Habeas Corpus

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

• Daye v. Attorney Gen. OF the State OF NEW York & Eugene S. LeFevre
  712 F.2d 1566· 2d Cir.· 1983-06-27 ·cited 16×
  The dissenting judge believes the trial judge's conduct deprived the defendant of his constitutional right to a fair trial by jury.
• Elledge v. Graham
  432 So. 2d 35· Fla.· 1983-04-14 ·cited 16×
  The court denied all petitions for extraordinary relief, including writs of habeas corpus and quo warranto, and affirmed the denial of a motion to vacate judgment and sentence, holding that a guilty plea waives the right to appeal prior rulings and that a death sentence can be ca
• Erick Orlando Locks v. G.W. Sumner
  703 F.2d 403· 9th Cir.· 1983-04-05 ·cited 16×
  The court held that a state trial judge's inquiry into the numerical division of the jury is not a constitutional violation requiring habeas relief, and that Fourth Amendment claims are barred in habeas proceedings under Stone v. Powell if a full and fair hearing was provided.
• Speedy v. Wyrick
  702 F.2d 723· 8th Cir.· 1983-03-23 ·cited 16×
  The district court erred in denying the habeas corpus petition without an evidentiary hearing, as the petitioner's allegations, if proven, could establish a violation of his due process rights regarding competency to stand trial and ineffective assistance of counsel.
• Greider v. Duckworth
  701 F.2d 1228· 7th Cir.· 1983-03-09 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the Jackson v. Virginia standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence under due process does not apply to affirmative defenses like insanity, even if state law places the burden of proof on the prosecution.
• David v. Attorney General OF the United States
  699 F.2d 411· 7th Cir.· 1983-02-08 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the Toscanino defense is unavailable in extradition proceedings, the denial of a continuance did not violate due process, and the judge did not violate 28 U.S.C. § 455(a) by hearing the habeas petition.
• Hall v. Maggio
  697 F.2d 641· 5th Cir.· 1983-02-07 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the magistrate's findings that the petitioner's guilty plea was voluntary and intelligent, and that no promise of parole was made, were not clearly erroneous.
• United States ex rel. Efrain Garcia v. Lane
  698 F.2d 900· 7th Cir.· 1983-02-01 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the prosecutor's remarks, while potentially inflammatory, were not so egregious as to deny the petitioner a fair trial under the Fourteenth Amendment.
• Kampshoff v. Smith
  698 F.2d 581· 2d Cir.· 1983-01-18 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the erroneous admission of unreliable eyewitness identification testimony was not harmless error because there was a reasonable possibility that it contributed to the conviction.
• Curry v. Louie L. Wainwright
  422 So. 2d 1029· Fla. 1st DCA· 1982-11-30 ·cited 16×
  Warren Curry petitioned for habeas corpus relief seeking to have his statutory gain time calculated under 1975 statutes and to receive credit for time served in Maryland while Florida held a detainer. The First District Court of Appeal denied and dismissed the petition, holding t
• Clark v. Williams
  693 F.2d 381· 5th Cir.· 1982-11-24 ·cited 16×
  A civil rights suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is not the proper federal remedy when a prisoner's allegations, if true, would undermine the validity of his confinement; habeas corpus is the sole remedy in such circumstances.
• Tijerina v. Estelle
  692 F.2d 3· 5th Cir.· 1982-11-22 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying habeas corpus relief, as the petitioner's claims regarding evidentiary hearings, sufficiency of evidence for indictment, prosecutorial argument, and ineffective assistance of counsel were without merit.
• Reyes Garcia v. Hal W. Boldin
  691 F.2d 1172· 5th Cir.· 1982-11-22 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court had statutory authority to refer a habeas corpus petition concerning deportation to a magistrate, and that the petition did not raise new grounds that could not have been presented earlier.
• Schlang v. Heard
  691 F.2d 796· 5th Cir.· 1982-11-18 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the petitioner's claims did not raise disputed issues of material fact and affirmed the district court's dismissal, treating it as a grant of summary judgment.
• Dickerson v. Fogg
  692 F.2d 238· 2d Cir.· 1982-10-25 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the circumstances of the identification were sufficiently suggestive to warrant careful consideration of reliability under established legal criteria.
• Williams v. Dallas Cnty. Comm'rs
  689 F.2d 1212· 1st Cir.· 1982-10-25 ·cited 16×
  A state prisoner's claim attacking the constitutionality of his incarceration due to discriminatory jury selection is cognizable only through habeas corpus, not under § 1983, and must first exhaust state remedies.
