Petition For Habeas Corpus Relief

66 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• Downs v. State
  572 So. 2d 895· Fla.· 1990-09-20 ·cited 66×
  Ernest Charles Downs was convicted of first-degree murder and conspiracy in 1977 and sentenced to death. After this Court granted relief based on a substantial change in law (Hitchcock v. Dugger), Downs was resentenced in 1989, and the trial court reimposed the death sentence fol
• Alphonso Cave v. State
  660 So. 2d 705· Fla.· 1995-09-21 ·cited 62×
  The Florida Supreme Court vacated Alphonso Cave's death sentence imposed at resentencing, finding two reversible errors: the trial judge improperly conducted a full evidentiary hearing on Cave's motion for disqualification (rather than determining only legal sufficiency), and the
• Westbrook v. Zant
  743 F.2d 764· 11th Cir.· 1984-09-21 ·cited 61×
  The Eleventh Circuit held that the district court erred by failing to follow the law of the case established in Westbrook I, which mandated granting habeas corpus relief if the petitioner's counsel represented Jones County in the Gibson litigation.
• United States v. Auten
  632 F.2d 478· 5th Cir.· 1980-12-08 ·cited 47×
  The court held that the government's failure to disclose a key witness's criminal record, which was constructively known to the prosecution, constituted a Brady violation, requiring a remand for an evidentiary hearing.
• Murray v. Maggio
  736 F.2d 279· 5th Cir.· 1984-07-16 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the defendant failed to demonstrate ineffective assistance of counsel under the Strickland standard, as counsel's actions were either strategic or not prejudicial.
• Kyle v. Hanberry
  677 F.2d 1386· 11th Cir.· 1982-06-11 ·cited 26×
  The court held that due process requires prison disciplinary committees to make a good faith inquiry into the reliability of confidential informants when imposing severe sanctions, and the record must reflect this inquiry.
• Grantling v. Balkcom
  632 F.2d 1261· 5th Cir.· 1980-12-17 ·cited 23×
  The court held that a voluntary and intelligent guilty plea breaks the chain of prior constitutional claims, and therefore, the denial of habeas corpus relief was proper.
• Groover v. State
  703 So. 2d 1035· Fla.· 1997-08-21 ·cited 21×
  The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a trial court's denial of a death row inmate's motion to vacate his sentence. The inmate argued that his codefendant's subsequent life sentence for a related murder constituted newly discovered evidence. The court found this claim lacked merit b
• Guzzardo v. Bengston
  643 F.2d 1300· 7th Cir.· 1981-03-13 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the petitioner's Sixth Amendment confrontation clause rights were not violated by hearsay remarks or opening statement summaries, and the pandering statute was not unconstitutionally vague. Furthermore, the petitioner did not receive ineffective assistance of
• Laycock v. State OF NEW Mexico
  880 F.2d 1184· 10th Cir.· 1989-07-26 ·cited 19×
  The court held that the district court's denial of the habeas corpus petition was correct, affirming the judgment.
• Dumond v. A.L. Lockhart
  885 F.2d 419· 8th Cir.· 1989-09-01 ·cited 18×
  The court held that a remand is necessary for a hearing on newly discovered genetic evidence, as it may bear on the constitutionality of the detention and potentially lead to acquittal.
• Elva Rubio v. Estelle
  689 F.2d 533· 5th Cir.· 1982-10-18 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the appellant's constitutional rights were not violated during her state trial, and thus federal habeas corpus relief was properly denied.
• 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.
• Kerr v. Finkbeiner
  757 F.2d 604· 4th Cir.· 1985-03-18 ·cited 14×
  A violation of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act's (IADA) 180-day speedy trial provision is not a fundamental defect entitling a prisoner to habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 unless prejudice is shown.
• Farras v. United States
  744 F.2d 37· 6th Cir.· 1984-09-20 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the Parole Commission's substantive decisions to grant or deny parole are committed to agency discretion and are not subject to judicial review, and that the parole guidelines do not violate the PCRA or improperly intrude on sentencing functions.
• Clay v. Henderson
  524 F.2d 921· 5th Cir.· 1975-12-12 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the appellant's release was a parole, not a transfer, and therefore the parole board retained jurisdiction over him.
