Habeas Corpus

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

• King v. Moseley
  430 F.2d 732· 10th Cir.· 1970-08-11 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the allegations made did not demonstrate a violation of the appellant's right to a speedy trial, nor actual prejudice to his defense due to delay.
• United States ex rel. William Cabey H-2519 v. Mazurkiewicz
  431 F.2d 839· 3d Cir.· 1970-07-29 ·cited 20×
  The dissenting judge would reverse the grant of habeas corpus relief, finding the gun was properly received into evidence.
• Gaito v. Honorable Henry Ellenbogen
  425 F.2d 845· 3d Cir.· 1970-04-28 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the district court properly dismissed the civil rights complaint, affirming the dismissal.
• Mullreed v. Kropp
  425 F.2d 1095· 6th Cir.· 1970-04-16 ·cited 20×
  A defendant who pleads guilty to a lesser included offense after being charged with a greater offense, and then successfully overturns that conviction, cannot be subsequently retried on the greater offense without violating the Double Jeopardy Clause.
• Arley Ward v. Page
  424 F.2d 491· 10th Cir.· 1970-04-15 ·cited 20×
  The court held that a guilty plea to a lesser included offense does not operate as an acquittal of a greater offense for double jeopardy purposes, thus allowing retrial on the greater offense.
• Capobianco v. Hon. Melvin Laird
  424 F.2d 1304· 2d Cir.· 1970-03-31 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the local board's refusal to reopen the petitioner's classification lacked a basis in fact, entitling him to consideration of his conscientious objector claim.
• United States ex rel. Joseph A. DI Rienzo v. State of N.J.
  423 F.2d 224· 3d Cir.· 1970-03-16 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the District Court had jurisdiction to consider the habeas corpus petition, and that the relator's contentions regarding denial of counsel for appeal and ineffective assistance of counsel were without merit.
• Guenter H. Schoeller v. Dunbar
  423 F.2d 1183· 9th Cir.· 1970-02-24 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying the habeas corpus petition because the appellant was mentally competent when he entered his guilty plea.
• WAY v. Crouse
  421 F.2d 145· 10th Cir.· 1970-02-09 ·cited 20×
  The federal court should not dismiss a habeas petition for failure to exhaust state remedies when the delay in state court proceedings is the very grievance alleged.
• Kane v. State OF Va.
  419 F.2d 1369· 4th Cir.· 1970-01-19 ·cited 20×
  Federal courts may grant habeas corpus relief to prisoners claiming denial of speedy trial rights due to detainers, provided state remedies are exhausted, allowing prosecution to be barred.
• Oswald v. Crouse
  420 F.2d 373· 10th Cir.· 1969-12-31 ·cited 20×
  The court held that an ambiguous record regarding counsel representation necessitates an evidentiary hearing to determine the validity of a prior conviction used for sentence enhancement.
• Application of Melvin F. Kiser for a Writ of Habeas Corpus. Melvin F. Kiser
  419 F.2d 1134· 8th Cir.· 1969-12-30 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the trial court's findings were supported by substantial evidence and affirmed the denial of the habeas corpus petition.
• Joslin v. Moseley
  420 F.2d 1204· 10th Cir.· 1969-12-09 ·cited 20×
  A federal court's attempt to order its sentence to run concurrently with a state sentence is ineffective and surplusage, but does not invalidate the federal sentence.
• United States ex rel. Joseph Randazzo v. Follette
  418 F.2d 1319· 2d Cir.· 1969-12-04 ·cited 20×
• United States ex rel. Frank E. Darrah v. Brierley
  415 F.2d 9· 3d Cir.· 1969-08-29 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the District Court did not err in denying a federal evidentiary hearing on the habeas corpus petition, as the state record was adequate and the appellant's claims lacked sufficient credible evidence.
• Subilosky v. Commonwealth OF Mass.
  412 F.2d 691· 1st Cir.· 1969-06-30 ·cited 20×
  The court held that a federal court should not grant habeas corpus relief based on a new constitutional principle if the petitioner has not first sought relief in state courts, even if the new principle applies retroactively.
• Sims v. Ward Lane
  411 F.2d 661· 7th Cir.· 1969-05-23 ·cited 20×
  The dissenting judge would have reversed the district court's denial of a new trial, finding that the Indiana courts violated the defendant's due process rights by refusing a psychiatric examination and sanity hearing.
