Habeas Corpus

18,782 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count

• Maxwell v. Turner
  411 F.2d 805· 10th Cir.· 1969-05-26 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the federal district court did not err in denying a habeas corpus petition without an evidentiary hearing when the state court had provided an adequate hearing and the federal court properly reviewed the state proceedings.
• Williams v. Louie L. Wainwright
  410 F.2d 144· 5th Cir.· 1969-04-21 ·cited 22×
  The court held that a federal habeas court must deny relief if it cannot unequivocally determine that a federal constitutional issue has been considered and ruled upon by state courts, requiring exhaustion of state remedies.
• Arden Francis Blanks, Jr. v. Cunningham
  409 F.2d 220· 4th Cir.· 1969-04-11 ·cited 22×
  The court held that a prisoner is entitled to a hearing on claims of punishment for requesting legal stationery, punishment during an epileptic seizure, and denial of medical attention.
• Nees v. Culbertson
  406 F.2d 621· 5th Cir.· 1969-01-28 ·cited 22×
• Stanley v. Louie L. Wainwright
  406 F.2d 8· 5th Cir.· 1969-01-21 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the denial of counsel at a capital case arraignment and the denial of counsel at a post-conviction proceeding require further hearings, and that a coerced confession claim must be examined based on attendant circumstances.
• Breen v. Selective Serv. Local Bd. NO. 16
  406 F.2d 636· 2d Cir.· 1969-01-10 ·cited 22×
  The court should remand to the District Court for a judicial hearing on the plaintiff's claim that he was ordered inducted by an illegal procedure.
• Braley v. Gladden
  403 F.2d 858· 9th Cir.· 1968-11-21 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the trial judge's failure to provide a form for an acquittal verdict, coupled with instructions, constituted an impermissible judicial comment on guilt, denying the defendant a fair trial.
• Bell v. Patterson
  402 F.2d 394· 10th Cir.· 1968-10-16 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the appellant's confession was voluntary and that the jury selection process, despite the exclusion of two jurors, did not violate his constitutional rights.
• United States ex rel. Rudolph Boyance v. Myers
  398 F.2d 896· 3d Cir.· 1968-07-29 ·cited 22×
  A nighttime search of an occupied home, even with a warrant explicitly limited to daytime, is constitutionally unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment.
• Beard v. LEE
  396 F.2d 749· 5th Cir.· 1968-07-01 ·cited 22×
  The court held that a prisoner's claims of cruel and unusual punishment, even if not solely racially motivated, are not necessarily resolved by a prior class action order on prison desegregation and warrant a forum.
• Victor v. Ward Lane
  394 F.2d 268· 7th Cir.· 1968-05-06 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the district court should conduct an evidentiary hearing on the petitioner's claims regarding his right to a belated appeal and the state's responsibility for the delay.
• State v. Herzig
  208 So. 2d 619· Fla.· 1968-03-27 ·cited 22×
  The appeal must be dismissed because it is not taken from a final decision as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
• Hardy Rosenthall v. Henderson
  389 F.2d 514· 6th Cir.· 1968-02-14 ·cited 22×
  The court affirmed the district judge's finding that the prisoner's Fourth Amendment rights were violated because his consent to the search was not knowingly and intelligently given.
• Rhay v. White
  385 F.2d 883· 9th Cir.· 1967-11-28 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the District Court correctly determined that substantial doubt existed regarding the defendant's competency to stand trial, necessitating a new trial or release.
• Garnett B. Fortner v. Balkcom
  380 F.2d 816· 5th Cir.· 1967-07-07 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the district court erred in denying a writ of habeas corpus without a full evidentiary hearing, as the petitioner raised substantial constitutional claims that required further factual development.
• Sessions v. Wilson
  372 F.2d 366· 9th Cir.· 1966-11-28 ·cited 22×
  The dissenting judge disagrees with the majority's finding that the appellant alleged sufficient facts indicating coercion to warrant a hearing.
• Mathis v. United States
  369 F.2d 43· 4th Cir.· 1966-10-25 ·cited 22×
  The writ of error coram nobis is available to challenge a conviction and sentence that a petitioner is to serve in the future, even in the absence of an allegation of present parole eligibility impairment.