• Moret v. Karn
  746 F.2d 989· 3d Cir.· 1984-10-24 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the termination of the alien's parole was an abuse of discretion because the INS failed to make the required finding of a clear and imminent danger to the community.
• McKINNEY v. Parsons
  488 F.2d 452· 5th Cir.· 1974-01-17 ·cited 10×
  A district judge must personally inspect allegedly obscene material when deciding a habeas corpus petition, and cannot solely rely on a magistrate's recommendation.
• Munguia v. U.S. Parole Comm'n
  871 F.2d 517· 5th Cir.· 1989-04-28 ·cited 9×
  The court held that the Parole Commission's forfeiture of Munguia's street time was mandatory under statute, and therefore, the lack of prehearing notice of this specific penalty did not violate his due process rights.
• Olsen v. State OF Iowa
  808 F.2d 652· 8th Cir.· 1986-12-10 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the petitioner's free exercise and equal protection claims regarding marijuana possession for religious use were without merit.
• Carr v. Hutto
  737 F.2d 433· 4th Cir.· 1984-07-10 ·cited 8×
  A party's failure to make a timely objection to a magistrate's report precludes them from raising those objections on appeal.
• Haney v. Rose
  642 F.2d 1055· 6th Cir.· 1981-03-04 ·cited 8×
  Federal habeas review of a state prisoner's claim of an unfair jury is not precluded by Wainwright v. Sykes if the state court's finding of procedural waiver was based on a misinterpretation of the record. Prejudice is not presumed when a juror is exposed to information about a d
• Clonce v. Presley
  640 F.2d 271· 10th Cir.· 1981-02-06 ·cited 8×
  The court held that while the petitioner was in state custody for habeas corpus purposes, his petition was properly dismissed for failure to exhaust state remedies.
• Stroble v. Egeler
  547 F.2d 339· 6th Cir.· 1977-01-13 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court erred in its determination regarding the Interstate Agreement on Detainers and ordered a remand for further proceedings.
• Harris v. Estelle
  487 F.2d 56· 5th Cir.· 1973-11-01 ·cited 8×
  A prisoner is entitled to an out-of-time direct appeal with counsel if his indigence and desire to appeal were made known to the trial judge, even if the judge assumed retained counsel would continue representation.
• Singleton v. A.L. Lockhart
  871 F.2d 1395· 8th Cir.· 1989-04-10 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the defendant's conviction was valid, but his death sentence should be reinstated, finding no constitutional error in jury selection or ineffective assistance of counsel, and that the prior vacating of the sentence was based on an overruled precedent.
• Sadler v. Sheriff, Sullivan, Joseph A., Philadelphia Cnty., Patton, Ernest S., Superintendent State Corr. Inst. at Camp Hill & the Attorney Gen. of the State of Pa.
  748 F.2d 820· 3d Cir.· 1984-11-20 ·cited 6×
  The Equal Protection Clause does not require Pennsylvania to apply its 180-day prompt trial rule from the date of a juvenile petition filing to a juvenile certified for adult trial.
• Stumbo v. Seabold
  704 F.2d 910· 6th Cir.· 1983-04-13 ·cited 6×
  The court held that egregious prosecutorial misconduct, particularly when evidence of guilt is weak, deprives a defendant of a fundamentally fair trial and due process of law.
• Elbert James Hinkle v. Scurr
  677 F.2d 667· 8th Cir.· 1982-05-12 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the appellant's claims regarding inadequate psychiatric examination, ineffective assistance of counsel, and an improper jury instruction on voluntary intoxication did not warrant habeas corpus relief.
• Poulin v. Gunn
  548 F.2d 1379· 9th Cir.· 1977-02-24 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the petitioner's Sixth Amendment rights may have been violated if the bailiff overheard confidential communications between the petitioner and his attorney, and this issue cannot be deemed harmless or waived by failure to object at trial.
• Conte v. Cardwell
  475 F.2d 698· 6th Cir.· 1972-06-29 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the affidavits were insufficient to support a delayed filing of the motion to reconsider, and the petition to rehear would be denied for untimely filing.
• Nabors v. United States
  929 F.2d 354· 8th Cir.· 1990-10-15 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court failed to conduct the required de novo review of the magistrate's recommendation because it did not review the actual testimony from the evidentiary hearing.
