Habeas Corpus

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

• Lenson A. Hargrave v. Louie L. Wainwright
  804 F.2d 1182· 11th Cir.· 1986-11-03 ·cited 16×
  The court affirmed the denial of the habeas petition, finding that the petitioner's claims were either procedurally defaulted or distinguishable from controlling precedent.
• Prater v. U.S. Parole Comm'n & Thomas Keohane
  802 F.2d 948· 7th Cir.· 1986-10-03 ·cited 16×
• Russel K. Williams v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv.
  795 F.2d 738· 9th Cir.· 1986-07-24 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the appeal should be dismissed as moot because the petitioner had already departed the United States under a grant of voluntary departure and lawfully reentered, making effective relief impossible.
• J.C. Bell v. A.L. Lockhart
  795 F.2d 655· 8th Cir.· 1986-07-09 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the defendant was denied effective assistance of counsel on appeal because his attorney erroneously advised him about the risks of a direct appeal, and this error prejudiced him by causing him to forgo that appeal.
• Solomon Monk v. Secretary OF the Navy
  793 F.2d 364· D.C. Cir.· 1986-06-20 ·cited 16×
  The court lacks jurisdiction to hear the habeas corpus action because it was not filed where the petitioner's immediate custodian resides.
• In re United States Parole Comm'n
  793 F.2d 338· D.C. Cir.· 1986-06-17 ·cited 16×
  The District Court did not err in asserting jurisdiction over Pearson's claims for declaratory and injunctive relief, nor did it abuse its discretion in denying the Commission's motion to transfer the case.
• Evans v. O.L. McCOTTER
  790 F.2d 1232· 5th Cir.· 1986-06-04 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the petitioner failed to prove federal constitutional infirmities in his trial, affirming the dismissal of his habeas corpus petition.
• Neyland v. Blackburn
  785 F.2d 1283· 5th Cir.· 1986-03-31 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the petitioner's guilty plea and sentence enhancement were constitutionally valid, as the record demonstrated the plea was knowing and voluntary, and the enhanced sentence was based on adequate warnings and counsel's authorized admissions.
• Matusiak v. Kelly
  786 F.2d 536· 2d Cir.· 1986-03-20 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court erred in denying the habeas petition because the state court's acceptance of the guilty plea was not knowing and voluntary, violating due process.
• Nealy v. Cabana
  782 F.2d 1362· 5th Cir.· 1986-02-24 ·cited 16×
  The court held that a petitioner seeking habeas corpus relief based on an actual conflict of interest must demonstrate that the conflict adversely affected counsel's performance, but need not show that the outcome would have been different.
• United States v. Elrod
  782 F.2d 665· 7th Cir.· 1986-01-24 ·cited 16×
  A petitioner seeking federal habeas corpus relief cannot raise a claim that was procedurally defaulted in state court unless they demonstrate cause and prejudice, and the claim's basis must appear in the trial record to establish cause.
• Johnson v. Blackburn
  778 F.2d 1044· 5th Cir.· 1985-12-17 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the petitioner is procedurally barred from raising a due process claim regarding jury instructions because his trial counsel failed to object, and he failed to demonstrate cause for this failure.
• Dean v. Young
  777 F.2d 1239· 7th Cir.· 1985-11-26 ·cited 16×
  The court holds that the Wisconsin Supreme Court's finding of fact regarding the prosecutor's questioning is entitled to deference, and the jury instruction given is sufficiently different from that in Francis v. Franklin to warrant affirmance.
• United States v. Scarborough
  777 F.2d 175· 4th Cir.· 1985-11-19 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court's findings of fact were not clearly erroneous and its determination of dangerous special offender status was not an abuse of discretion.
• Mulligan v. Kemp
  771 F.2d 1436· 11th Cir.· 1985-09-04 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the trial counsel's representation did not fall below the Sixth Amendment's standard of reasonably effective assistance, and the prosecutor's closing arguments were not improper enough to render the trial fundamentally unfair.
• Gross v. Greer
  773 F.2d 116· 7th Cir.· 1985-08-30 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the petitioner's claims of constitutional error were either procedurally barred, harmless, or properly handled by the state courts, and thus denied the petition for habeas corpus relief.
