Habeas Corpus

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

• Barham v. United States
  724 F.2d 1529· 11th Cir.· 1984-02-16 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the simultaneous representation of a defendant and a government witness by the same attorney does not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel unless an actual conflict of interest adversely affected the attorney's performance.
• Urquhart v. A.L. Lockhart
  726 F.2d 1316· 8th Cir.· 1984-02-10 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying the habeas corpus petition without an evidentiary hearing, affirming the judgment.
• McCOWN v. Callahan
  726 F.2d 1· 1st Cir.· 1984-01-27 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the petitioner's claims were procedurally barred under Wainwright v. Sykes, and that his statements were not obtained in violation of Miranda rights because he was not in custody.
• Muench v. Israel
  715 F.2d 1124· 7th Cir.· 1983-08-15 ·cited 30×
  The dissenting judge would grant the writs, finding the state's justifications for excluding psychiatric testimony on mens rea unpersuasive.
• Gray v. Eddie Lucas & the State of Miss.
  710 F.2d 1048· 5th Cir.· 1983-07-15 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the petitioner's claims, including present insanity, improper jury instructions, prosecutorial misconduct, proportionality review, vague aggravating factors, cruel and unusual punishment, and ineffective assistance of counsel, did not warrant federal habeas co
• Nash v. Israel
  707 F.2d 298· 7th Cir.· 1983-05-19 ·cited 30×
  The court held that a guilty plea is invalid if the trial court fails to establish on the record that the defendant understood the elements of the charge, particularly when the defendant explicitly states confusion.
• Goode v. Louie L. Wainwright
  704 F.2d 593· 11th Cir.· 1983-05-02 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the trial court adequately addressed the appellant's competence to stand trial and to waive counsel, and that the appellant knowingly and intelligently waived his right to counsel. However, the court found merit in the claim that the trial court improperly rel
• Jamason v. State
  447 So. 2d 892· Fla. 4th DCA· 1983-03-23 ·cited 30×
  Two law enforcement officers were convicted of criminal contempt for refusing to comply with a trial judge's telephonic order to produce a person in custody. The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the convictions, holding that oral applications and orders can invoke habeas
• Len C. Scott v. Louie L. Wainwright
  698 F.2d 427· 11th Cir.· 1983-02-14 ·cited 30×
  A guilty plea is not knowing and voluntary if the defendant did not receive reasonably effective assistance of counsel in deciding to plead guilty.
• Ross v. W.J. Estelle, Jr.
  694 F.2d 1008· 5th Cir.· 1983-01-03 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the denial of the writ of habeas corpus was proper because the appellant's claims of constitutional error, including denial of compulsory process and ineffective assistance of counsel, lacked merit.
• French v. W.J. Estelle, Jr.
  692 F.2d 1021· 5th Cir.· 1982-12-06 ·cited 30×
  The court affirmed the district court's grant of habeas corpus relief, holding that the petitioner's life sentence was not supported by sufficient evidence due to the State's failure to prove the date of the second prior felony, and that double jeopardy bars a second enhancement
• Emmett Hickerson v. Maggio
  691 F.2d 792· 5th Cir.· 1982-11-18 ·cited 30×
  A defendant has a due process right to the exercise of the sentencer's discretion, and a claim that this discretion was not exercised warrants an evidentiary hearing if not conclusively refuted by the record.
• Sperling v. United States
  692 F.2d 223· 2d Cir.· 1982-10-22 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the appellant's current motion to vacate his continuing criminal enterprise conviction should be rejected due to inconsistent positions taken in prior proceedings.
• Williams v. Holbrook
  691 F.2d 3· 1st Cir.· 1982-09-23 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the petitioner had sufficiently presented her sixth amendment claims to the state courts, satisfying the exhaustion requirement, and that her escape did not constitute an abuse of the writ warranting dismissal.
• United States ex rel. Otis Williams & A. D. Clark v. Franzen
  687 F.2d 944· 7th Cir.· 1982-08-20 ·cited 30×
  The court held that a conflict of interest adversely affecting a lawyer's performance warrants habeas relief, even if the state court applied an improper prejudice standard or if a petitioner arguably waived the claim on appeal.
• Fornash v. Marshall
  686 F.2d 1179· 6th Cir.· 1982-08-16 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the petitioner failed to demonstrate actual prejudice from the jury instructions and did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel.
