Habeas Corpus

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

• United States v. Solem
  646 F.2d 322· 8th Cir.· 1980-06-27 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the trial court's refusal to instruct the jury on self-defense and defense of others, where there was evidence supporting these theories, constituted a denial of due process.
• Pfeifer v. United States Bureau OF Prisons
  615 F.2d 873· 9th Cir.· 1980-03-26 ·cited 16×
  The court held that a prisoner's consent to transfer under the Treaty on the Execution of Penal Sentences constitutes a constitutionally valid waiver of any right to challenge the foreign conviction in U.S. courts.
• United States ex rel. Melvin Lee Smith v. Rowe
  618 F.2d 1204· 7th Cir.· 1980-03-21 ·cited 16×
  A prosecutor's comments during closing arguments that draw attention to a defendant's pretrial silence regarding an alibi defense constitute constitutional error, violating due process and the privilege against self-incrimination.
• Kelsey v. State OF Minn.
  622 F.2d 956· 8th Cir.· 1980-03-18 ·cited 16×
  The court held that a prisoner's constitutional right of access to the courts can be satisfied by adequate alternative means, even if the prison law library is inadequate.
• Jacobs v. Supt. Walter Redman
  616 F.2d 1251· 3d Cir.· 1980-02-19 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the trial court's failure to ask certain voir dire questions did not violate the appellant's constitutional rights, but the increased sentence imposed after retrial violated due process under North Carolina v. Pearce.
• United States v. Allen
  613 F.2d 1248· 3d Cir.· 1980-02-05 ·cited 16×
  The grant of a new trial in a § 2255 proceeding is a final, appealable order, and the evidence was sufficient to show the defendant conspired with at least one other person.
• Sullivan v. Fogg
  613 F.2d 465· 2d Cir.· 1980-01-18 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the defendant was denied due process when the trial court failed to provide an adequate hearing on juror competence, specifically by not allowing cross-examination of the court-appointed psychiatrist.
• Turner v. Louie L. Wainwright
  379 So. 2d 148· Fla. 1st DCA· 1980-01-16 ·cited 16×
  The Florida District Court of Appeal held that the Parole and Probation Commission is subject to Florida's public meetings law (Section 286.011) and cannot conduct parole or mandatory conditional release revocation proceedings in closed sessions. The court rejected the Commission
• Tsoumas v. The State OF NEW Hampshire
  611 F.2d 412· 1st Cir.· 1980-01-04 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the state court's jury instruction on reasonable doubt, while not ideal, did not violate the defendants' constitutional rights by lowering the standard of proof.
• Bellavia v. Fogg
  613 F.2d 369· 2d Cir.· 1979-12-17 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the New York statutory presumption of knowing possession of drugs in a vehicle, the mandatory sentence imposed, and the assistance of counsel were all constitutional.
• Jones v. Louie L. Wainwright
  604 F.2d 414· 5th Cir.· 1979-10-12 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the petitioner's guilty plea was not coerced and his attorney at the probation revocation hearing provided reasonably effective assistance.
• United States ex rel. James Robinson v. Israel
  603 F.2d 635· 7th Cir.· 1979-08-01 ·cited 16×
• Colon v. Fogg
  603 F.2d 403· 2d Cir.· 1979-08-01 ·cited 16×
  Joint representation of co-defendants with conflicting defenses violates the Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel, even without a showing of specific prejudice.
• LaROCHE v. Louie L. Wainwright
  599 F.2d 722· 5th Cir.· 1979-07-30 ·cited 16×
  The dissenting judge believes the trial court's error in conducting an admissibility hearing in the jury's presence was not harmless.
• Guida v. Nelson
  603 F.2d 261· 2d Cir.· 1979-06-20 ·cited 16×
  The court held that a federal prisoner must exhaust administrative remedies with the Parole Commission before seeking habeas corpus relief.
• Klimas v. Mabry
  599 F.2d 842· 8th Cir.· 1979-05-30 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the Arkansas Supreme Court's failure to afford Klimas a jury redetermination of his habitual criminal charge, after invalidating some prior convictions, violated due process. The denial of certiorari by the Supreme Court does not preclude federal habeas corpus
• Benites v. United States Parole Comm'n & Warden
  595 F.2d 518· 9th Cir.· 1979-04-24 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the Parole Commission improperly applied the 1976 Act's guidelines, which emphasized offense severity, to a Youth Corrections Act case where rehabilitation should have been the primary factor.