• United States ex rel. Paul K. Searcy v. Greer
  768 F.2d 906· 7th Cir.· 1985-07-26 ·cited 16×
  The admission of other crimes evidence, even if erroneous under state law, does not warrant federal habeas corpus relief unless it renders the trial fundamentally unfair. Denial of continuances for alibi witnesses was not an abuse of discretion given defense counsel's lack of dil
• Lynch v. United States Parole Comm'n & Michael Quinlan
  768 F.2d 491· 2d Cir.· 1985-07-22 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the failure to disclose the pre-sentence report to the prisoner's counsel violated due process, but affirmed the Commission's right to deviate from the hearing examiners' recommendations and reversed the district court's order regarding consideration of co-def
• Judson Ruffin v. Kemp
  767 F.2d 748· 11th Cir.· 1985-07-18 ·cited 16×
  The court held that an attorney's representation of codefendants, where one codefendant's plea bargain involved testifying against the other, created an actual conflict of interest that adversely affected the attorney's performance, entitling the defendant to habeas corpus relief
• Wiley v. Gary Rayl & the Attorney Gen. of the State of Kan.
  767 F.2d 679· 10th Cir.· 1985-07-05 ·cited 16×
  The court held that a jury instruction creating a mandatory rebuttable presumption of criminal intent unconstitutionally shifted the burden of persuasion to the defendant.
• Young v. Kemp
  760 F.2d 1097· 11th Cir.· 1985-05-03 ·cited 16×
  The Double Jeopardy Clause, as interpreted by Burks and Bullington, prevents the state from seeking the death penalty on retrial when a prior federal habeas court found insufficient evidence to support the aggravating factors for the death sentence.
• Keys v. Duckworth
  761 F.2d 390· 7th Cir.· 1985-05-01 ·cited 16×
  The court affirmed the denial of the habeas corpus petition, finding no ineffective assistance of counsel.
• Moore v. Wyrick
  760 F.2d 884· 8th Cir.· 1985-04-29 ·cited 16×
  The prosecutor's remarks during closing arguments suggesting an adverse inference from the defendant's failure to call corroborating defense witnesses were not so egregious as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial or violate due process.
• Leroy v. R.C. Marshall
  757 F.2d 94· 6th Cir.· 1985-03-21 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the 'cause and prejudice' rule of Wainwright v. Sykes applies to procedural defaults in state court, requiring a habeas petitioner to demonstrate cause and prejudice for failure to raise issues on direct appeal.
• Roach v. Warden Joseph Martin
  757 F.2d 1463· 4th Cir.· 1985-03-20 ·cited 16×
  The court affirmed the denial of the habeas corpus petition, finding that the petitioner's claims were without merit and that the state court's factfinding procedures were adequate.
• Dobard v. W.E. Johnson
  749 F.2d 1503· 11th Cir.· 1985-01-08 ·cited 16×
  The dissenting judge would reverse and remand the case to the Northern District of Alabama for a ruling on jurisdiction, arguing the district court improperly transferred the case without exercising its discretion.
• Williams v. Crispus NIX
  751 F.2d 956· 8th Cir.· 1985-01-07 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the petitioner's remaining arguments for habeas corpus relief lacked merit, affirming the denial of the petition. Procedural defaults barred consideration of certain claims, and others failed on the merits.
• United States ex rel. Francis A. Mitchell v. Fairman
  750 F.2d 806· 7th Cir.· 1984-12-12 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the petitioner's constitutional right to a speedy trial was not violated, despite a significant delay, because he did not actively press for trial and suffered no demonstrable harm.
• United States v. Jordan
  747 F.2d 1120· 7th Cir.· 1984-10-17 ·cited 16×
  The court should have granted the writ of habeas corpus and released the petitioner unless the state trial court articulated compelling reasons for holding him to bail he could not meet.
• De La Rosa v. State OF Tex.
  743 F.2d 299· 5th Cir.· 1984-10-09 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the defendant's Miranda warnings were adequately explained and that the jury deliberations, despite brief discussions of parole and a juror's personal experience, did not deprive him of a fair trial.
• Kellogg v. Scurr
  741 F.2d 1099· 8th Cir.· 1984-08-27 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the appellant failed to demonstrate ineffective assistance of counsel, as the attorney's decisions were either reasonable tactical choices or did not result in prejudice to the defense.
• Perron v. Perrin
  742 F.2d 669· 1st Cir.· 1984-08-27 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the petitioner's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and denial of a speedy trial were without merit.
• Williams v. A.L. Lockhart
  736 F.2d 1264· 8th Cir.· 1984-06-25 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court correctly dismissed the habeas corpus petition because the identification procedures, viewed in totality, did not create a substantial likelihood of misidentification, and the jury instructions did not rise to the level of constitutional err
• Snethen v. Crispus NIX
  736 F.2d 1241· 8th Cir.· 1984-06-20 ·cited 16×
  A federal habeas corpus petition containing both exhausted and unexhausted claims must be dismissed, and the futility exception to exhaustion requires a clear manifestation that state courts will refuse to entertain claims, not merely a prediction of an unfavorable outcome.
