Habeas Corpus

18,781 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count

• Petrucelli v. Coombe
  735 F.2d 684· 2d Cir.· 1984-05-18 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the petitioner failed to exhaust state remedies for his constitutional collateral estoppel claim regarding the Moresco evidence, as it was not clearly presented as a federal constitutional issue to the state courts.
• Mitchell v. Wyrick
  727 F.2d 773· 8th Cir.· 1984-02-17 ·cited 26×
  A claim of ineffective assistance of counsel during state post-conviction proceedings is not cognizable under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, as habeas corpus reviews the detention itself, not collateral proceedings.
• Tucker v. Zant
  724 F.2d 882· 11th Cir.· 1984-01-20 ·cited 26×
• Autry v. Estelle
  464 U.S. 1· U.S.· 1983-10-03 ·cited 26×
• Barfield v. Harris
  719 F.2d 58· 4th Cir.· 1983-10-03 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the jury's consideration of prior homicides as non-statutory aggravating circumstances, even if error under state law, did not violate the federal Constitution. It also held that the North Carolina Supreme Court's proportionality review was constitutionally ad
• Porter v. W.J. Estelle, Jr.
  709 F.2d 944· 5th Cir.· 1983-07-18 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in excusing prospective jurors who were unequivocally opposed to the death penalty and that no constitutional duty arose to order a competency examination based on the information presented.
• Nichols v. Gagnon
  710 F.2d 1267· 7th Cir.· 1983-06-29 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in refusing to instruct the jury on the lesser included offense of attempted rape, as the evidence did not provide a reasonable basis for acquittal on the greater charge and conviction on the lesser charge.
• Tyars v. Finner
  709 F.2d 1274· 9th Cir.· 1983-06-21 ·cited 26×
  The court's holding is not explicitly stated as the opinion is a concurrence.
• McCORQUODALE v. Balkcom
  705 F.2d 1553· 11th Cir.· 1983-05-31 ·cited 26×
• Brown v. W.J. Estelle, Jr.
  701 F.2d 494· 5th Cir.· 1983-03-28 ·cited 26×
  The court held that a federal habeas corpus petitioner must exhaust state remedies by presenting the substance of their claim, including new factual evidence, to state courts before seeking federal relief.
• Lonny Morishita v. Morris
  702 F.2d 207· 10th Cir.· 1983-03-09 ·cited 26×
  Written findings of fact and conclusions of law are not constitutionally required for probation revocation if the transcript and record enable a reviewing court to determine the basis for the decision.
• Lowery v. W.J. Estelle, Jr.
  696 F.2d 333· 5th Cir.· 1983-01-24 ·cited 26×
  The court concurred in the result but would not consider due process claims raised for the first time on appeal.
• Pannier v. Louie L. Wainwright
  423 So. 2d 533· Fla. 5th DCA· 1982-12-15 ·cited 26×
  Pannier petitions for habeas corpus relief, alleging the Florida Parole and Probation Commission illegally added an aggravating factor to his presumptive parole release date without proper procedures. The court denies the petition, holding that mandamus—not habeas corpus—is the p
• Spring v. Caldwell
  692 F.2d 994· 5th Cir.· 1982-12-06 ·cited 26×
• Rock v. Coombe
  694 F.2d 908· 2d Cir.· 1982-12-02 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the jury instructions, despite containing a presumption of intent, were harmless beyond a reasonable doubt due to repeated emphasis on the state's burden of proof and the need to determine intent from all circumstances.
• Leleonia Evonne Caldwell v. Line
  679 F.2d 494· 5th Cir.· 1982-07-02 ·cited 26×
  The court held that a civil rights action challenging the validity of a state court conviction must be treated as a habeas corpus petition, requiring exhaustion of state remedies.
• Kyle v. Hanberry
  677 F.2d 1386· 11th Cir.· 1982-06-11 ·cited 26×
  The court held that due process requires prison disciplinary committees to make a good faith inquiry into the reliability of confidential informants when imposing severe sanctions, and the record must reflect this inquiry.
