Habeas Corpus

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

• Teague v. Lane
  820 F.2d 832· 7th Cir.· 1987-05-11 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the Sixth Amendment's fair cross-section requirement applies to the jury pool, not the petit jury itself, and therefore the prosecution's use of peremptory challenges to exclude Black jurors did not violate the defendant's Sixth Amendment rights.
• Chaussard v. Fulcomer
  816 F.2d 925· 3d Cir.· 1987-04-27 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the petitioner fairly presented his federal claims to the state courts, satisfying the exhaustion requirement for federal habeas corpus relief, and that his Sixth Amendment confrontation rights were not violated by the use of post-hypnosis testimony without a
• Trujillo v. Sullivan
  815 F.2d 597· 10th Cir.· 1987-04-01 ·cited 18×
  The court affirmed the dismissal of the habeas corpus petition, finding no constitutional violation in the trial court's procedures regarding lesser included offense instructions or jury voir dire.
• Cook v. Foltz
  814 F.2d 1109· 6th Cir.· 1987-03-31 ·cited 18×
  The court held that ineffective assistance of counsel can constitute cause for a procedural default, but the petitioner's claim of ineffective assistance was meritless.
• Nirmal Singh Dhangu v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv.
  812 F.2d 455· 9th Cir.· 1987-03-06 ·cited 18×
  The court held that while district courts have jurisdiction to review discretionary stay denials by the INS, the habeas petition was moot because an automatic stay was already in effect. The court also held that the due process claim must first be addressed by the Board of Immigr
• Millard v. Lynaugh
  810 F.2d 1403· 5th Cir.· 1987-03-04 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the petitioner's federal habeas corpus petition was properly denied as his claims regarding speedy trial, invalid sentence enhancement, double jeopardy, ineffective assistance of counsel, and abuse of writ sanctions were without merit.
• Brennan v. Cunningham
  813 F.2d 1· 1st Cir.· 1987-03-03 ·cited 18×
  A prisoner's revocation from a work release program, which is closely tied to parole and offers a measure of liberty beyond incarceration, implicates a liberty interest protected by due process. The revocation must be based on specific grounds outlined in state regulations and su
• Henderson v. Carlson
  812 F.2d 874· 3d Cir.· 1987-02-27 ·cited 18×
  The dissenting judge would affirm the order appealed from, finding no substantial evidence to support the charge against the inmate.
• Perry v. Freddy V. Smith
  810 F.2d 1078· 11th Cir.· 1987-02-23 ·cited 18×
  The Due Process Clause does not require a state court to instruct the jury on lesser included offenses in a noncapital murder case.
• Routly v. Louie L. Wainwright
  502 So. 2d 901· Fla.· 1987-02-12 ·cited 18×
  Dan Edward Routly, a death row inmate, petitioned for habeas corpus relief alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. The Florida Supreme Court denied all relief, finding no merit to Routly's claims of inadequate appellate representation, improper appointment procedure
• Brown v. Sheriff OF Broward Cnty. Jail
  502 So. 2d 88· Fla. 4th DCA· 1987-02-11 ·cited 18×
  James Brown, a pro se plaintiff in a civil lawsuit who is incarcerated in state custody, sought habeas corpus relief challenging a trial court order barring his attendance at all future hearings and requiring motions to be decided by written memorandum without oral argument. The
• Crump v. Lane
  807 F.2d 1394· 7th Cir.· 1986-12-19 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the plaintiff must exhaust state remedies for his habeas corpus petition, and his § 1983 claims are also barred because they are ancillary to his claim for release and would require a determination of the legality of his confinement.
• Johnson v. Thigpen
  806 F.2d 1243· 5th Cir.· 1986-12-17 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the Mississippi Supreme Court's inconsistent application of the 'especially heinous, atrocious or cruel' aggravating circumstance did not render the death sentence unconstitutional because the capital murder statute itself sufficiently narrows the class of eli
• Stewart v. Louie L. Wainwright
  494 So. 2d 489· Fla.· 1986-09-25 ·cited 18×
  Roy Stewart, a death row inmate, petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus and stay of execution, claiming the death penalty is imposed in Florida in a racially discriminatory manner. The Florida Supreme Court denied the petition, holding that such claims must be raised in post-conv
• Wilton Chatman-Bey v. Meese
  797 F.2d 987· D.C. Cir.· 1986-08-05 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the Federal Bureau of Prisons' method of calculating parole eligibility for prisoners serving consecutive federal and D.C. Code sentences was arbitrary and irrational, and adopted a uniform aggregation approach that respects D.C. minimum sentence requirements.
