21 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the pre-trial photographic identification procedure was so impermissibly suggestive as to create a substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification, violating due process.
• Eutues White v. Finkbeiner
  611 F.2d 186· 7th Cir.· 1979-12-07 ·cited 32×
• John v. Carothers
  594 F.2d 225· 9th Cir.· 1979-03-30 ·cited 32×
  The court held that a federal court must dismiss a habeas corpus petition if any claim presented has not been exhausted in state courts, but may review the merits of exhausted claims. The court affirmed dismissal of the alibi instruction claim for failure to exhaust state remedie
• Cohen v. United States
  593 F.2d 766· 6th Cir.· 1979-03-12 ·cited 32×
  A federal prisoner's claim that the government breached a plea bargaining agreement, affecting the execution of his sentence, is cognizable under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, not § 2255.
• Stroble v. Anderson
  587 F.2d 830· 6th Cir.· 1978-11-01 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the district court erred in finding the 120-day period under the Interstate Agreement on Detainers was tolled and that the continuances were granted in compliance with the Agreement's requirements.
• Reimer v. Short
  578 F.2d 621· 5th Cir.· 1978-08-21 ·cited 32×
• Boyer v. Patton
  579 F.2d 284· 3d Cir.· 1978-06-20 ·cited 32×
  The court held that trial counsel's failure to object to testimony regarding the defendant's silence at the time of arrest constituted ineffective assistance of counsel, and this ineffectiveness was prejudicial as a matter of law.
• Demetri Thor v. United States
  574 F.2d 215· 5th Cir.· 1978-05-30 ·cited 32×
  The court held that while ineffective assistance of counsel claims and compulsory process claims are cognizable under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, the petitioner's specific claims lacked sufficient merit to warrant relief, and the failure to raise them on direct appeal did not constitute pr
• United States ex rel. Conrad A. Dancy v. Arnold
  572 F.2d 107· 3d Cir.· 1978-02-21 ·cited 32×
  A youth offender sentenced under the Federal Youth Corrections Act (YCA) cannot be confined in the general population of a federal penitentiary, as this violates the Act's requirement for segregation from adult offenders.
• United States ex rel. Willie B. Henne v. Fike
  563 F.2d 809· 7th Cir.· 1977-08-02 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the district court's findings that the petitioner understood his Miranda rights and voluntarily waived them were not clearly erroneous, and thus affirmed the denial of the habeas corpus petition.
• Phillips v. Wyrick
  558 F.2d 489· 8th Cir.· 1977-07-20 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the introduction of preliminary hearing testimony through a prosecutor's testimony was permissible under the confrontation clause exception when the witness invoked the Fifth Amendment privilege, and an evidentiary hearing was not required.
• LiPUMA v. Comm'r, Dep't OF Corr., State OF NEW York
  560 F.2d 84· 2d Cir.· 1977-07-11 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the petitioner's failure to comply with state procedural rules for suppression motions barred his Fourth Amendment claim on federal habeas review, and his counsel's actions did not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel under the stringent Second Circuit
• Cooper v. Fitzharris
  551 F.2d 1162· 9th Cir.· 1977-04-11 ·cited 32×
  The court held that once a petitioner establishes ineffective assistance of counsel, the conviction must be reversed without regard to prejudice, and the harmless error rule does not apply to Sixth Amendment right to counsel violations.
• Riley I. Gillihan v. Rodriguez
  551 F.2d 1182· 10th Cir.· 1977-02-28 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the petitioner was not denied effective assistance of counsel, nor were his constitutional rights violated by the imposition of the death penalty or consecutive sentences, and affirmed the denial of habeas corpus relief.
• Finis Smith Blankenship v. Estelle
  545 F.2d 510· 5th Cir.· 1977-01-17 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the admission of other crimes evidence did not violate due process because a strong link was established between the defendant and the other offenses, satisfying the fundamental fairness standard.
• Auckland Holmes v. United States Bd. OF Parole & United States Bureau of Prisons
  541 F.2d 1243· 7th Cir.· 1976-09-10 ·cited 32×
  A federal prisoner is entitled to procedural due process before being classified as a "Special Offender" because this designation significantly impacts opportunities for parole, furlough, and transfer, constituting a "grievous loss."
• Moore v. Estelle
  526 F.2d 690· 5th Cir.· 1976-02-02 ·cited 32×
  The court held that a prior determination on the merits of a habeas corpus petition bars successive attacks on the same grounds, and that the petitioner's declarations in open court established the voluntary and knowing character of his guilty plea to the enhancement count.
• Minor v. Black
  527 F.2d 1· 6th Cir.· 1975-12-08 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the prosecutor's cross-examination and closing argument regarding the petitioner's post-arrest silence, after being advised by counsel, violated his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent and was constitutional error.
• United States ex rel. Charles Richerson v. Wolff
  525 F.2d 797· 7th Cir.· 1975-11-20 ·cited 32×
  Due process requires that state prisoners be given reasons for parole denial, and the reasons provided in this case were sufficient.
• Gaddy v. Michael
  519 F.2d 669· 4th Cir.· 1975-07-07 ·cited 32×
  The Parole Board is not strictly required to hold a revocation proceeding within two months of issuing a warrant; execution and disposition may be delayed under appropriate circumstances until the warrant is executed.