Habeas Corpus

18,782 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• Trest v. Cain
  522 U.S. 87· U.S.· 1997-12-09 ·cited 16×
  A federal court of appeals is not required to raise the issue of a habeas petitioner's procedural default sua sponte; it is a defense the state must raise.
• Santos v. Honorable Edward Garrison
  691 So. 2d 1172· Fla. 4th DCA· 1997-04-18 ·cited 16×
  The court held that a trial court cannot revoke or increase bond sua sponte without a showing of changed circumstances or previously undisclosed information, and that a federal statute concerning alien detention was not applicable.
• Williams v. James
  684 So. 2d 868· Fla. 2d DCA· 1996-12-13 ·cited 16×
  David Williams appeals the denial of habeas corpus challenging loss of gain time due to a disciplinary report. The court agrees that Williams was denied due process because the Department of Corrections failed to produce a requested witness or explain on the record why the witnes
• Scott v. Singletary
  38 F.3d 1547· 11th Cir.· 1994-11-14 ·cited 16×
  Paul William Scott, sentenced to death for a 1978 murder, sought recall of a prior appellate mandate and habeas relief based on the intervening decision in Glock v. Singletary, arguing that his sentencing jury received an inadequate narrowing instruction on Florida's "heinous, at
• Meyer v. Singletary
  610 So. 2d 1329· Fla. 4th DCA· 1992-12-23 ·cited 16×
  Meyer, convicted of kidnapping, robbery, and attempted robbery, challenged his conviction via habeas corpus petition alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. The court found that appellate counsel failed to raise meritorious claims regarding trial court violations of
• Brecht v. Abrahamson
  944 F.2d 1363· 7th Cir.· 1991-09-26 ·cited 16×
  The court concurs in the judgment, finding the standard for harmless constitutional error in collateral review is settled law in the circuit.
• Pilchak v. Camper
  935 F.2d 145· 8th Cir.· 1991-06-04 ·cited 16×
  The court affirmed the district court's grant of habeas corpus, finding that the defendant's life sentence was a fundamentally unjust incarceration due to constitutional violations, allowing an exception to the cause-prejudice rule.
• Sammie Lee Harris v. State
  580 So. 2d 243· Fla. 1st DCA· 1991-05-09 ·cited 16×
  Harris petitions for habeas corpus claiming his appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise on appeal that the trial court committed fundamental error by omitting jury instructions on justifiable and excusable homicide in connection with the manslaughter instruction. T
• Bowens v. Tyson
  578 So. 2d 696· Fla.· 1991-04-25 ·cited 16×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that a defendant held in custody for more than 30 days without formal charges is not automatically entitled to release under Rule 3.133(b)(6) if the state files an information after the 30-day period but before the court hears the defendant's motion
• Wilburn A. Henderson v. Sargent
  926 F.2d 706· 8th Cir.· 1991-02-19 ·cited 16×
  The court held that trial counsel's failure to investigate and present evidence implicating another suspect constituted ineffective assistance of counsel, warranting a writ of habeas corpus.
• Young v. Herring
  917 F.2d 858· 5th Cir.· 1990-11-06 ·cited 16×
  The dissent argues that the majority misapplies the 'plain statement' rule from Harris v. Reed, improperly expanding federal habeas review by disregarding an adequate and independent state procedural ground.
• United States v. Smith
  915 F.2d 959· 5th Cir.· 1990-10-26 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the government may prosecute under either 18 U.S.C. § 495 or § 510, and that the defendant's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel were not supported by the record or precedent.
• Abels v. Kaiser
  913 F.2d 821· 10th Cir.· 1990-09-04 ·cited 16×
  The court held that retained counsel's failure to perfect an appeal, without court permission to withdraw, violates the defendant's constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel on appeal.
• Savage v. Estelle
  908 F.2d 508· 9th Cir.· 1990-07-16 ·cited 16×
  A trial court may permissibly deny a criminal defendant the right to represent himself if a severe speech impediment renders him unable to abide by the rules of courtroom procedure and communicate effectively with the jury.
• Edward v. Lawrence
  900 F.2d 127· 8th Cir.· 1990-03-30 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the petitioner's trial counsel's failure to investigate potential alibi witnesses constituted deficient performance, and the case must be remanded for a determination of prejudice.
• Rogers-Bey v. Lane
  896 F.2d 279· 7th Cir.· 1990-02-22 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the Illinois appellate court's finding of waiver was an independent and adequate basis for decision, even though it also analyzed the issue for plain error.