• Moultrie v. Martin
  690 F.2d 1078· 4th Cir.· 1982-09-30 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the petitioner failed to establish a prima facie case of racial discrimination in the grand jury selection process due to insufficient statistical evidence and improper methodology.
• Prater v. Maggio
  686 F.2d 346· 5th Cir.· 1982-09-24 ·cited 16×
  The court held that a state court's decision to apply a new rule prospectively does not violate the federal Constitution, and that claims waived by failure to make a contemporaneous objection are procedurally barred.
• Thomas v. Wyrick
  687 F.2d 235· 8th Cir.· 1982-08-20 ·cited 16×
  The court affirmed the denial of habeas corpus relief, holding that the petitioner's procedural failures, including the provisional nature of the trial court's ruling and the failure to make an offer of proof, precluded a constitutional review of the exclusion of character witnes
• Fritz v. Spalding
  682 F.2d 782· 9th Cir.· 1982-07-27 ·cited 16×
  The court held that a defendant's motion to proceed pro se is timely if made before trial begins, unless it is shown to be a tactic to secure delay, and a federal court must grant an evidentiary hearing if material facts were not adequately developed in state court.
• Fowler v. Jago
  683 F.2d 983· 6th Cir.· 1982-07-20 ·cited 16×
  The majority opinion orders a remand for a new evidentiary hearing to determine the voluntariness of statements made by petitioners after arrest, finding the state court's factual determination on voluntariness was not entitled to the presumption of correctness under 28 U.S.C. §
• Cain v. Smith
  686 F.2d 374· 6th Cir.· 1982-07-07 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court erred in granting summary judgment without an evidentiary hearing, as the fragmented record required further fact-finding on the speedy trial claim. The 11.5-month delay for a simple robbery was presumptively prejudicial.
• Lugo v. Munoz
  682 F.2d 7· 1st Cir.· 1982-06-22 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the prosecutor's failure to disclose a witness's psychiatric evaluation did not violate due process because the information was publicly discoverable, and that providing a narrative summary instead of a verbatim transcript was constitutionally permissible.
• Hearn v. Elton Floyd James
  677 F.2d 841· 11th Cir.· 1982-06-04 ·cited 16×
  The court held that a jury instruction creating a presumption of intent, while potentially erroneous for murder, was harmless error for a voluntary manslaughter conviction because intent is not a required element. The court also held that the trial court's ruling did not improper
• Meyer v. State
  415 So. 2d 70· Fla. 5th DCA· 1982-06-02 ·cited 16×
  Meyer sought belated appellate review via habeas corpus after his court-appointed public defender failed to timely file his appeal. The court granted the petition but, on the State's motion for rehearing, grappled with whether Polk County v. Dodson undermined the precedent establ
• Smith v. Atkins
  678 F.2d 883· 10th Cir.· 1982-05-19 ·cited 16×
  A federal district court must allow a habeas petitioner to amend their petition to delete unexhausted claims rather than dismissing the entire petition, unless the petitioner chooses not to amend.
• Selwyn Barry Gholson and Larry Joe Ross v. Estelle
  675 F.2d 734· 5th Cir.· 1982-05-14 ·cited 16×
• United States ex rel. John Clauser v. Shadid
  677 F.2d 591· 7th Cir.· 1982-05-07 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the petitioner failed to exhaust state remedies for his ineffective assistance of counsel claim, requiring dismissal of his entire habeas petition.
• Potts v. Louie Wainwright
  413 So. 2d 156· Fla. 4th DCA· 1982-04-28 ·cited 16×
  Willie Potts' public defender failed to timely file a notice of appeal because she incorrectly believed a sentence-mitigation motion tolled the appeal deadline. The Fourth District initially denied his habeas petition for delayed appellate review, but reconsidered and granted it,
• Williamson v. Vardeman
  674 F.2d 1211· 8th Cir.· 1982-04-06 ·cited 16×
  Compelling attorneys to represent indigent defendants without compensation is constitutional, but requiring them to pay necessary expenses for the defense violates due process.
• Comer v. Parratt
  674 F.2d 734· 8th Cir.· 1982-04-02 ·cited 16×
  The court held that trial counsel's tactical decision not to object to the admission of testimony, even if potentially obtained in violation of Miranda, did not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel.
• Knott v. Mabry
  671 F.2d 1208· 8th Cir.· 1982-03-11 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the trial counsel's cross-examination of the state's toxicologist, while perhaps not ideal, fell within the bounds of constitutionally adequate representation and did not prejudice the defense.
• Dobbert v. Strickland
  670 F.2d 938· 11th Cir.· 1982-02-25 ·cited 16×
  The court granted the petitioner's motion to stay the execution of his death sentence pending appeal.
