Petition For Writ Of Habeas Corpus

7,506 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

• Dawson v. Smith
  719 F.2d 896· 7th Cir.· 1983-09-12 ·cited 32×
  The court held that a prison inmate was not denied due process in a disciplinary proceeding where the charge was based on confidential informant information, as long as the informant's reliability was indicated and disclosure of specific facts would jeopardize institutional secur
• Raulerson v. State
  420 So. 2d 567· Fla.· 1982-08-26 ·cited 32×
  James David Raulerson was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death. After a federal habeas corpus petition succeeded, requiring a new sentencing hearing, Raulerson appealed the trial court's denial of his Rule 3.850 post-conviction motion and his death sentence. Th
• Ford v. State
  407 So. 2d 907· Fla.· 1981-12-04 ·cited 32×·via Writ Of Habeas Corpus
  Ford, sentenced to death for first-degree murder, challenged his conviction and sentence through post-conviction relief and habeas corpus petitions, alleging ineffective assistance of both trial and appellate counsel. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the denial of relief, apply
• Lenza v. Wyrick
  665 F.2d 804· 8th Cir.· 1981-12-02 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the petitioner was afforded a full and fair opportunity to litigate his Fourth Amendment claim in state court, that the hearsay testimony was admissible under the state of mind exception and did not violate the Confrontation Clause, and that there was sufficie
• Hines v. Enomoto
  658 F.2d 667· 9th Cir.· 1981-10-05 ·cited 32×·via Habeas Corpus Petition
  The majority's conclusion that the state's inadvertent provision of fewer peremptory challenges than statutorily required violates the Due Process Clause is foreclosed by Supreme Court precedent.
• Runnels v. Hess
  653 F.2d 1359· 10th Cir.· 1981-07-13 ·cited 32×·via Habeas Corpus Petition
  The court held that enforcement of Oklahoma's contemporaneous objection rule in this case fails to serve a legitimate state interest and should not bar review of the federal question.
• Sanford K. Bronstein v. Louie L. Wainwright
  646 F.2d 1048· 5th Cir.· 1981-06-04 ·cited 32×
  The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the habeas corpus petition, finding no constitutional violations that rendered the petitioner's state trial fundamentally unfair.
• Batten v. Scurr
  649 F.2d 564· 8th Cir.· 1981-05-19 ·cited 32×·via Writ Of Habeas Corpus
  The court held that the state's evidentiary rulings do not raise a federal constitutional question reviewable by writ of habeas corpus unless they directly implicate constitutional rights.
• Braxton v. Estelle
  641 F.2d 392· 5th Cir.· 1981-04-03 ·cited 32×·via Habeas Corpus Petition
  The court held that the petitioner's numerous complaints were without merit and affirmed the District Court's denial of his § 2254 petition.
• Cherry v. Dir., State Bd. OF Corr.
  635 F.2d 414· 5th Cir.· 1981-01-27 ·cited 32×·via Habeas Corpus Petition
  The court concurred that the trial judge's sua sponte grant of a mistrial was violative of manifest necessity standards, but denied habeas relief because the Jorn decision does not retroactively apply to the pre-Jorn mistrial.
• Lincoln Isaac v. Engle
  646 F.2d 1129· 6th Cir.· 1980-12-12 ·cited 32×·via Habeas Corpus Petition
• Mata v. Sumner
  611 F.2d 754· 9th Cir.· 1979-12-21 ·cited 32×·via Habeas Corpus Proceedings
  The court held that the pre-trial photographic identification procedure was so impermissibly suggestive as to create a substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification, violating due process.
• John v. Carothers
  594 F.2d 225· 9th Cir.· 1979-03-30 ·cited 32×
  The court held that a federal court must dismiss a habeas corpus petition if any claim presented has not been exhausted in state courts, but may review the merits of exhausted claims. The court affirmed dismissal of the alibi instruction claim for failure to exhaust state remedie
• Cohen v. United States
  593 F.2d 766· 6th Cir.· 1979-03-12 ·cited 32×
  A federal prisoner's claim that the government breached a plea bargaining agreement, affecting the execution of his sentence, is cognizable under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, not § 2255.