• Marcellus Hawkins v. State
  451 So. 2d 903· Fla. 1st DCA· 1984-06-01 ·cited 16×
  Marcellus Hawkins appealed his sexual battery conviction, arguing the trial court erred in denying his motion for discharge under Florida's Speedy Trial Rule. The First District Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that the 180-day speedy trial period does not commence until a fugit
• Dante Ferrazza v. Mintzes
  735 F.2d 967· 6th Cir.· 1984-05-25 ·cited 16×
  Due process does not require a lesser included homicide offense instruction when the evidence clearly supports a first-degree murder conviction and does not warrant an instruction on a less culpable intent.
• United States ex rel. Rueben Palmer v. DeROBERTIS
  738 F.2d 168· 7th Cir.· 1984-05-14 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court correctly dismissed the habeas corpus petition because the petitioner failed to demonstrate a constitutional violation regarding the admission of flight evidence or the prosecution's use of peremptory challenges, and procedural defaults barr
• Jentges v. Milwaukee Cnty. Cir. Court
  733 F.2d 1238· 7th Cir.· 1984-05-08 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the petitioner's claims of insufficient evidence and prosecutorial misconduct lacked merit, and that procedural default barred review of the polygraph evidence issue.
• Green v. Christiansen
  732 F.2d 1397· 9th Cir.· 1984-05-08 ·cited 16×
  A prisoner erroneously released is entitled to credit for the time spent at liberty, and this claim is not subject to administrative exhaustion requirements applicable to parole matters.
• Elhannon Jones, Jr. v. Hogg
  732 F.2d 53· 6th Cir.· 1984-04-12 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the record was inadequate to determine if the trial court exercised sound discretion in declaring mistrials, thus reversing the denial of the habeas corpus petition.
• Patterson v. Austin
  728 F.2d 1389· 11th Cir.· 1984-04-02 ·cited 16×
  The dissenting judge would affirm the district court's denial of habeas corpus relief, finding the jury instruction constitutional and the defendant not prejudiced by any alleged defect.
• Berry v. Mintzes
  726 F.2d 1142· 6th Cir.· 1984-02-02 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the defendant's guilty plea to an open charge of murder was voluntary and knowing, despite alleged insufficiencies in the advisement of rights and consequences.
• McCORQUODALE v. Balkcom
  721 F.2d 1493· 11th Cir.· 1983-12-30 ·cited 16×
  The en banc court held that group questioning and non-verbal responses during voir dire do not per se violate Witherspoon standards, and that the specific voir dire procedures used in this case comported with those standards.
• Ridgway v. T.L. Baker
  720 F.2d 1409· 5th Cir.· 1983-12-12 ·cited 16×
  A father imprisoned for contempt of a child support order without counsel, despite asserting indigency, was denied due process. A federal court cannot transfer a case to state court.
• Ahlswede v. Wolff
  720 F.2d 1108· 9th Cir.· 1983-11-22 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court's denial of habeas corpus relief was proper as all claims were either procedurally barred, previously litigated, or harmless error.
• Smith v. J.D. White
  719 F.2d 390· 11th Cir.· 1983-11-10 ·cited 16×
  The court held that a petitioner for a writ of habeas corpus is not required to file a petition for writ of certiorari in the Alabama Supreme Court to exhaust state remedies.
• Burger v. Zant
  718 F.2d 979· 11th Cir.· 1983-10-13 ·cited 16×
  The court held that a defendant is denied effective assistance of counsel when his attorney actively represents conflicting interests and fails to present mitigating evidence at sentencing, and prejudice is presumed in conflict of interest cases.
• Vardas v. W.J. Estelle, Jr.
  715 F.2d 206· 5th Cir.· 1983-09-22 ·cited 16×
  The court held that a state's failure to provide notice to defense counsel of a psychiatric examination does not violate the Sixth Amendment when the defendant has asserted an insanity defense, as this waives the right to consult counsel on the decision to undergo the examination
• Rogers v. Maggio
  714 F.2d 35· 5th Cir.· 1983-09-09 ·cited 16×
  A federal habeas petitioner is entitled to an evidentiary hearing if they did not receive a full and fair state court hearing on alleged facts entitling them to relief and the record reveals a genuine factual dispute. The court found such a dispute existed regarding ineffective a
• Phillips v. Smith
  717 F.2d 44· 2d Cir.· 1983-09-02 ·cited 16×
  Explicit state court reliance on a procedural default bars federal habeas review of the forfeited claim absent a showing of cause and prejudice, regardless of whether the state court also ruled on the merits.