• Ford v. Strickland
  676 F.2d 434· 11th Cir.· 1982-04-15 ·cited 26×
  Alvin Bernard Ford was convicted of first-degree murder for shooting a wounded police officer during an armed robbery and sentenced to death in Florida. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the denial of habeas corpus relief, rejecting Ford's seven constitutional challenges to his convi
• Israel v. McMorris
  455 U.S. 967· U.S.· 1982-02-22 ·cited 26×
• Pigee v. Israel
  670 F.2d 690· 7th Cir.· 1982-02-03 ·cited 26×
  The dissenting judge believes the jury instruction unconstitutionally presumed intent, shifting the burden of proof to the defendant, violating due process.
• Nelson v. Scully
  672 F.2d 266· 2d Cir.· 1982-01-28 ·cited 26×
  The court held that a jury instruction on the presumption of intent, when viewed in the context of the entire charge which emphasized the presumption of innocence and the state's burden to prove specific intent beyond a reasonable doubt, did not violate due process.
• Arias v. The United States Parole Comm'n Warden
  648 F.2d 196· 3d Cir.· 1981-05-07 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the Parole Commission has broad discretion to consider presentence reports, including information about dismissed indictments, when making parole decisions, and that subsequent administrative action rendered the district court's premature consideration of the
• Coleman v. Balkcom
  451 U.S. 949· U.S.· 1981-04-27 ·cited 26×
• Lehman v. Lycoming Cnty. Child's. Servs. Agency
  648 F.2d 135· 3d Cir.· 1981-03-31 ·cited 26×
  The district court erroneously dismissed the habeas corpus petition for lack of jurisdiction.
• Grieco v. Hall
  641 F.2d 1029· 1st Cir.· 1981-02-13 ·cited 26×
  The court held that cross-examination regarding a defendant's post-arrest silence is permissible when the defendant makes post-arrest statements inconsistent with their exculpatory trial testimony, as this does not violate Doyle v. Ohio.
• Ford v. Parratt
  638 F.2d 1115· 8th Cir.· 1981-01-21 ·cited 26×
  The court held that ineffective assistance of counsel can only vitiate a guilty plea if there is a nexus between the alleged ineffectiveness and the plea itself.
• Carter v. Jago
  637 F.2d 449· 6th Cir.· 1980-12-22 ·cited 26×
• Emmett Eugene Cloud, Jr. v. Thomas
  627 F.2d 742· 5th Cir.· 1980-10-10 ·cited 26×
  The Sixth Amendment does not grant a constitutional right to impeach a witness's general credibility with evidence of prior bad acts not resulting in a conviction.
• Tyler v. Phelps
  622 F.2d 172· 5th Cir.· 1980-07-24 ·cited 26×
  The court held that a jury charge creating a presumption that a defendant intends the natural and probable consequences of his acts, when intent is a disputed element, unconstitutionally shifts the burden of proof. This unconstitutionality requires habeas relief even if the defen
• Cornell v. State OF Iowa
  628 F.2d 1044· 7th Cir.· 1980-07-02 ·cited 26×
  The majority holds that a state court judge's inquiry into the numerical division of an undischarged jury does not violate due process.
• Keenan v. Bennett
  613 F.2d 127· 5th Cir.· 1980-03-10 ·cited 26×
  A prisoner's claim challenging the revocation of good-time credits, even if framed as a due process violation under § 1983 and seeking damages, must be treated as a habeas corpus petition requiring exhaustion of state remedies.
• Brauch v. Raiche
  618 F.2d 843· 1st Cir.· 1980-03-05 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the magistrate correctly applied the choice of law and double criminality principles under the Extradition Treaty by referring to the asylum state's law and finding substantial analogy between the offenses.
• Mars v. United States
  615 F.2d 704· 6th Cir.· 1980-01-31 ·cited 26×
  A violation of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act (IAD) is not cognizable under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 unless the petitioner demonstrates actual prejudice or that IAD rights were not vindicated. Furthermore, IAD claims are waived if not raised prior to or during trial.
• Goins v. McKEEN
  605 F.2d 947· 6th Cir.· 1979-09-20 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the district court correctly granted habeas corpus relief because the trial court's handling of during-trial prejudicial publicity deprived the petitioner of his constitutional right to a fair trial by an impartial jury.
