Habeas Corpus

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

• Stepp v. Estelle
  524 F.2d 447· 5th Cir.· 1975-12-08 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the lower court's finding that the petitioner lacked the mental capacity to knowingly and intelligently waive his right to counsel was clearly erroneous, as his insistence on self-representation was an exercise of a constitutional right and not indicative of i
• Cabbler v. Superintendent, Va. State Penitentiary
  528 F.2d 1142· 4th Cir.· 1975-12-08 ·cited 16×
  The court held that impounding a vehicle after arresting the driver away from home, and conducting an inventory search of its contents, is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment when done for safekeeping or to remove a nuisance.
• Sherrill v. Wyrick
  524 F.2d 186· 8th Cir.· 1975-10-17 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the petitioner's trial counsel's failure to object to jury instructions or call certain witnesses did not render the trial fundamentally unfair or constitute a miscarriage of justice, thus not violating constitutional rights.
• Austin v. Swenson
  522 F.2d 168· 8th Cir.· 1975-09-19 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the habeas corpus petition on non-exhaustion grounds when new evidence warranted an evidentiary hearing and the state had previously had a chance to address the issue.
• Suggs v. Daggett
  522 F.2d 396· 10th Cir.· 1975-07-30 ·cited 16×
  The court held that time spent in escape status cannot be included in computing the six-year period for mandatory discharge under the Youth Corrections Act.
• Andress v. Coleman
  320 So. 2d 451· Fla. 4th DCA· 1975-07-03 ·cited 16×
  The court held that a person charged with a crime is entitled to bail as a matter of right between a guilty verdict and the entry of adjudication of guilt.
• Cage v. Auger
  514 F.2d 1231· 8th Cir.· 1975-05-02 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the petitioner had not exhausted state remedies for his claim regarding illegally seized evidence, and that the witness's comment did not rise to a constitutional due process violation.
• Bryan v. Louie L. Wainwright
  511 F.2d 644· 5th Cir.· 1975-04-16 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the supplemental jury instruction, including a time limit, did not rise to the level of unconstitutional coercion, and thus habeas corpus relief was not warranted.
• Carroll v. Allyn R. Sielaff
  514 F.2d 415· 7th Cir.· 1975-03-20 ·cited 16×
  The court held that a complaint alleging loss of compensatory good time states a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and that summary judgment was inappropriate given unresolved factual issues and the plaintiffs' pro se status.
• Ross v. Honorable Frank Reda
  510 F.2d 1172· 6th Cir.· 1975-02-13 ·cited 16×
  The Sixth Amendment right to counsel does not grant an unconditional right to representation by a particular out-of-state attorney pro hac vice.
• Keiper v. Hoyt C. Cupp
  509 F.2d 238· 9th Cir.· 1975-01-13 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying the habeas corpus petition without an evidentiary hearing, as the state court record adequately demonstrated the voluntariness of the appellant's statements.
• Spencer v. Mrs. Rochelle Terebelo Spencer
  305 So. 2d 256· Fla. 3d DCA· 1974-12-31 ·cited 16×
  In this consolidated appeal from a Florida divorce proceeding, the court affirmed a trial court's award of permanent child custody to the mother and child support to the appellee, but reduced the attorney's fee award. The case arose after the mother fled Louisiana with the childr
• United States ex rel. Richard W. Mattox v. Scott
  507 F.2d 919· 7th Cir.· 1974-12-12 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court erred in denying an evidentiary hearing on whether the petitioner was properly advised of his right to remain silent and voluntarily made his incriminating statements.
• Trigg v. State OF Tenn.
  507 F.2d 949· 6th Cir.· 1974-12-11 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the petitioner was not denied his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial, despite a two-year delay, because the prejudice suffered was not significant enough to outweigh other factors.
• Ardister v. Hopper
  500 F.2d 229· 5th Cir.· 1974-09-13 ·cited 16×
  The court affirmed the denial of habeas corpus relief on most grounds but remanded two issues to the district court for conditional dismissal, allowing the petitioner to pursue them in state court.
• Blunt v. Wolff
  501 F.2d 1138· 8th Cir.· 1974-08-27 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the federal district court should not have considered claims that were intertwined with an unexhausted Sixth Amendment claim regarding appellate counsel, and thus the case must be remanded for dismissal without prejudice to allow the state courts to address th
• Manning v. Gale Jarnigan
  501 F.2d 408· 6th Cir.· 1974-07-30 ·cited 16×
  The dissenting judge would find that the appellant voluntarily consented to the search of his automobile and that prosecutorial misconduct and irrelevant evidence prejudiced the appellant, warranting reversal.
