Petition For Writ Of Habeas Corpus

7,512 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 5,490 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• Anderson v. Butler
  886 F.2d 111· 5th Cir.· 1989-10-19 ·cited 2×
  Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 applies to habeas corpus petitions, but sanctions should only be imposed in exceptional circumstances, considering the prisoner's pro se status and the writ's unique nature.
• Wysinger v. Leoneal Davis
  886 F.2d 295· 11th Cir.· 1989-09-29 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the exclusion of persons aged eighteen to twenty-five and blacks from jury selection did not violate the Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial.
• Shoultes v. Laidlaw
  886 F.2d 114· 6th Cir.· 1989-09-18 ·cited 2×·via Habeas Corpus Petition
  The court held that a federal habeas petition must be dismissed if it contains any unexhausted claims, and that local legislators, city attorneys, and judges are shielded by absolute immunity for actions taken within their official capacities.
• Victorino Villamarin Blancada v. Turnage
  883 F.2d 836· 9th Cir.· 1989-08-30 ·cited 2×·via Habeas Corpus Petition
  The court held that immigration officials abused their discretion by denying a stay of deportation when the alien raised a non-frivolous legal challenge to a statute that had not been decided by the circuit or Supreme Court.
• Alton Waye v. Townley
  884 F.2d 762· 4th Cir.· 1989-08-30 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the inmate's claims were procedurally barred due to failure to object contemporaneously at trial and that the alleged instructional error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
• Thomas v. Ga. State Bd. OF Pardons & Paroles
  881 F.2d 1032· 11th Cir.· 1989-08-24 ·cited 2×·via Habeas Corpus Petition
  A prisoner's equal protection challenge to parole procedures, alleging racial and economic discrimination, can be brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 without exhausting state remedies, but claims seeking release or damages for parole denial must be brought as habeas corpus petitions r
• Earnest Smith v. A.L. Lockhart
  882 F.2d 331· 8th Cir.· 1989-08-16 ·cited 2×
  The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the habeas petition, finding that grounds for relief were either procedurally barred due to failure to demonstrate cause and prejudice, or without merit.
• Anselmo v. Sumner
  882 F.2d 431· 9th Cir.· 1989-08-14 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the prisoner's federal constitutional claims are procedurally barred because the state's highest court relied on an independent and adequate state procedural ground (unreasonable delay in filing habeas petition) to deny relief.
• Latroy Darnell RAY v. Duckworth
  881 F.2d 512· 7th Cir.· 1989-08-09 ·cited 2×·via Habeas Corpus Petition
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying a third competency hearing and that the defendant's confession was voluntary.
• Waldon v. Cowley
  880 F.2d 291· 10th Cir.· 1989-07-31 ·cited 2×
  A habeas petitioner is not considered 'in custody' for a conviction that has fully expired, even if it might be used for future sentence enhancement.
• Foster v. Wash. State Bd. OF Prison Terms & Parole
  878 F.2d 1233· 9th Cir.· 1989-07-12 ·cited 2×·via Habeas Corpus Petition
  The court held that the State of Washington's Sentencing Reform Act, as amended, does not violate constitutional protections and that the district court did not err in denying the habeas corpus petition or appointed counsel.
• Isley v. Dugger
  877 F.2d 47· 11th Cir.· 1989-07-12 ·cited 2×·via Habeas Corpus Petition
  The court held that allowing psychiatrists to relate a defendant's statements used in their sanity determination does not violate the Fifth Amendment, especially when the defense raises the insanity issue.
• Quenton N. Brown v. Butler
  876 F.2d 427· 5th Cir.· 1989-06-28 ·cited 2×·via Habeas Corpus Petition
  The court held that the state's use of rebuttal psychiatric testimony, based on the defendant's non-Mirandized statements, violated the Fifth Amendment, but the error was harmless because the defendant failed to establish a necessary element of his insanity defense.
• Rev. Timothy L. Lewis v. Attorney General OF the United States and Warden
  878 F.2d 714· 3d Cir.· 1989-06-28 ·cited 2×
  The court held that Lewis is entitled to good time credit earned after the district court's 1982 finding that he could not benefit from YCA treatment. However, he is not entitled to relief for the period preceding that finding.
• Paster v. Lynaugh
  876 F.2d 1184· 5th Cir.· 1989-06-27 ·cited 2×·via Habeas Corpus Petition
  The court held that the petitioner's claims were procedurally barred or unsupported by the record, and thus denied his motions for a certificate of probable cause and a stay of execution.
• Hemon v. Off. OF Pub. Guardian
  878 F.2d 13· 1st Cir.· 1989-06-22 ·cited 2×
  Federal habeas corpus jurisdiction does not extend to state court guardianship disputes, as these matters fall under the traditional purview of state domestic relations law and implicate federalism and finality concerns.