• Smith v. State
  410 F.2d 1349· 5th Cir.· 1969-05-02 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the habeas corpus petition without a hearing, as factual issues regarding the knowing use of perjured testimony by state authorities needed to be resolved.
• SIU Fung LUK v. Rosenberg
  409 F.2d 555· 9th Cir.· 1969-03-28 ·cited 20×
  An alien paroled into the United States has not made an 'entry' and is not entitled to a deportation hearing upon revocation of parole, nor is a hearing before a special inquiry officer required for persecution claims under these circumstances.
• United States ex rel. Oscar Leon Rosen v. The Hon. Harold W. Follette
  409 F.2d 1042· 2d Cir.· 1969-02-26 ·cited 20×
  A habeas corpus petition must allege facts showing not only that a confession was coerced, but also that the guilty plea was involuntary due to the confession.
• Ballou v. Commonwealth OF Mass.
  403 F.2d 982· 1st Cir.· 1968-12-03 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the police had reasonable suspicion to conduct a limited pat-down search for weapons based on an anonymous tip corroborated by the known dangerous propensities of the individuals involved.
• Evans v. Dutton
  400 F.2d 826· 5th Cir.· 1968-09-16 ·cited 20×
  The admission of a coconspirator's out-of-court statement, made after the crime and while the conspirators were imprisoned, violates the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation.
• Lewis v. Sec'y, Dep't OF THE Army
  402 F.2d 813· 9th Cir.· 1968-09-05 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the Selective Service Board's reclassification of the appellant from III-A to I-A lacked a basis in fact, as the evidence presented by the appellant established a prima facie case for extreme hardship to a dependent, and the government failed to provide affirm
• Brown v. Crouse
  399 F.2d 311· 10th Cir.· 1968-07-26 ·cited 20×
  Federal courts cannot summarily dismiss state prisoner habeas corpus petitions based solely on state court findings without an evidentiary hearing if material issues of fact are raised.
• Simpson v. Rice
  396 F.2d 499· 5th Cir.· 1968-05-30 ·cited 20×
  The court affirmed the district court's grant of habeas corpus relief, finding that the petitioner was entitled to credit for time served under vacated sentences.
• Le Roy St. Clair Brown, Jr. v. Crouse
  395 F.2d 755· 10th Cir.· 1968-05-06 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the appellant had not exhausted his state remedies because he had not utilized the available Kansas post-conviction relief procedures.
• Beto v. Conley
  393 F.2d 497· 5th Cir.· 1968-04-03 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the district court erred in granting habeas corpus relief based on the failure to warn the defendant of his right to remain silent.
• Brown v. Honorable Raymond Fogel
  387 F.2d 692· 4th Cir.· 1967-11-28 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the District Court did not err in imposing reasonable travel restrictions as a condition of release on recognizance and in denying a modification of those restrictions.
• Mora v. McNamara
  389 U.S. 934· U.S.· 1967-11-06 ·cited 20×
• Kinnell v. Crouse
  384 F.2d 811· 10th Cir.· 1967-11-01 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the appellant had not exhausted his available state remedies, and the Kansas post-conviction procedure was adequate.
• Carroll v. Beto
  379 F.2d 329· 5th Cir.· 1967-06-22 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the applicant must exhaust state remedies before federal habeas corpus relief can be granted.
• Evans v. Ciccone
  377 F.2d 4· 8th Cir.· 1967-05-23 ·cited 20×
  The court affirmed the denial of habeas corpus relief, finding no evidence of religious or racial discrimination by prison officials.
• Enoch Creek, Jr. v. Stone
  379 F.2d 106· D.C. Cir.· 1967-05-01 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the District Court erred in ruling it lacked jurisdiction to inquire into the suitability of a juvenile's detention facility, even for interim custody.
• Amos Marshall Arketa v. Wilson
  373 F.2d 582· 9th Cir.· 1967-02-20 ·cited 20×
  A state prisoner may use federal habeas corpus to attack a prior conviction that makes him ineligible for probation, even if he is not seeking release from custody.