• Welcome v. Blackburn
  793 F.2d 672· 5th Cir.· 1986-07-03 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the petitioner's claims regarding jury instructions, jury composition, sufficiency of evidence, vagueness of aggravating circumstances, duplication of elements, and prosecutorial misconduct were without merit.
• Thigpen v. Smith
  792 F.2d 1507· 11th Cir.· 1986-06-20 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the district court erred in approving a stipulation that allowed for piecemeal litigation of habeas corpus claims, violating the policies against successive petitions.
• United States v. O'Leary
  788 F.2d 1238· 7th Cir.· 1986-04-16 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the petitioner's appeal must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed and no timely motion for an extension was made.
• Brock v. O.L. McCOTTER
  781 F.2d 1152· 5th Cir.· 1986-02-05 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the prospective juror's inability to consider the death penalty under any circumstances justified her disqualification, the Texas sentencing scheme did not unconstitutionally prevent consideration of mitigating evidence, the prosecutor's comments did not viola
• Sampson v. Aileene Love
  782 F.2d 53· 6th Cir.· 1986-01-24 ·cited 18×
  The court held that a habeas petitioner must present new evidence to state courts if that evidence significantly alters the posture of the claim, even if the substance of the claim was previously presented.
• Crespo-Gomez v. Richard
  780 F.2d 932· 11th Cir.· 1986-01-21 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the Board of Immigration Appeals did not abuse its discretion in finding the alien ineligible for asylum due to a conviction for a particularly serious crime, and that the district court erred in granting and refusing to dissolve a preliminary injunction.
• Holland v. Attorney General of New Jersey
  777 F.2d 150· 3d Cir.· 1985-11-22 ·cited 18×
  The admission of a co-defendant's confession implicating the defendant, even if deemed harmless error by state courts, violates the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause and requires reversal unless the prosecution proves harmlessness beyond a reasonable doubt.
• Mancil Wallace v. Duckworth
  778 F.2d 1215· 7th Cir.· 1985-11-19 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the petitioner failed to exhaust his state court remedies because he did not present his Fourth Amendment claim to the Indiana Supreme Court in a procedurally proper manner that required the court to consider it on the merits.
• Fryer v. Crispus NIX
  775 F.2d 979· 8th Cir.· 1985-10-21 ·cited 18×
  The court held that Fryer's habeas corpus petition was properly denied because the evidence was sufficient for conviction, the prosecution did not suppress material exculpatory evidence, his confession was voluntary, the voluntariness hearing was constitutionally adequate, and th
• Urdy v. O.L. McCOTTER
  773 F.2d 652· 5th Cir.· 1985-10-15 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the district court erred by dismissing the habeas corpus petition for abuse of the writ without providing the pro se petitioner with adequate notice, including a Rule 9(b) form or equivalent.
• Armant v. Marquez
  772 F.2d 552· 9th Cir.· 1985-09-24 ·cited 18×
  The court should remand for an evidentiary hearing to determine if the pro se request was a tactic to delay trial, rather than immediately issuing a writ.
• Straight v. Louie L. Wainwright
  772 F.2d 674· 11th Cir.· 1985-09-13 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the petitioner's claims were procedurally barred or without merit, and affirmed the district court's denial of the habeas corpus petition.
• Gomez v. The Honorable Harry G. Hinckley, Jr.
  473 So. 2d 809· Fla. 4th DCA· 1985-08-08 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the trial court erred in denying bail based on the specific statutory requirements for pretrial detention.
• Griggs v. Louie L. Wainwright
  473 So. 2d 49· Fla. 1st DCA· 1985-08-01 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the trial court correctly denied the petition for writ of habeas corpus because the petitioner failed to exhaust administrative remedies.
• Bailey v. Faulkner
  765 F.2d 102· 7th Cir.· 1985-06-19 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the plaintiff's civil rights suit was barred by the statute of limitations, and affirmed the dismissal on alternative grounds of the defendant's lack of personal liability.
• Richardson v. Procunier
  762 F.2d 429· 5th Cir.· 1985-06-10 ·cited 18×
  A Texas inmate seeking federal habeas relief has not exhausted state remedies if they fail to petition the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals for discretionary review of their conviction.
• Julius v. Johnson
  755 F.2d 1403· 11th Cir.· 1985-03-05 ·cited 18×
  The court held that a defendant does not have a Sixth Amendment right to act as co-counsel in a criminal case.
• Harvey and Rebecca Rumbaugh v. Procunier
  753 F.2d 395· 5th Cir.· 1985-02-20 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the determination of competency to waive federal habeas review in a death case is a mixed question of fact and law, not subject to the clearly erroneous standard of review.