• Jefferson v. Willingham
  366 F.2d 353· 10th Cir.· 1966-09-12 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the appellant was not entitled to credit on his original sentences from the date the parole violator's warrant was issued, as it was not executed at that time.
• United States ex rel. Christopher Romano v. Hon. Edward M. FAY
  360 F.2d 389· 2d Cir.· 1966-04-29 ·cited 22×
  The Supreme Court decisions in Massiah and Escobedo should not be applied retroactively to void convictions that occurred before their pronouncements.
• Bennie Joe Hayden v. Warden, Maryland Penitentiary
  363 F.2d 647· 4th Cir.· 1966-04-21 ·cited 22×
  The court held that tangible articles discovered during a lawful and reasonable search are not immune from seizure, even if they cannot be classified as instruments or fruits of the crime.
• Otie Gray v. Wilburn C. Johnson
  354 F.2d 986· 6th Cir.· 1965-11-29 ·cited 22×
  The court held that a voluntary guilty plea waives prior constitutional violations, and the district court's findings of no coercion and a voluntary plea were supported by substantial evidence.
• Coleman v. Maxwell
  351 F.2d 285· 6th Cir.· 1965-09-30 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the doctrine of exhaustion of remedies does not require futile repetitive presentations to state courts once an issue of federal constitutional violation has been presented to the highest state court.
• Arwine v. Bannan
  346 F.2d 458· 6th Cir.· 1965-05-26 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the arrest was lawful due to probable cause and that the search of the vehicle was a reasonable search incident to that arrest, even though conducted at a different location and time.
• Jere Lane Henry v. Tinsley
  344 F.2d 109· 10th Cir.· 1965-04-12 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the appellant had not exhausted his state court remedies, as required by 28 U.S.C. § 2254, when he filed his federal habeas corpus petition.
• Sandoval v. Tinsley
  338 F.2d 48· 10th Cir.· 1964-11-12 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the appellant competently and understandingly waived his right to counsel, and the district court's finding of waiver was adequately supported by the record.
• Kostal v. Tinsley
  337 F.2d 845· 10th Cir.· 1964-11-02 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying the writ of habeas corpus because the disciplinary actions taken by prison officials were within their authority and not cruel and inhuman.
• Edmondson v. Warden, Maryland Penitentiary
  335 F.2d 608· 4th Cir.· 1964-08-06 ·cited 22×
  The court held that a state prisoner's federal habeas corpus petition may be dismissed if the prisoner has not exhausted state remedies, unless the issue has already been decided by the state's highest court on direct appeal.
• The State OF Mont. v. Tomich
  332 F.2d 987· 9th Cir.· 1964-06-10 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the trial court's finding that the appellee did not consent to the search of his automobile trunk was not clearly erroneous, and thus affirmed the habeas corpus discharge order.
• Sisk v. Ward Lane as Warden of the Ind. State Prison
  331 F.2d 235· 7th Cir.· 1964-05-01 ·cited 22×
  The Court held that the exclusionary rule announced in Mapp v. Ohio should not be applied retroactively to a 1950 search, and therefore the district court properly denied the writ of habeas corpus.
• Young v. Wainwright
  326 F.2d 255· 5th Cir.· 1964-01-09 ·cited 22×
  Failure to comply with state statutes requiring prompt presentment before a magistrate and advising of rights, standing alone, does not render a confession inadmissible in state court if the confession was otherwise voluntary.
• Donnell v. Nash
  323 F.2d 850· 8th Cir.· 1963-10-22 ·cited 22×
  Federal courts should generally require state prisoners to exhaust state remedies under new standards before entertaining federal habeas corpus petitions, especially when prior state court decisions predate these new standards.
• Sutton v. Settle
  302 F.2d 286· 8th Cir.· 1962-04-17 ·cited 22×
  The court held that issues not raised in the trial court cannot be considered on appeal, and the trial court properly dismissed the petition.
• United States ex rel. Benjamin Reid v. Richmond
  295 F.2d 83· 2d Cir.· 1961-09-19 ·cited 22×
• Carnley v. Cochran
  123 So. 2d 249· Fla.· 1960-09-23 ·cited 22×
  The court held that petitioners were not entitled to a writ of habeas corpus as their detention was lawful and they were not prejudiced at trial.