• Jones v. Meyer
  899 F.2d 883· 9th Cir.· 1990-04-11 ·cited 4×
  The court held that shackling a defendant during trial, when justified by security concerns and less restrictive alternatives were considered, does not violate the due process clause or the presumption of innocence.
• Eddy Ray Messimer v. A.L. Lockhart
  822 F.2d 43· 8th Cir.· 1987-06-30 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the habeas corpus petition for abuse of the writ and procedural default, finding the appellant had adequate notice.
• United States v. Wyrick
  675 F.2d 161· 8th Cir.· 1982-04-02 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the appellant failed to establish a prima facie violation of the Constitution's fair cross-section requirement due to the exclusion of women from jury venires.
• Swift v. Ciccone
  472 F.2d 577· 8th Cir.· 1972-12-27 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the automatic forfeiture of good time earned prior to parole revocation does not violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, even without a separate evidentiary hearing on the forfeiture.
• Bernier v. Moore
  441 F.2d 395· 1st Cir.· 1971-04-22 ·cited 4×
  A defendant seeking habeas corpus relief is not entitled to further federal review simply by making conclusory allegations without showing entitlement.
• Hanks v. Wideman
  434 F.2d 256· 5th Cir.· 1970-11-30 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the erroneous transfer of a prisoner to federal custody, followed by his return to state custody, did not constitute a waiver of federal jurisdiction, especially when a detainer was in place and the prisoner ultimately benefited from the error.
• Guzman v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr.
  698 F. Supp. 2d 1317· M.D. Fla.· 2010-03-17 ·cited 3×
  The court granted in part and denied in part the petition for habeas corpus relief, finding merit in Giglio and Brady claims regarding false testimony and withholding of evidence.
• Tillett v. Robert M. Freeman & the Attorney Gen. of the State of Pa.
  868 F.2d 106· 3d Cir.· 1989-02-23 ·cited 3×
  The district court erred in dismissing a habeas corpus petition based on unexhausted state law claims, as such claims are not cognizable in federal habeas corpus.
• Lightsey v. State
  964 So. 2d 255· Fla. 4th DCA· 2007-09-12 ·cited 2×
  The appellate court denied a petition for habeas corpus relief, finding that while the petitioner may have identified an omission by his appellate counsel, he failed to demonstrate how this omission undermined confidence in the outcome of the appeal. The court emphasized that con
• Harris v. A.L. Lockhart
  948 F.2d 450· 8th Cir.· 1991-10-31 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the appellant's federal habeas claims were procedurally defaulted because they were not presented to the state courts in a timely or procedurally correct manner, and the appellant failed to demonstrate cause for the default or actual innocence.
• Smith v. A.L. Lockhart
  946 F.2d 1392· 8th Cir.· 1991-10-17 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the appellant's counsel was not ineffective for failing to seek a new trial because the jury's verdict was a valid compromise and would not have been overturned.
• Jeffers v. Sargent
  842 F.2d 1008· 8th Cir.· 1988-03-22 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the petitioner has an available unexhausted state court remedy, and therefore, his federal habeas petition must be denied.
• Bond v. Procunier
  780 F.2d 461· 4th Cir.· 1986-01-02 ·cited 2×
  The district court erred in dismissing the petition without an evidentiary hearing, as the allegations of suppressed exculpatory evidence were specific enough to warrant a hearing and potentially alter the trial outcome.
• Sanders v. Oliver
  611 F.2d 804· 10th Cir.· 1979-12-20 ·cited 2×
• Burney v. State
  56 So. 3d 773· Fla. 2d DCA· 2011-03-31 ·cited 1×
  The appellate court affirmed the denial of postconviction relief and dismissed a claim of ineffective appellate counsel. The court found the claim untimely and that the underlying issue, based on a now-receded supreme court decision, did not constitute a manifest injustice.
• Torres v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr. (Hillsborough County)
  M.D. Fla.· 2021-04-07
  The court held that the petitioner's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and insufficient evidence for his murder conviction lacked merit and did not warrant federal habeas relief.
• Anaya v. Jones
  S.D. Fla.· 2021-03-08
  The court held that the habeas corpus petition was untimely and procedurally barred, and that the petitioner failed to establish ineffective assistance of counsel under the Strickland standard.
• Jones v. Warden, FCC Coleman, USP II
  M.D. Fla.· 2020-10-30
  The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the habeas petition because the petitioner's custodian was located in a different federal judicial district.