• Flanagan v. Henderson
  496 F.2d 1274· 5th Cir.· 1974-07-12 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the federal habeas court erred in denying an evidentiary hearing, as the state court record was inadequate to resolve disputed factual issues regarding the alleged suppression of exculpatory evidence and the effectiveness of appellate counsel.
• Radcliff v. Park Anderson
  509 F.2d 1093· 10th Cir.· 1974-06-14 ·cited 16×
• Harris v. Procunier
  498 F.2d 576· 9th Cir.· 1974-05-22 ·cited 16×
  The court concurs in the reversal of the judgment, finding that the absence of counsel at the time of waiver undermines confidence in the reliability of the process leading to trial.
• Hook v. State OF Ariz.
  496 F.2d 1172· 9th Cir.· 1974-05-15 ·cited 16×
  A prisoner is entitled to credit for presentence confinement if it results in confinement beyond the statutory maximum sentence, and a prosecutor's unkept promise may entitle the prisoner to relief.
• Stillman E. Wilbur Jr. v. Garrell S. Mullaney
  496 F.2d 1303· 1st Cir.· 1974-04-30 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the Due Process Clause, as interpreted in In re Winship, prohibits placing the burden of proof on a defendant to reduce a murder charge to manslaughter by proving "reductive factors" like heat of passion.
• United States ex rel. Raynard Dunn v. Casscles
  494 F.2d 397· 2d Cir.· 1974-03-25 ·cited 16×
  A guilty plea entered to avoid the risks of trial, especially when coupled with protestations of innocence, is constitutionally invalid if the sentencing judge fails to ascertain a factual basis for the plea.
• Quigg v. Estelle
  492 F.2d 343· 9th Cir.· 1974-02-11 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the search warrants were valid because they were supported by probable cause and described the items to be seized with sufficient particularity, and that the discovery of additional evidence fell under the plain view doctrine.
• Genung v. Nuckolls
  292 So. 2d 587· Fla.· 1974-02-06 ·cited 16×
  The dissenting justice would hold that F.S. Section 949.10 is unconstitutional on due process grounds, as it preempts the preliminary hearing required by Gagnon v. Scarpelli.
• Royall Collins v. Brierly
  492 F.2d 735· 3d Cir.· 1974-02-05 ·cited 16×
  The court held that a confession is not per se inadmissible if the suspect is not informed of the crime under investigation before signing a Miranda waiver, as long as the waiver is otherwise knowing and intelligent.
• Moton v. Swenson
  488 F.2d 1060· 8th Cir.· 1973-12-17 ·cited 16×
  Separate trials for distinct robberies arising from the same criminal episode do not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause if the defendant was convicted in the first trial.
• United States ex rel. Nathaniel Williams v. LaVALLEE
  487 F.2d 1006· 2d Cir.· 1973-11-20 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court erred in denying the habeas petition without a hearing, as the state court's findings did not clearly establish whether the petitioner was informed of his right to appointed appellate counsel or the 30-day time limit for appeal.
• Holmes v. Waldon V. Burr
  486 F.2d 55· 9th Cir.· 1973-10-01 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the consensual recording of a conversation, even without a warrant, does not violate the Fourth Amendment, as established by prior Supreme Court precedent like United States v. White.
• United States v. King
  482 F.2d 768· D.C. Cir.· 1973-07-18 ·cited 16×
  The court held that while the denial of the appellant's motions to reopen his preliminary hearing was appealable, the proper avenue for relief was not a reopening of the hearing, but rather through corrective measures available at trial, as established in Coleman v. Burnett.
• James Lawrence L.S.P. #66555 v. Henderson
  478 F.2d 705· 5th Cir.· 1973-06-05 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the state procedural rule requiring pre-trial motions to suppress was not adequately served by the defendant's untimely objection, thus federal courts could review the federal constitutional issue.
• Dempsey v. Louie L. Wainwright
  471 F.2d 604· 5th Cir.· 1973-01-08 ·cited 16×
  A federal district court is not required to hold an evidentiary hearing on a habeas corpus petition if the state court previously conducted a full and fair hearing on the issue.
• Davis v. United States
  470 F.2d 1128· 3d Cir.· 1972-12-22 ·cited 16×
  A guilty plea is valid even if the prosecutor, with the court present, asks some Rule 11 questions, as long as the defendant is personally addressed and understands the plea's nature and consequences.