• Johnson v. Wilkinson
  279 F.2d 683· 5th Cir.· 1960-06-20 ·cited 22×
  The court held that time spent serving a sentence for a subsequent offense committed while on parole does not count towards the original sentence.
• Howard v. United States
  274 F.2d 100· 8th Cir.· 1960-01-05 ·cited 22×
  A prisoner conditionally released under 18 U.S.C.A. § 4164 is subject to all parole laws, and upon revocation of release, must serve the remainder of the original sentence, regardless of good time credits or claims of premature release.
• Bennett v. Colonel James W. Davis
  267 F.2d 15· 10th Cir.· 1959-05-12 ·cited 22×
  The court held that a U.S. Army member committing a crime in occupied Austria is subject to military law and jurisdiction, and that the military court afforded due process.
• United States ex rel. Gyula Paktorovics v. Murff
  260 F.2d 610· 2d Cir.· 1958-11-06 ·cited 22×
  The court held that aliens paroled into the United States under Section 212(d)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, particularly in the special circumstances of Hungarian refugees, are entitled to a hearing before their parole can be revoked.
• Freeman v. United States
  254 F.2d 352· D.C. Cir.· 1958-04-17 ·cited 22×
  The court held that a motion to vacate sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is not the proper vehicle to challenge the execution of a sentence, even if the execution is alleged to be contrary to law.
• Anderson v. Bannan
  250 F.2d 654· 6th Cir.· 1958-01-03 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the appellants failed to demonstrate a denial of due process due to ineffective assistance of counsel, and thus their petition for a writ of habeas corpus was properly denied.
• Durley v. Mayo
  351 U.S. 277· U.S.· 1956-06-04 ·cited 22×
  The Court should reach the merits of the petitioner's claim that his conviction was based on perjured testimony, which offends due process.
• United States ex rel. David Darcy v. Handy
  224 F.2d 504· 3d Cir.· 1955-06-09 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the relator's state conviction was not a denial of due process, despite claims of community hysteria and judicial impropriety, as the evidence did not establish fundamental unfairness.
• United States ex rel. Dimitrios Georges Zacharias v. Shaughnessy
  221 F.2d 578· 2d Cir.· 1955-04-13 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the alien seaman's preliminary visa application filed before the effective date of the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act preserved his rights under the prior law, entitling him to a hearing under the old standards.
• McDONALD v. LEE
  217 F.2d 619· 5th Cir.· 1954-12-09 ·cited 22×
• Norwood v. Mayo
  74 So. 2d 370· Fla.· 1954-07-23 ·cited 22×
  Burl Norwood petitioned for habeas corpus challenging the validity of consecutive sentences imposed upon him in 1947 for forgery and uttering a forged instrument, after he had escaped and been recaptured 20 years after an initial 1924 conviction. The Florida Supreme Court upheld
• Harrell v. Shuttleworth
  200 F.2d 490· 5th Cir.· 1952-12-10 ·cited 22×
  A federal sentence's commencement date is governed by statute and cannot be altered by the sentencing judge's wording, especially when the delay is due to the defendant's own actions.
• Winhoven v. Swope
  195 F.2d 181· 9th Cir.· 1952-02-28 ·cited 22×
  The court held that a federal prisoner seeking habeas corpus relief after denial of a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 must demonstrate the inadequacy of the § 2255 remedy, and a second or successive § 2255 motion is generally not permitted.
• Eisentrager v. Forrestal
  174 F.2d 961· D.C. Cir.· 1949-04-15 ·cited 22×
  A person deprived of liberty by U.S. officials in violation of the Constitution has a substantive right to habeas corpus, and this right cannot be defeated by jurisdictional omissions; the petition may be filed in the district court with jurisdiction over the officials exercising
• United States ex rel. Trinler v. Carusi
  168 F.2d 1014· 3d Cir.· 1948-07-08 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the action abated because the motion to substitute the successor officer was not timely filed within six months of the prior officer's resignation.
• Craig v. Hunter
  167 F.2d 721· 10th Cir.· 1948-04-14 ·cited 22×
  The court held that a defendant cannot raise the issue of conflicting jurisdiction between state and federal courts, as this is a matter of comity solely for the offended sovereign to address. It also held that a hearing on a habeas corpus petition is not required when only quest