• Raulerson v. State
  462 So. 2d 1085· Fla.· 1985-01-21 ·cited 18×
  The court held that claims previously raised or that could have been raised on direct appeal are precluded from consideration in a third motion for post-conviction relief.
• United States ex rel. Miles Cole v. Lane
  752 F.2d 1210· 7th Cir.· 1985-01-07 ·cited 18×
  The court held that fragmented co-defendant statements did not violate Bruton, and the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel due to antagonistic defenses was waived.
• Dickerson v. Walsh
  750 F.2d 150· 1st Cir.· 1984-12-18 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the petitioner failed to exhaust his state remedies regarding his equal protection claim, and therefore, federal jurisdiction should not be exercised.
• Anderson v. Smith
  751 F.2d 96· 2d Cir.· 1984-12-18 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the admission of the defendant's videotaped confession, obtained after he invoked his right to remain silent, violated Miranda v. Arizona and its progeny, and was not harmless error.
• Palmes v. Louie L. Wainwright
  460 So. 2d 362· Fla.· 1984-11-02 ·cited 18×
  Timothy Palmes, a death row inmate, petitioned for habeas corpus and appealed the denial of his rule 3.850 motion to vacate his murder conviction and death sentence. The Florida Supreme Court rejected his claims, including that proportionality review was inadequate and that the s
• Miller v. Fenton
  741 F.2d 1456· 3d Cir.· 1984-08-17 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the majority erred in treating the voluntariness of a confession as a question of fact, thereby deferring to state court findings, when Supreme Court precedent establishes it as a mixed question of law and fact requiring independent federal review.
• Nash v. Jeffes
  739 F.2d 878· 3d Cir.· 1984-07-10 ·cited 18×
• Fernandez-Roque v. Smith
  734 F.2d 576· 11th Cir.· 1984-06-01 ·cited 18×
  The court held that parole for excludable aliens is part of the admissions process and does not confer a constitutional liberty interest, thus the Attorney General's plan does not require heightened due process. The court also held that the Attorney General's sponsorship policies
• Irving v. Thigpen
  732 F.2d 1215· 5th Cir.· 1984-05-07 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the Mississippi parole statute does not create a constitutionally protected liberty interest, thus precluding a due process claim. However, an equal protection claim based on racial discrimination requires exhaustion of state remedies.
• Adams v. State
  449 So. 2d 819· Fla.· 1984-05-02 ·cited 18×
  James Adams, convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death, appeals the denial of his post-conviction relief motion and petitions for habeas corpus. The Florida Supreme Court affirms the trial court's denial, rejecting his arguments that his death sentence relied on an
• George v. Black
  732 F.2d 108· 8th Cir.· 1984-04-16 ·cited 18×
  A state trial court's failure to inform a defendant that a mental health commitment hearing would follow incarceration does not render a nolo contendere plea involuntary, as such commitment is a collateral, not direct, consequence.
• Iuteri v. Nardoza
  732 F.2d 32· 2d Cir.· 1984-04-04 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the United States Parole Commission did not abuse its discretion by going beyond its guidelines to extend incarceration based on new, adverse information, and that the parole retardation procedure did not violate due process.
• Goode v. Louie L. Wainwright
  448 So. 2d 999· Fla.· 1984-04-02 ·cited 18×
  Arthur Goode petitioned for habeas corpus seeking to stay his execution pending a determination of his sanity. The Florida Supreme Court held that the governor has inherent authority to determine an inmate's sanity before execution, that Florida's statutory procedure does not vio
• Autry v. McKASKLE
  727 F.2d 358· 5th Cir.· 1984-03-01 ·cited 18×
  The court held that a prisoner's decision to forgo mitigation evidence and prefer death over life imprisonment, if knowing and voluntary, does not render counsel ineffective for failing to seek a competency hearing. The court also held that the brief delay and uncertainty during
• Slayton v. Willingham
  726 F.2d 631· 10th Cir.· 1984-01-27 ·cited 18×
  A nolo contendere plea in a state criminal case does not automatically bar a subsequent federal civil rights action under § 1983 for alleged constitutional violations, and the right to privacy can encompass avoiding disclosure of personal matters.
• Carzell Moore v. Zant
  722 F.2d 640· 11th Cir.· 1983-12-20 ·cited 18×
  The court did not issue a holding in this excerpt, as it is a concurring and dissenting opinion and an order for rehearing en banc.
• Henry v. Louie L. Wainwright
  721 F.2d 990· 5th Cir.· 1983-12-13 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the trial judge's consideration of nonstatutory aggravating factors was not unconstitutional under Barclay v. Florida, and other claims regarding jury instructions, felony murder, ineffective assistance of counsel, and proportionality were also rejected.