• Hill v. A.L. Lockhart
  894 F.2d 1009· 8th Cir.· 1990-01-31 ·cited 16×
  The court held that erroneous parole eligibility advice given to a defendant constituted ineffective assistance of counsel, rendering the guilty plea invalid and entitling the defendant to a trial.
• McCLESKEY v. Zant
  890 F.2d 342· 11th Cir.· 1989-11-22 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion in failing to dismiss McCleskey's Massiah claim as an abuse of the writ because he deliberately abandoned the claim in prior federal proceedings.
• Bocharski v. The Cir. Court OF the Second Jud. Cir.
  552 So. 2d 946· Fla. 1st DCA· 1989-11-08 ·cited 16×
  A writ of mandamus is granted to compel the circuit court to process a habeas corpus petition without requiring a filing fee or affidavit of insolvency.
• Bliss v. A.L. Lockhart
  891 F.2d 1335· 8th Cir.· 1989-10-25 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court did not err in granting habeas corpus relief without an evidentiary hearing and that the petitioner's claims were not procedurally barred due to ineffective assistance of counsel and prosecutorial misconduct.
• P.R. v. Johnson
  541 So. 2d 791· Fla. 4th DCA· 1989-04-19 ·cited 16×
  Four consolidated habeas corpus petitions from juvenile detainees challenging their continued detention beyond the 21-day statutory limit. The court held that Florida law prohibits detention beyond 21 days without commencement of an adjudicatory hearing, and that a trial court's
• Alton Waye v. Townley
  871 F.2d 18· 4th Cir.· 1989-03-28 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the appellant failed to demonstrate prejudice from his counsel's failure to object to a jury instruction, thus the procedural bar foreclosed review of the Sandstrom violation.
• King v. Lynaugh
  868 F.2d 1400· 5th Cir.· 1989-03-21 ·cited 16×
  The court, in a concurring opinion, expresses reservations about applying the contemporaneous objection rule to claims that have been revived by Supreme Court certiorari, suggesting that such claims should be reviewed on their merits.
• Harper v. Crispus NIX
  867 F.2d 455· 8th Cir.· 1989-02-03 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the petitioner failed to demonstrate sufficient cause to overcome the procedural default of his claims and that the admission of identification evidence did not result in the conviction of an actually innocent person.
• Quadrini v. Clusen
  864 F.2d 577· 7th Cir.· 1989-01-11 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the petitioner's confession was voluntary and that his Sixth Amendment right to counsel had attached but was validly waived. The court affirmed the denial of the habeas corpus petition.
• Smith v. Endell
  860 F.2d 1528· 9th Cir.· 1988-11-14 ·cited 16×
  The dissenting judge would hold that the defendant's statements did not unambiguously invoke his right to counsel, and therefore the confession should not be suppressed.
• Smith v. Fairman
  862 F.2d 630· 7th Cir.· 1988-11-09 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the trial court's exclusion of the victim's prior inconsistent statement was constitutional error, but this error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt due to overwhelming evidence of guilt. The court affirmed the denial of the habeas petition.
• Vasquez v. A.L. Lockhart
  867 F.2d 1056· 8th Cir.· 1988-10-31 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court properly applied the Wainwright cause and prejudice test to procedurally bar the ineffective assistance of counsel claim, and that the claims of insufficient evidence and denial of effective cross-examination were without merit.
• Lanigan v. Maloney
  853 F.2d 40· 1st Cir.· 1988-08-09 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court properly found a constitutional violation in the jury's reasonable doubt instructions and that the claim was not procedurally barred.
• Shaheed Madyun v. Young
  852 F.2d 1029· 7th Cir.· 1988-07-26 ·cited 16×
• Hall v. Dugger
  531 So. 2d 76· Fla.· 1988-05-12 ·cited 16×
  The court held that any error in limiting consideration of nonstatutory mitigating circumstances at sentencing was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
• Eagan v. Duckworth
  843 F.2d 1554· 7th Cir.· 1988-03-22 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the initial Miranda warning was constitutionally defective because it ambiguously informed the defendant of his right to counsel, and remanded for a determination of whether the subsequent confession was knowing and intelligent.
• Ford v. Seabold
  841 F.2d 677· 6th Cir.· 1988-03-07 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the appellant failed to establish a prima facie case for a Sixth Amendment fair-cross-section violation because young adults and college students are not distinctive groups, and the underrepresentation of women was not shown to be the result of systematic excl
• Marshall v. Lansing
  839 F.2d 933· 3d Cir.· 1988-02-10 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the writ of habeas corpus was issued in error and Marshall must be returned to prison, but the majority erred in voiding the penalty for Marshall's first prison infraction.