• Stroble v. Anderson
  587 F.2d 830· 6th Cir.· 1978-11-01 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the district court erred in finding the 120-day period under the Interstate Agreement on Detainers was tolled and that the continuances were granted in compliance with the Agreement's requirements.
• Boyer v. Patton
  579 F.2d 284· 3d Cir.· 1978-06-20 ·cited 32×
  The court held that trial counsel's failure to object to testimony regarding the defendant's silence at the time of arrest constituted ineffective assistance of counsel, and this ineffectiveness was prejudicial as a matter of law.
• United States ex rel. Conrad A. Dancy v. Arnold
  572 F.2d 107· 3d Cir.· 1978-02-21 ·cited 32×·via Writ Of Habeas Corpus
  A youth offender sentenced under the Federal Youth Corrections Act (YCA) cannot be confined in the general population of a federal penitentiary, as this violates the Act's requirement for segregation from adult offenders.
• United States ex rel. Willie B. Henne v. Fike
  563 F.2d 809· 7th Cir.· 1977-08-02 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the district court's findings that the petitioner understood his Miranda rights and voluntarily waived them were not clearly erroneous, and thus affirmed the denial of the habeas corpus petition.
• Phillips v. Wyrick
  558 F.2d 489· 8th Cir.· 1977-07-20 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the introduction of preliminary hearing testimony through a prosecutor's testimony was permissible under the confrontation clause exception when the witness invoked the Fifth Amendment privilege, and an evidentiary hearing was not required.
• LiPUMA v. Comm'r, Dep't OF Corr., State OF NEW York
  560 F.2d 84· 2d Cir.· 1977-07-11 ·cited 32×·via Habeas Corpus Petition
  The court held that the petitioner's failure to comply with state procedural rules for suppression motions barred his Fourth Amendment claim on federal habeas review, and his counsel's actions did not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel under the stringent Second Circuit
• Riley I. Gillihan v. Rodriguez
  551 F.2d 1182· 10th Cir.· 1977-02-28 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the petitioner was not denied effective assistance of counsel, nor were his constitutional rights violated by the imposition of the death penalty or consecutive sentences, and affirmed the denial of habeas corpus relief.
• Finis Smith Blankenship v. Estelle
  545 F.2d 510· 5th Cir.· 1977-01-17 ·cited 32×·via Habeas Corpus Petition
  The court held that the admission of other crimes evidence did not violate due process because a strong link was established between the defendant and the other offenses, satisfying the fundamental fairness standard.
• Minor v. Black
  527 F.2d 1· 6th Cir.· 1975-12-08 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the prosecutor's cross-examination and closing argument regarding the petitioner's post-arrest silence, after being advised by counsel, violated his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent and was constitutional error.
• Noorlander v. Ciccone
  489 F.2d 642· 8th Cir.· 1973-12-27 ·cited 32×·via Habeas Corpus Proceedings
  A district court rule permitting a magistrate to hold preliminary evidentiary hearings in habeas corpus cases is valid, provided the district judge retains ultimate decision-making power and a de novo review is available.
• Linroy Davis v. Heyd
  479 F.2d 446· 5th Cir.· 1973-05-29 ·cited 32×·via Habeas Corpus Petition
  The majority opinion, which the dissent disagrees with, found that factual inconsistencies in witness statements presented a question of law, potentially requiring a retrial of the state conviction.
• State v. The Honorable Paul Baker
  248 So. 2d 468· Fla.· 1971-05-19 ·cited 32×·via Writ Of Habeas Corpus
  The Florida Supreme Court held that it has constitutional authority to transfer cases involving improvidently invoked original jurisdiction to the appropriate district court of appeal, not merely dismiss them without prejudice. The Court overruled prior precedent restricting tran
• United States ex rel. John F. Hemes v. Major Donald McNULTY
  432 F.2d 1182· 7th Cir.· 1970-09-09 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the Selective Service Board's denial of conscientious objector status lacked a basis in fact, requiring reversal of the district court's dismissal of the habeas corpus petition.
• Howell v. Hoyt C. Cupp
  427 F.2d 36· 9th Cir.· 1970-05-20 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the seizure of the roll of nickels was reasonable under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, and this seizure provided sufficient probable cause for a subsequent search warrant.