• Nevels v. Parratt
  596 F.2d 344· 8th Cir.· 1979-04-20 ·cited 16×
  The court held that while a defendant has a right to be present during in camera questioning of a juror about potential misconduct, the exclusion was harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt, and the defendant received effective assistance of counsel.
• Oliphant v. Koehler
  594 F.2d 547· 6th Cir.· 1979-03-06 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the admission of prior similar acts evidence did not violate double jeopardy or collateral estoppel principles, and the challenge to jury composition was waived due to untimeliness.
• Christopher v. U. S. Bd. OF Parole
  589 F.2d 924· 7th Cir.· 1978-12-29 ·cited 16×
  The court should have remanded for a determination of whether the Board's denial of confrontation and cross-examination was a proper exercise of discretion.
• Davis v. Davis
  585 F.2d 1226· 4th Cir.· 1978-10-30 ·cited 16×
  Sentences within statutory limits for drug offenses are not cruel and unusual punishment unless there are extraordinary circumstances demonstrating gross disproportionality to the crime.
• Smith v. Lou V. Brewer
  577 F.2d 466· 8th Cir.· 1978-06-22 ·cited 16×
  The court affirmed the district court's denial of the petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
• Gray v. Estelle
  574 F.2d 209· 5th Cir.· 1978-05-30 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion in denying the respondent's motion for relief from judgment under Rule 60(b)(6) and remanded for a full evidentiary hearing on the conflict of interest and waiver issues.
• Bulger v. McCLAY
  575 F.2d 407· 2d Cir.· 1978-05-04 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the state court's failure to provide a full and fair hearing on the issue of jury prejudice, due to the introduction of extrinsic evidence, warranted federal habeas corpus relief.
• Zemina v. Solem
  573 F.2d 1027· 8th Cir.· 1978-04-10 ·cited 16×
  The court affirmed the district court's grant of habeas corpus relief, adopting the reasoning that the trial court violated the petitioner's rights to a jury trial, due process, and counsel.
• Balthazar v. Superior Court OF the Commonwealth OF Mass.
  573 F.2d 698· 1st Cir.· 1978-04-04 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the Massachusetts statute prohibiting "unnatural and lascivious acts" was unconstitutionally vague as applied to the petitioner's conduct of fellatio and oral-anal contact.
• Allard v. Helgemoe
  572 F.2d 1· 1st Cir.· 1978-03-03 ·cited 16×
  A defendant's incapacity to understand certain elements of a charged offense does not, without more, render a guilty plea involuntary in constitutional terms, provided the defendant had the ability to consult with counsel and a rational understanding of the proceedings.
• Bergman v. Honorable Louis J. Lefkowitz
  569 F.2d 705· 2d Cir.· 1977-12-19 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the Special Prosecutor did not breach the plea agreement by his conduct or recommendations, and therefore, the petitioner was not entitled to habeas corpus relief.
• Zimmerman v. Spears
  565 F.2d 310· 5th Cir.· 1977-12-13 ·cited 16×
  The court affirmed the dismissal of damage suits based on official immunity and affirmed the denial of habeas corpus petitions, dismissing one as an original petition to the court.
• ST. John v. Estelle
  563 F.2d 168· 5th Cir.· 1977-11-17 ·cited 16×
  The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, sitting en banc, reversed the district court's grant of a writ of habeas corpus. The majority held that the petitioner's failure to comply with the Texas contemporaneous objection rule barred federal habeas review of his claim that the prosecut
• Ferguson v. Boyd
  566 F.2d 873· 4th Cir.· 1977-10-11 ·cited 16×
• White v. Estelle
  556 F.2d 1366· 5th Cir.· 1977-08-08 ·cited 16×
  The court held that a 1976 statute retroactively validated a magistrate's evidentiary hearing, and the state court's findings were not entitled to a presumption of correctness due to insufficient written indicia.
• Hines v. Auger
  550 F.2d 1094· 8th Cir.· 1977-03-01 ·cited 16×
  The Eighth Circuit held that the petitioner was provided an opportunity for full and fair litigation of his Fourth Amendment claim in state court, precluding federal habeas relief under Stone v. Powell.