• Robinson v. Willingham
  369 F.2d 688· 10th Cir.· 1966-12-08 ·cited 20×
  A mandatory releasee is subject to the same conditions as a parolee, and a violator's warrant issued during the term of parole may be served after the sentence expiration if good reason is shown.
• Hampton v. The State OF Okla. & Ray H. Page
  368 F.2d 9· 10th Cir.· 1966-10-31 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the lower court erred in summarily denying the habeas corpus application without an evidentiary hearing, as the allegations regarding speedy trial raised a substantial question.
• State of Fla. ex rel. Hyman Martin v. Michell
  188 So. 2d 684· Fla. 4th DCA· 1966-07-13 ·cited 20×
  The Florida District Court of Appeal held that a state attorney has the implied common law power to request issuance of a grand jury subpoena before the grand jury is formally impaneled and sworn, rejecting petitioner Martin's challenge to a subpoena issued for a grand jury not y
• Ford v. Boeger
  362 F.2d 999· 8th Cir.· 1966-07-06 ·cited 20×
  The court held that petitioners failed to establish that the district court erred in denying their petitions for federal habeas corpus relief, affirming the dismissals.
• Gallagher v. Quinn
  363 F.2d 301· D.C. Cir.· 1966-05-24 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the distinction in review provisions for military cases, requiring review for general/flag officers but not others, is a reasonable classification and does not violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
• Davis v. Holman
  354 F.2d 773· 5th Cir.· 1965-12-27 ·cited 20×
  A defendant is entitled to counsel when changing a plea to guilty, and waiving counsel at arraignment does not waive this right.
• Vitoratos v. Maxwell
  351 F.2d 217· 6th Cir.· 1965-09-22 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the appellant was not denied due process or the right to counsel, as any potential errors or deprivations did not affect his substantial rights.
• Shawan v. COX
  350 F.2d 909· 10th Cir.· 1965-09-16 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the appellant did not intelligently and understandingly waive his constitutional right to counsel, as the record did not show he was adequately informed of the charges, potential penalties, or his rights.
• United States ex rel. Francisco Castillo v. FAY
  350 F.2d 400· 2d Cir.· 1965-07-28 ·cited 20×
  The admission of testimony describing the fruits of an illegal search violated the accused's constitutional rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments.
• United States ex rel. Oscar Walden, Jr. v. Pate
  350 F.2d 240· 7th Cir.· 1965-07-27 ·cited 20×
  The exclusionary rule announced in Escobedo v. Illinois is not to be applied retrospectively.
• Young v. State
  177 So. 2d 345· Fla. 2d DCA· 1965-07-16 ·cited 20×
  The court held that a defendant is entitled to a hearing on a post-conviction relief petition if the allegations, if true, would establish a denial of due process, even if the defendant failed to appeal the original conviction.
• Lawson Edward Schaber v. Maxwell
  348 F.2d 664· 6th Cir.· 1965-07-14 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the petitioner was denied due process of law because his court-appointed attorneys failed to file a written plea of 'not guilty by reason of insanity,' leading to a conclusive presumption of sanity under Ohio law and effectively depriving him of a trial on tha
• Sheppard v. Maxwell
  346 F.2d 707· 6th Cir.· 1965-05-05 ·cited 20×
  The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the district court improvidently granted Dr. Sheppard's habeas corpus petition and ordered his release. The court vacated the district court's order and remanded Dr. Sheppard to custody.
• Haynes v. Harris
  344 F.2d 463· 8th Cir.· 1965-05-03 ·cited 20×
  The court held that a federal prisoner must exhaust remedies under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 in the sentencing court before seeking habeas corpus relief, and that courts will not interfere with discretionary prison discipline absent exceptional circumstances.
• Jones v. State
  174 So. 2d 452· Fla. 2d DCA· 1965-03-31 ·cited 20×
  The court recedes from prior precedent and holds that a prisoner serving one sentence may challenge a consecutive sentence not yet being served under Criminal Procedure Rule No. 1, because he is constructively "in custody" under both consecutive sentences. The court reverses the
• Harley W. Miller v. Gladden
  341 F.2d 972· 9th Cir.· 1965-02-19 ·cited 20×
  The court held that federal habeas corpus relief is unavailable because the petitioner's claims, even if successful, would not entitle him to immediate release from custody.