• Mauricio v. Duckworth
  840 F.2d 454· 7th Cir.· 1988-02-10 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the State's knowing failure to disclose the identity of an alibi rebuttal witness violated due process and was not harmless error.
• White v. Dugger
  523 So. 2d 140· Fla.· 1988-01-28 ·cited 16×
  William White challenges his death sentence for first-degree murder on habeas corpus, arguing that jury instructions improperly limited consideration of mitigating circumstances to those enumerated in the sentencing statute. The Florida Supreme Court rejects his claim, finding an
• Matthews v. Butler
  833 F.2d 1165· 5th Cir.· 1987-12-15 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the petitioner's habeas petition was properly dismissed under Rule 9(b) for abuse of the writ, as he failed to provide a sufficient excuse for not raising the claims in a prior petition.
• Czere v. Butler
  833 F.2d 59· 5th Cir.· 1987-12-03 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court's finding that the petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he was prejudiced by his attorney's misinformation regarding parole eligibility was not clearly erroneous.
• Nollie Lee Martin v. State
  515 So. 2d 189· Fla.· 1987-11-10 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the trial court's determination of competency to be executed was supported by competent substantial evidence and that the appellant's procedural claims lacked merit.
• McCORQUODALE v. Kemp
  829 F.2d 1035· 11th Cir.· 1987-09-20 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the petitioner failed to demonstrate an Eighth Amendment violation based on the prosecutor's remarks regarding appellate review, as the trial court provided a sufficient curative instruction. Therefore, the dismissal of the habeas corpus petition is affirmed.
• Otto Graham v. Wilson
  828 F.2d 656· 10th Cir.· 1987-09-17 ·cited 16×
  The federal court held that while prosecutorial error occurred by using perjured testimony, it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt due to overwhelming corroborating evidence. The district court's grant of habeas corpus was therefore vacated.
• Nelson v. A.L. Lockhart
  828 F.2d 446· 8th Cir.· 1987-09-03 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the Double Jeopardy Clause precludes a second enhancement proceeding under the habitual offender statute when the initial sentencing hearing was functionally a trial on the issue of punishment and the state failed to present sufficient evidence due to admittin
• The United States v. Emmett Earl Fulford
  825 F.2d 3· 3d Cir.· 1987-08-04 ·cited 16×
  The court held that omissions from the Rule 11 colloquy were not serious enough to vacate the sentence, ineffective assistance of counsel claims failed due to lack of prejudice, and the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act was not violated.
• Thompson v. Lynaugh
  821 F.2d 1054· 5th Cir.· 1987-07-03 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction and death sentence, and that petitioner's federal constitutional rights were not violated.
• Baca v. Sullivan
  821 F.2d 1480· 10th Cir.· 1987-06-29 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the defendant failed to demonstrate constitutional errors in the photographic identification procedure, juror nondisclosure, or prosecutor's cross-examination that would warrant overturning his conviction.
• Richard O.J. Mayberry v. Petsock
  821 F.2d 179· 3d Cir.· 1987-06-15 ·cited 16×
  A habeas petitioner must provide specific factual allegations of state obstruction to excuse the failure to exhaust state remedies, and vague claims are insufficient to warrant discovery or an evidentiary hearing.
• Amadeo v. Kemp
  816 F.2d 1502· 11th Cir.· 1987-04-30 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the introduction of 'other crimes' evidence did not deny the petitioner a fair trial, and the petitioner failed to establish sufficient cause to excuse his procedural default in challenging jury composition.
• Gardner v. Ponte
  817 F.2d 183· 1st Cir.· 1987-04-29 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the petitioner's claims were procedurally barred due to failure to object at trial, and even if considered, did not demonstrate ineffective assistance of counsel or prejudice.
• Fikri Bayramoglu v. Estelle
  806 F.2d 880· 9th Cir.· 1986-12-16 ·cited 16×
  The court held that juror misconduct and bias, while serious, were harmless beyond a reasonable doubt and did not violate the defendant's constitutional right to an impartial jury.
• Schandelmeier v. Warden Richard Cunningham. Appeal of Steve Schandelmeier
  819 F.2d 52· 3d Cir.· 1986-12-02 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the petitioner had not exhausted state remedies because he failed to file a motion in state court asserting his speedy trial claim based on sentencing delay, despite available procedures.