• Johnson v. Williford
  682 F.2d 868· 9th Cir.· 1982-07-30 ·cited 30×
  The government is estopped from enforcing the non-parolability provision of 21 U.S.C. § 848 due to its repeated administrative errors, and returning the petitioner to prison would violate due process.
• Guthrie v. Warden, Maryland Penitentiary
  683 F.2d 820· 4th Cir.· 1982-07-06 ·cited 30×
  The dissenting judge holds that the jury instructions did not improperly place the burden of proof for self-defense on the defendant.
• Fields v. Wyrick
  682 F.2d 154· 8th Cir.· 1982-04-23 ·cited 30×
  A defendant's waiver of counsel for a polygraph examination does not extend to subsequent post-test interrogation, and the government must prove a knowing and intelligent waiver for such interrogation.
• United States v. Franzen
  669 F.2d 433· 7th Cir.· 1982-01-12 ·cited 30×
  Federal courts cannot entertain state law claims in habeas corpus proceedings, as the habeas corpus statutes are limited to violations of federal law. Pendent jurisdiction does not extend to state law claims in this context.
• Pettibone v. Hoyt C. Cupp
  666 F.2d 333· 9th Cir.· 1981-12-07 ·cited 30×
  The court held that it lacked appellate jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed and no formal motion for an extension was made within the prescribed period.
• Iuteri v. Nardoza
  662 F.2d 159· 2d Cir.· 1981-10-19 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion in granting bail pending a decision on a habeas corpus petition, as the petitioner failed to demonstrate substantial claims or extraordinary circumstances.
• Powell v. Wyrick
  657 F.2d 222· 8th Cir.· 1981-08-26 ·cited 30×
  The court held that a petitioner is not required to pursue a discretionary state remedy under Mo.R.Civ.P. 84.08 if such pursuit would be futile.
• Harris v. Irl DAY
  649 F.2d 755· 10th Cir.· 1981-03-16 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the appellant was not entitled to retroactive application of the right to counsel at parole revocation hearings, nor was he entitled to credit for time spent on parole, and delays did not warrant release.
• Priore v. Nelson
  626 F.2d 211· 2d Cir.· 1980-06-11 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the United States Parole Commission's guidelines were lawfully promulgated and applied, did not violate statutory intent or constitutional prohibitions, and that the prisoner's claim regarding mandatory release was premature.
• Hilary Davis v. Page
  618 F.2d 374· 5th Cir.· 1980-06-06 ·cited 30×
• Quigg v. Crist
  616 F.2d 1107· 9th Cir.· 1980-04-07 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the prosecution's inquiry into the petitioner's post-arrest silence was harmless error, the giving of an aiding and abetting instruction was not a due process violation, and newly-discovered evidence would not have likely produced an acquittal.
• Moore v. Nelson
  611 F.2d 434· 2d Cir.· 1979-12-05 ·cited 30×
  The United States Parole Commission's guidelines may be applied to federal prisoners sentenced under 18 U.S.C. § 4205(b)(2), and these guidelines may consider offense severity and do not require special emphasis on rehabilitation for such prisoners.
• Goode v. Carson Markley
  603 F.2d 973· D.C. Cir.· 1979-07-05 ·cited 30×
  The court held that consecutive sentences imposed by the District of Columbia are not treated as imposed by a separate sovereign, allowing aggregation for parole eligibility determination.
• Miracle v. Estelle
  592 F.2d 1269· 5th Cir.· 1979-04-10 ·cited 30×
  A prosecutor cannot retaliate against a defendant by bringing more severe charges after the defendant successfully exercises a right to obtain relief from a conviction, as this violates due process.
• Leigh Detko/Roberts v. Honorable Graham W. Stikelether
  370 So. 2d 383· Fla. 4th DCA· 1979-03-07 ·cited 30×
  The court reversed the trial court's assumption of jurisdiction over a child custody modification petition, holding that Alabama, not Florida, was the proper forum under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act (UCCJA). The father's deliberate forum-shopping by removing the chi
• Turner v. Abe Chavez
  586 F.2d 111· 9th Cir.· 1978-11-09 ·cited 30×
  The district court must independently review the state court record when considering a habeas corpus petition, rather than relying solely on the state court's opinion.
• Gibson v. Zahradnick
  581 F.2d 75· 4th Cir.· 1978-07-19 ·cited 30×
  The introduction of an incriminating statement made by a defendant to a psychiatrist during a compulsory examination, even if the examination is for sanity or competency, violates the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination if the statement is used to prove guilt.