• Leahmon Triplett v. Wyrick
  549 F.2d 57· 8th Cir.· 1977-02-04 ·cited 16×
  The court held that a district court should address exhausted claims in a habeas petition even if unexhausted claims are also present, and that the petitioner had not exhausted state remedies for all claims.
• United States ex rel. Gregory A. Thomas v. Cuyler
  548 F.2d 460· 3d Cir.· 1977-01-07 ·cited 16×
  The use of a witness' prior statement, even if the witness claims memory loss, does not violate the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause if the witness is produced and available for cross-examination.
• Agee v. Wyrick
  546 F.2d 1324· 8th Cir.· 1976-12-30 ·cited 16×
  The dissenting judge believes the ineffective assistance of counsel claim is not unexhausted, even if a specific consequence like sentence enhancement was not explicitly raised in state courts.
• Malley v. Manson
  547 F.2d 25· 2d Cir.· 1976-12-20 ·cited 16×
  The appellate court held that while the petitioner was not precluded from raising his constitutional claim due to failure to object, the prosecutor's remarks, viewed in context, did not deprive the defendant of a fair trial.
• Ford v. Byrd
  544 F.2d 194· 5th Cir.· 1976-12-16 ·cited 16×
  The court held that claims for relief from confinement must proceed by habeas corpus, and prosecuting attorneys and state judges are immune from § 1983 suits.
• Makal v. State OF Ariz. & Harold G. Card-well
  544 F.2d 1030· 9th Cir.· 1976-10-26 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the petitioner's guilty plea was validly accepted because the trial court adequately ensured it was knowing and voluntary, and the petitioner's mental competency to plead guilty was sufficiently established or reconstructible from the record. The court also he
• Carlson Tanner, Jr. v. Vincent
  541 F.2d 932· 2d Cir.· 1976-08-27 ·cited 16×
  A custodial statement made after complete Miranda warnings is not rendered involuntary solely because it was preceded by an unwarned or inadequately warned statement.
• Bufford Lenell McDONALD v. Estelle
  536 F.2d 667· 5th Cir.· 1976-08-06 ·cited 16×
  The introduction of a prior uncounseled felony conviction during the punishment phase of a bifurcated trial, when not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, constitutes a constitutional error requiring a new trial.
• Simpson v. Woodham
  332 So. 2d 693· Fla. 1st DCA· 1976-06-07 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the failure to formally mark a rendition warrant as an exhibit did not invalidate the extradition proceedings.
• Gerson Merrill Kartman v. Parratt
  535 F.2d 450· 8th Cir.· 1976-05-12 ·cited 16×
  Procedural errors in probation revocation hearings were not prejudicial, and therefore, habeas corpus relief is not warranted.
• RAY v. Rose
  535 F.2d 966· 6th Cir.· 1976-05-10 ·cited 16×
  The court held that James Earl Ray's guilty plea was entered voluntarily and knowingly, and he was not denied effective assistance of counsel despite potential conflicts of interest and alleged procedural improprieties.
• Yellowwolf v. Morris
  536 F.2d 813· 9th Cir.· 1976-04-12 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the ruling in United States ex rel. Pebworth v. Conte should not be applied retroactively to guilty pleas entered before its decision.
• Stubbs v. Smith
  533 F.2d 64· 2d Cir.· 1976-04-02 ·cited 16×
  The court affirmed the denial of the writ of habeas corpus, finding that even if the statutory presumption of possession was unconstitutionally applied, the error was harmless due to overwhelming evidence of the appellant's guilt.
• Dezso John Lokos v. Capps
  528 F.2d 576· 5th Cir.· 1976-03-12 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court erred in failing to consider all of the petitioner's habeas corpus claims, requiring remand for further proceedings on those claims. The court affirmed the denial of relief on the involuntary confession claim.
• Weiland v. Parratt
  530 F.2d 1284· 8th Cir.· 1976-02-24 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying the habeas corpus petition, affirming the conviction.
• Scarborough v. Kellum
  525 F.2d 931· 5th Cir.· 1976-01-07 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court properly denied the petition for a writ of habeas corpus, finding no constitutional infirmity in the petitioner's conviction.
• United States ex rel. John J. Pella v. Reid
  527 F.2d 380· 2d Cir.· 1975-12-11 ·cited 16×