• Campas v. Zimmerman
  876 F.2d 318· 3d Cir.· 1989-05-31 ·cited 2×·via Habeas Corpus Petition
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the habeas corpus petition solely on the grounds of delay without fully addressing exhaustion and prejudice issues, especially with an augmented record.
• Buckley Andre Bruner v. E.P. Perini
  875 F.2d 531· 6th Cir.· 1989-05-12 ·cited 2×
  The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of a writ of habeas corpus, holding that the prosecutor's peremptory challenge of the sole black juror was not "systematic exclusion" under pre-Batson precedent and that the identification testimony was reliable.
• Smart v. Leeke
  873 F.2d 1558· 4th Cir.· 1989-05-04 ·cited 2×·via Habeas Corpus Petition
  The court held that the burden of persuasion for self-defense, as defined by South Carolina law, cannot constitutionally be placed on the defendant because it negates an element of the crime rather than being an affirmative defense.
• Newman v. Frey
  873 F.2d 1092· 8th Cir.· 1989-04-28 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a state prisoner's failure to pursue a claim of prosecutorial impropriety in state postconviction proceedings creates a procedural bar to federal habeas corpus review, absent a showing of cause and prejudice.
• Montana Horner v. United States Parole Comm'n
  870 F.2d 1489· 9th Cir.· 1989-03-24 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the Parole Commission did not improperly deny early termination of parole, Horner's waiver of counsel was valid, and he was not denied access to adverse information.
• Wilson v. Lane
  870 F.2d 1250· 7th Cir.· 1989-03-15 ·cited 2×·via Habeas Corpus Petition
  Appellants, acting as next-friends, lack standing to challenge the constitutionality of the Illinois death penalty statute or to pursue post-conviction remedies on behalf of an inmate who has knowingly and voluntarily waived such actions.
• Rickie N. McNAIR v. Dugger
  866 F.2d 399· 11th Cir.· 1989-02-23 ·cited 2×·via Writ Of Habeas Corpus
  The court held that the district court improvidently granted the writ of habeas corpus because the petitioner failed to demonstrate prejudice from counsel's alleged deficient performance.
• Benio Kalka v. Vasquez
  867 F.2d 546· 9th Cir.· 1989-02-03 ·cited 2×·via Habeas Corpus Petition
  The court held that denying a prisoner full worktime credits for the period they were available but not assigned work does not violate equal protection, as the distinction is rationally related to the rehabilitative purpose of actual work performance and institutional security.
• In re Warden, Ky. State Penitentiary v. Gall
  865 F.2d 786· 6th Cir.· 1989-01-18 ·cited 2×
  The court held that mandamus relief was not appropriate because the district court's discovery orders did not constitute a clear usurpation of power, and the petitioner had not demonstrated a clear and indisputable right to the writ.
• Smith v. Armontrout
  865 F.2d 1515· 8th Cir.· 1989-01-12 ·cited 2×·via Habeas Corpus Petition
  The court granted stays of execution and recalled mandates, allowing Gerald Smith to pursue his habeas corpus remedies and appeals on the merits of his convictions.
• Henderson v. A.L. Lockhart
  864 F.2d 1447· 8th Cir.· 1989-01-10 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court properly granted the writ of habeas corpus, finding that Henderson was denied effective assistance of counsel in pursuing his appeal, and that the underlying issue had merit.
• Lopez v. Riley
  865 F.2d 30· 2d Cir.· 1989-01-03 ·cited 2×·via Writ Of Habeas Corpus
  Claims of deficiencies in a state grand jury proceeding are not cognizable in a federal habeas corpus proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 when a petit jury has subsequently convicted.
• Davis v. United States
  865 F.2d 164· 8th Cir.· 1988-12-30 ·cited 2×·via Habeas Corpus Petition
  The court held that the defendant failed to demonstrate prejudice from his counsel's alleged ineffectiveness, as the evidence of the victim's gonorrhea had low probative value and the prosecution's case was strong.
• Erling Knud Ove Hansen, Jr. v. Duggar
  536 So. 2d 1169· Fla. 1st DCA· 1988-12-30 ·cited 2×
  Hansen, a paroled murderer arrested on parole violation charges, petitioned for habeas corpus challenging the sufficiency and procedural adequacy of his preliminary parole revocation hearing. The court affirmed the denial of his petition, finding that the preliminary hearing sati
• Vasquez v. Cooper
  862 F.2d 250· 10th Cir.· 1988-11-30 ·cited 2×
  The Fourteenth Amendment requires a state court to give credit against a sentence for pre-conviction jail time served due to inability to post bail, even if the sentence is less than the statutory maximum.
• Daugherty v. Dugger
  699 F. Supp. 1517· M.D. Fla.· 1988-11-02 ·cited 2×
  The court denied the petition for writ of habeas corpus and motion for stay of execution, finding the claims without merit and, in some instances, an abuse of the writ.