• United States v. Bennie Graves
  554 F.2d 65· 3d Cir.· 1977-03-02 ·cited 30×
  The court affirmed Graves' conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(6) for making a false statement on a firearms form, but reversed his conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 1202(a) because the underlying felony conviction used to establish his status was unconstitutional.
• Gerrold Duane Davis v. Louie L. Wainwright
  547 F.2d 261· 5th Cir.· 1977-02-18 ·cited 30×
  The court held that a violation of a state speedy trial rule, even if counsel failed to raise it, is not a constitutional violation reviewable by federal habeas corpus. A guilty plea is voluntary if the defendant affirms it is knowing and voluntary, even if the court doesn't list
• Cameron v. Fastoff
  543 F.2d 971· 2d Cir.· 1976-04-22 ·cited 30×
  The court held that petitioners failed to exhaust state remedies for their federal constitutional claims, but affirmed the dismissal on the merits for the claim regarding probable cause for the search warrants.
• Sanchell v. Parratt
  530 F.2d 286· 8th Cir.· 1976-02-06 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the identification testimony of two witnesses should have been excluded due to unduly suggestive pretrial identification procedures, entitling the petitioner to a new trial.
• United States v. MacDONALD
  531 F.2d 196· 4th Cir.· 1976-01-23 ·cited 30×
  The Sixth Amendment speedy trial guarantee is not triggered by military proceedings that do not amount to a formal arrest or indictment.
• United States ex rel. Frank Stachulak v. Coughlin
  520 F.2d 931· 7th Cir.· 1975-08-06 ·cited 30×
  Due process requires that the state prove a person is sexually dangerous beyond a reasonable doubt for commitment under the Illinois Sexually Dangerous Persons Act.
• Bradford v. Weinstein
  519 F.2d 728· 4th Cir.· 1974-11-22 ·cited 30×
  The dissenting judge holds that state prisoners challenging parole procedures must first exhaust state remedies and then pursue habeas corpus, not a § 1983 action.
• Jasper Roberson v. State OF Conn.
  501 F.2d 305· 2d Cir.· 1974-07-31 ·cited 30×
  The court did not issue a holding as this is a concurring and dissenting opinion.
• Billy Floyd (Pete) Brazzell v. Adams
  493 F.2d 489· 5th Cir.· 1974-05-02 ·cited 30×
  A guilty plea in a criminal case collaterally estops a defendant from relitigating facts necessary to the conviction in a subsequent civil suit against state agents.
• Collier v. Estelle
  488 F.2d 929· 5th Cir.· 1974-01-31 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the defendant's right to appeal was not automatically waived by his attorney's motion to dismiss, and an evidentiary hearing is required to determine if the defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his right to appeal.
• United States ex rel. James Allum v. Twomey
  484 F.2d 740· 7th Cir.· 1973-08-20 ·cited 30×
  A deliberate tactical decision by competent counsel not to object to the admission of evidence at trial can waive the client's right to claim constitutional error, even if the decision was an oversight by counsel.
• Tyler v. Swenson
  483 F.2d 611· 8th Cir.· 1973-08-15 ·cited 30×
  District courts are required to consider exhausted claims in a habeas petition even if other unrelated claims within the same petition are unexhausted.
• United States ex rel. Edward A. Burt v. State OF NEW Jersey & Howard Yeager
  475 F.2d 234· 3d Cir.· 1973-03-13 ·cited 30×
  The prosecution's use of the defendant's prior silence regarding the shooting, which was not in response to an accusation, to impeach his trial testimony was permissible and did not violate his Fifth Amendment rights.
• Leavitt v. Howard
  462 F.2d 992· 1st Cir.· 1972-05-24 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the district court erred in disregarding the state court's findings of fact regarding consent to search, as the state court's findings were supported by the record and no statutory exceptions under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) were met.
• Williams v. Louie L. Wainwright
  452 F.2d 775· 5th Cir.· 1971-12-07 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the petitioner had sufficiently exhausted state remedies because the Florida Supreme Court's limited jurisdiction offered no practical avenue for review of his claims.
• de Lara v. United States
  439 F.2d 1316· 5th Cir.· 1971-03-10 ·cited 30×
  A state court's setting aside of a conviction after probation does not prevent federal deportation proceedings based on that conviction.
• Meller v. State OF Mo.
  431 F.2d 120· 8th Cir.· 1970-08-17 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the defendant's 1952 guilty plea and waiver of counsel were voluntary and intelligent, and that the Boykin v. Alabama decision should not be applied retroactively.