• van Poyck v. Louie L. Wainwright
  595 F.2d 1083· 5th Cir.· 1979-05-24 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the petitioner's claim of factual incompetency to plead guilty was exhausted and raised a substantial issue requiring an evidentiary hearing, but his claim regarding the factual basis for the plea was unexhausted.
• Jurek v. Estelle
  593 F.2d 672· 5th Cir.· 1979-04-23 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the record supported the trial court and jury findings that the confessions were voluntarily made, and thus federal intervention was not justified.
• Evans v. Bennett
  440 U.S. 1301· U.S.· 1979-04-05 ·cited 26×
  The Circuit Justice granted a stay of execution pending further consideration, acknowledging the irreversible nature of the death penalty and the need for thorough review.
• Denver Witham v. Mabry
  596 F.2d 293· 8th Cir.· 1979-03-29 ·cited 26×
  The court held that statements made by a convicted individual to inmates were inadmissible hearsay because they were not sufficiently against his penal interest, and that trial counsel's decisions regarding venue and continuance did not constitute ineffective assistance.
• Atwell Junior Conner v. Auger
  595 F.2d 407· 8th Cir.· 1979-03-23 ·cited 26×
  The court held that while some claims were properly denied, others related to the application of the felony-murder rule were unexhausted and should be dismissed without prejudice for state courts to address first.
• Zeidman v. United States Parole Comm'n & Robert Elsea
  593 F.2d 806· 7th Cir.· 1979-03-20 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the Parole Commission's application of its guidelines did not violate the Due Process Clause or the Ex Post Facto Clause because the petitioner received individualized consideration and the guidelines are not law.
• Sallie v. State OF N.C.
  587 F.2d 636· 4th Cir.· 1978-11-28 ·cited 26×
  The court's discussion and decision on an unnecessary Sixth Amendment question creates a large exception to Stone v. Powell, potentially endangering its future application in habeas corpus cases.
• Canary v. Bland
  583 F.2d 887· 6th Cir.· 1978-09-07 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the petitioner's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel in failing to challenge the use of a prior invalid juvenile transfer conviction in a habitual criminal proceeding is a valid Sixth Amendment claim, notwithstanding a prior guilty plea.
• Echevarria v. Griffin Bell
  579 F.2d 1022· 7th Cir.· 1978-06-29 ·cited 26×
  Federal jurisdiction is present because the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act creates federal rights, but the exercise of that jurisdiction is premature as the petitioner has not exhausted state remedies.
• Morgan v. Hall
  569 F.2d 1161· 1st Cir.· 1978-01-26 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the prosecutor's improper questioning of the defendant about his post-arrest silence was not harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt, requiring the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus.
• Blau v. United States
  566 F.2d 526· 5th Cir.· 1978-01-19 ·cited 26×
  The district court lacked jurisdiction to entertain a motion to correct sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, or a petition for habeas corpus, as the issues raised were either outside the scope of § 2255 or the court lacked proper venue for habeas corpus.
• Hollis v. Smith
  571 F.2d 685· 2d Cir.· 1978-01-03 ·cited 26×
  The court modified its prior opinion to allow the State to hold a new hearing regarding parole revocation, considering new allegations of misconduct.
• Wirth v. Surles
  562 F.2d 319· 4th Cir.· 1977-09-22 ·cited 26×
• Inmates v. Sheriff Owens
  561 F.2d 560· 4th Cir.· 1977-09-16 ·cited 26×
• United States ex rel. George Sims v. Allyn Sielaff
  563 F.2d 821· 7th Cir.· 1977-08-31 ·cited 26×
  A parolee's claim that a delay in their revocation hearing violates due process must be judged by the standards set forth in Barker v. Wingo, not by a presumption of prejudice based solely on the length of the delay.
• United States ex rel. Frank Petillo v. State OF NEW Jersey
  562 F.2d 903· 3d Cir.· 1977-08-23 ·cited 26×
  The court held that a federal habeas corpus court cannot relitigate a Fourth Amendment claim if the state provided an opportunity for full and fair litigation, even if the federal court disagrees with the state court's factual findings.