• Arechiga v. State OF Tex.
  469 F.2d 646· 5th Cir.· 1972-11-24 ·cited 16×
  The court held that petitioners' claims of prosecutorial misconduct and vindictive sentencing were without merit.
• Lowe v. Stack
  326 So. 2d 1· Fla.· 1972-10-01 ·cited 16×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that a defendant charged with first-degree murder after October 1, 1972, must be tried pursuant to indictment rather than information, because Chapter 72-72 reinstated capital offenses with a constitutional death penalty procedure. The Court reverse
• Hill v. Nelson
  466 F.2d 1346· 9th Cir.· 1972-08-29 ·cited 16×
  A federal court may not presume the correctness of state court factual findings unless they are written findings from the trial court, not merely statements in an appellate opinion.
• Hairston v. State OF Ala.
  465 F.2d 675· 5th Cir.· 1972-07-27 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the petitioner was denied his constitutional right to counsel when he pleaded guilty, and that he had exhausted his state remedies despite the procedural bars.
• Miller v. The Honorable John A. Chafee
  462 F.2d 335· 9th Cir.· 1972-06-20 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court had jurisdiction and that the denial of the conscientious objector discharge was unsupported by the record, and the condition of reimbursement was improper.
• Martinez v. Turner
  461 F.2d 261· 10th Cir.· 1972-06-08 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the suggestive lineup and unlawful seizure of the coat violated federal constitutional rights, and that the admission of this evidence was not harmless error. However, the court modified the order for immediate release to allow the state an opportunity for ret
• United States ex rel. Mackey Raymond Choice v. Brierley
  460 F.2d 68· 3d Cir.· 1972-05-19 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court should conduct an evidentiary hearing to determine if in-court identifications were free from impermissible suggestion, given the circumstances of the conviction.
• United States ex rel. Tilden Louis Condon v. Erickson
  459 F.2d 663· 8th Cir.· 1972-04-13 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the federal district court erred in refusing to consider the jurisdictional question on the ground of unexhausted state remedies, and that an evidentiary hearing is required on that issue.
• Mottram v. Murch
  458 F.2d 626· 1st Cir.· 1972-04-12 ·cited 16×
  The court held that allowing jurors who sat on the first trial to sit on the second trial, after the defendant had testified and invoked the Fifth Amendment, created a likelihood of prejudice that denied the petitioner due process.
• Hart v. Eyman
  458 F.2d 334· 9th Cir.· 1972-03-22 ·cited 16×
  A federal court has the power to issue conditional orders in habeas corpus cases, offering the state alternatives including release, when the state fails to provide a trial transcript or a substitute, especially when the state's own procedures or actions caused the loss of the re
• Floyd v. Henderson
  456 F.2d 1117· 5th Cir.· 1972-03-17 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the Attorney General has the power to designate a federal prisoner's confinement location, and transferring a prisoner for concurrent service does not waive federal jurisdiction.
• United States ex rel. Edwin A. Goodman v. Kehl
  456 F.2d 863· 2d Cir.· 1972-03-14 ·cited 16×
  The federal court improperly intervened in state proceedings by granting habeas corpus relief before state remedies were exhausted, thus the order granting relief is reversed.
• Evans v. Moseley
  455 F.2d 1084· 10th Cir.· 1972-02-08 ·cited 16×
  The court held that prison officials did not abuse their discretion in placing an inmate in a control unit for organizing activities, and that the right to correspond with an attorney does not extend to soliciting outside help for prison organizations. However, the dismissal of a
• James v. Smith
  455 F.2d 502· 5th Cir.· 1972-02-04 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court should reconsider the denial of habeas corpus relief in light of Santobello v. New York.
• Friedberg v. Resor
  453 F.2d 935· 2d Cir.· 1971-12-29 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the Army Review Board's denial of a conscientious objector discharge was invalid because the Board failed to follow the procedural safeguards mandated by its own regulations, specifically AR 15-6.
• Perry v. Blackledge
  453 F.2d 856· 4th Cir.· 1971-12-27 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the petitioner was not required to exhaust state remedies because the state's highest court had repeatedly rejected similar claims, making further state court action futile.
• Hardy Jackson v. Sheriff Bill Decker
  451 F.2d 348· 5th Cir.· 1971-11-19 ·cited 16×
  The appellate court held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal because the notice of appeal was not timely filed.