• Camarillo v. Estelle
  670 F.2d 473· 5th Cir.· 1981-12-30 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court erred in granting habeas corpus relief without an evidentiary hearing when the state disputed material facts regarding the petitioner's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.
• Albers v. Ralston
  665 F.2d 812· 8th Cir.· 1981-12-03 ·cited 16×
  The court held that federal prisoners cannot use habeas corpus to challenge prison classification conditions unless they allege a substantial infringement of a constitutional right.
• Harless v. Anderson
  664 F.2d 610· 6th Cir.· 1981-11-24 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the jury instructions were so garbled and confusing that they violated the defendant's constitutionally guaranteed right to due process of law, and that the petitioner had exhausted his state remedies.
• Barnes v. Jones
  665 F.2d 427· 2d Cir.· 1981-11-23 ·cited 16×
  Appointed appellate counsel owes a duty to his client to pursue colorable claims on appeal, and failure to do so constitutes ineffective assistance of counsel.
• Thompson v. White
  661 F.2d 103· 8th Cir.· 1981-10-14 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the sheriff's personal selection of the entire jury panel, especially in a case where the victim was a law enforcement officer, created a sufficient risk of prejudice to violate due process.
• Scott v. Perini
  662 F.2d 428· 6th Cir.· 1981-09-30 ·cited 16×
  The dissenting judge held that the conviction for second-degree murder was not supported by proof beyond a reasonable doubt, violating due process.
• EHL v. Estelle
  656 F.2d 166· 5th Cir.· 1981-09-14 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the defendant's exercise of his right to withdraw a guilty plea and proceed to trial did not entitle him to the original plea bargain terms, and the subsequent enhanced charges and sentence did not constitute prosecutorial or judicial vindictiveness.
• Sassoon v. Stynchombe
  654 F.2d 371· 5th Cir.· 1981-08-28 ·cited 16×
  A violation of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers does not require federal habeas corpus relief if the prisoner suffered no prejudice from the violation.
• State v. Sylvester
  401 So. 2d 1123· Fla. 4th DCA· 1981-06-24 ·cited 16×
  The State appealed a trial court's order granting habeas corpus relief to a parolee arrested on new felony charges. The Fourth District reversed, holding that while a parolee's parole is temporarily revoked upon arrest for a subsequent felony, the parole violation can be prosecut
• Silverton v. Dep't OF the Treas. OF the United States OF Am.
  644 F.2d 1341· 9th Cir.· 1981-05-11 ·cited 16×
  The court held that a state habeas proceeding, if providing a full and fair opportunity to litigate constitutional claims, has collateral estoppel effect on subsequent § 1983 actions, and that the district court did not err in dismissing Silverton's claims on this basis.
• McKENZIE v. Louie L. Wainwright
  632 F.2d 649· 5th Cir.· 1980-12-11 ·cited 16×
  A defendant alleging a breached plea bargain is not entitled to an evidentiary hearing if the allegations are demonstrably incredible or unsubstantiated.
• Adolph Comer v. Fla. Parole & Prob. Comm'n
  388 So. 2d 1341· Fla. 1st DCA· 1980-10-10 ·cited 16×
• Britton v. Rogers
  631 F.2d 572· 8th Cir.· 1980-10-02 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court erred in granting a writ of habeas corpus, finding no constitutional defect in the conviction or sentence, and that sentencing guidelines are not constitutionally mandated in non-capital cases.
• Murrell Toby Hockenbury, III v. Sowders
  633 F.2d 443· 6th Cir.· 1980-09-30 ·cited 16×
  The court's denial of rehearing en banc allows a panel decision to stand, which conflicts with prior circuit precedent on federal habeas corpus review.
• Donnell Thomas v. Cardwell
  626 F.2d 1375· 9th Cir.· 1980-09-08 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the admission of a witness's prior testimony, even if the witness was evasive or claimed memory loss at trial, did not violate the Confrontation Clause if the witness was subject to cross-examination at the time the prior testimony was given and the witness's
• Alburquerque v. Bara
  628 F.2d 767· 2d Cir.· 1980-07-31 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the state's procedural requirements for raising a federal constitutional claim were not satisfied in a way that would bar federal habeas review, and that the appellant's trial jury was sworn after the date of Taylor v. Louisiana, making the ruling applicable.
• Barton v. Malley
  626 F.2d 151· 10th Cir.· 1980-07-16 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the appellant failed to prove selective enforcement or due process violations in his parole revocation and extradition proceedings, and affirmed the dismissal of his habeas corpus petition.