• Bova v. Dugger
  858 F.2d 1539· 11th Cir.· 1988-11-01 ·cited 2×
  Denying a criminal defendant the right to consult with counsel during a court recess violates the Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel.
• Thurman Dickey v. Lewis
  859 F.2d 1365· 9th Cir.· 1988-10-20 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a jury instruction presuming intent to kill from the use of a deadly weapon, while unconstitutional, constituted harmless error given the overwhelming evidence of intent. The court also affirmed that no state procedural bar precluded federal review.
• Rudolph v. Parke
  856 F.2d 738· 6th Cir.· 1988-09-07 ·cited 2×·via Habeas Corpus Petition
  The court held that the admission of three invalid prior convictions was harmless error because the petitioner had sufficient valid prior convictions to support his persistent felony offender status, and thus, habeas relief was not warranted.
• Morlett v. Lynaugh
  851 F.2d 1521· 5th Cir.· 1988-08-16 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the petitioner's claims regarding a defective indictment, admission of extraneous evidence, double jeopardy, and ineffective assistance of counsel were without merit and did not warrant federal habeas relief.
• Brown v. Armontrout
  853 F.2d 624· 8th Cir.· 1988-08-10 ·cited 2×·via Habeas Corpus Petition
  The court held that because state remedies are no longer available, the issue of exhaustion is moot, and the case should be remanded for the district court to address procedural default and the merits of the habeas claims.
• Liberatore v. Story
  854 F.2d 830· 6th Cir.· 1988-08-05 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the Parole Commission's interpretation of its guidelines was reasonable and that the Regional Commissioner acted within her authority. However, the case is remanded to determine if the petitioner was properly notified of and given an opportunity to respond to
• Flittie v. Solem
  867 F.2d 1053· 8th Cir.· 1988-08-04 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a petitioner challenging a prior conviction used for sentence enhancement is not considered 'in custody' for habeas corpus purposes if the sentence for that prior conviction has been fully served, as the enhancement is a collateral consequence.
• Reyes v. Quintana
  853 F.2d 784· 10th Cir.· 1988-08-02 ·cited 2×
  The court held that enhancing a sentence based on aggravating circumstances supported by the record, even if those circumstances relate to the defendant's conduct and character, does not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause, as it does not punish the defendant for an element the ju
• Gholston v. Jones
  848 F.2d 1156· 11th Cir.· 1988-07-07 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the parole revocation was constitutionally sound, as the parolee had waived certain rights and the supervisor's report, containing an admission, was sufficiently reliable.
• LePAGE v. State OF Idaho & Arvon J. Arave
  851 F.2d 251· 9th Cir.· 1988-06-29 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a Massiah violation was harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt due to overwhelming independent evidence of guilt, and that other claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and due process violations were without merit or procedurally barred.
• Cannon v. A.L. Lockhart
  850 F.2d 437· 8th Cir.· 1988-06-28 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a new trial requires demonstrating that a juror failed to honestly answer a material question on voir dire and that a correct answer would have provided a basis for a challenge for cause.
• Saldana v. The State OF NEW York
  850 F.2d 117· 2d Cir.· 1988-06-27 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the State's failure to allow the defendant to testify before the grand jury was harmless error under federal constitutional standards and that the defendant had not exhausted his state remedies.
• Bennett v. Soto
  850 F.2d 161· 3d Cir.· 1988-06-24 ·cited 2×·via Habeas Corpus Petition
  The district court erred in denying the habeas corpus petition by mischaracterizing its jurisdictional basis and should have considered it under the Virgin Islands habeas corpus statute.
• Stines v. T.C. Martin
  849 F.2d 1323· 10th Cir.· 1988-06-21 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a district court abused its discretion by granting a writ of habeas corpus based on the government's minor delay in responding, as the delay did not rise to the level of a due process violation.
• Herrmann v. Meese
  849 F.2d 101· 3d Cir.· 1988-06-17 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the Treaty's provision for adapting sentences is permissive, not mandatory, and the United States is not obligated to reduce a foreign sentence to match its domestic maximums.
• Bailey v. Spears
  847 F.2d 695· 11th Cir.· 1988-06-16 ·cited 2×·via Habeas Corpus Petition
  The court held that the defendant's habeas corpus petition warranted an evidentiary hearing regarding his competency to stand trial and the applicability of an insanity defense.
• Bryant v. State OF Md.
  848 F.2d 492· 4th Cir.· 1988-06-08 ·cited 2×
  The court held that claims of error in state post-conviction proceedings cannot serve as a basis for federal habeas corpus relief, and a parole statute not creating a legitimate expectation of release does not implicate due process.
• State v. Broom
  526 So. 2d 158· Fla. 2d DCA· 1988-05-23 ·cited 2×
  The Florida District Court of Appeal reversed a circuit judge's order granting bond to Anthony Broom pending review in the Florida Supreme Court of a previously-reversed habeas corpus petition. The court held that the circuit judge lacked authority to grant bond after the appella