• Gremillion v. Henderson
  425 F.2d 1293· 5th Cir.· 1970-05-15 ·cited 32×
  There is no federal constitutional right to credit for pre-sentence custody time; the matter is within the sentencing judge's discretion absent a statute requiring it.
• P. F. C. Daniel E. Pitcher v. Laird
  421 F.2d 1272· 5th Cir.· 1970-01-30 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the Army's denial of a conscientious objector discharge based on a personal moral code was without basis in fact when the claim was substantially founded on religious training and belief.
• Burlee Carroll v. Beto
  421 F.2d 1065· 5th Cir.· 1970-01-27 ·cited 32×·via Writ Of Habeas Corpus
• Collin L. Johnson v. Copinger
  420 F.2d 395· 4th Cir.· 1969-12-18 ·cited 32×·via Habeas Corpus Petition
  A district court may not dismiss a habeas corpus petition for abuse of the writ without first notifying the petitioner and affording them an opportunity to explain any prior omissions.
• Darrel F. Parker v. Sigler
  413 F.2d 459· 8th Cir.· 1969-07-18 ·cited 32×·via Habeas Corpus Petition
  The court held that the confessions were coerced and involuntary as a matter of law due to the totality of the circumstances, violating the defendant's constitutional rights.
• United States ex rel. Arthur Rudick v. Laird
  412 F.2d 16· 2d Cir.· 1969-04-23 ·cited 32×·via Habeas Corpus Petition
  The court held that the district court correctly dismissed the action for lack of jurisdiction because the petitioner was not within the court's territorial jurisdiction and the custodian was not amenable to its process.
• Cross v. Harris
  418 F.2d 1095· D.C. Cir.· 1969-04-16 ·cited 32×·via Habeas Corpus Petition
  The court remanded the case for a hearing to determine if the appellant is 'mentally ill' in light of prior precedent.
• United States ex rel. Kelly Wilson v. The Hon. Daniel McMANN
  408 F.2d 896· 2d Cir.· 1969-03-14 ·cited 32×·via Habeas Corpus Proceedings
  The denial of an indigent defendant's request for a transcript of prior trial testimony, which was necessary to impeach a key witness, violated the defendant's constitutional right to equal protection.
• Calloway v. Louie L. Wainwright
  409 F.2d 59· 5th Cir.· 1968-12-20 ·cited 32×·via Habeas Corpus Petition
• Askew v. State OF Ala.
  398 F.2d 825· 5th Cir.· 1968-07-16 ·cited 32×
  A voluntarily and understandingly made guilty plea waives all non-jurisdictional defects in prior proceedings, thus precluding an evidentiary hearing on such allegations in a habeas corpus petition.
• Bruce v. Beto
  396 F.2d 212· 5th Cir.· 1968-05-27 ·cited 32×·via Writ Of Habeas Corpus
• Coley v. Alvis
  381 F.2d 870· 6th Cir.· 1967-09-06 ·cited 32×·via Application For Writ Of Habeas Corpus
  The court held that because the Ohio post-conviction relief statute, as construed by the Ohio Supreme Court, provides no effective state remedy for the appellant's claims, he is not required to exhaust state remedies before seeking federal habeas corpus relief.
• Kennedy v. Commandant
  377 F.2d 339· 10th Cir.· 1967-05-03 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the qualifications for counsel in special courts-martial under Article 27 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice comply with the Sixth Amendment right to counsel and Fifth Amendment due process requirements, even for indigent defendants.
• Jack T. Stewart (Jack T. Stuart) or Any Other Officer of the U. S. Dist. Court v. Vardaman S. Dunn
  363 F.2d 591· 5th Cir.· 1966-06-28 ·cited 32×·via Writ Of Habeas Corpus
  The Mississippi District Court erred in holding the Oklahoma District Court's order of arrest void, as the order was appealable and the Oklahoma court had jurisdiction to issue a temporary restraining order to preserve the status quo.
• Wilson v. Harris
  351 F.2d 840· 9th Cir.· 1965-10-19 ·cited 32×·via Habeas Corpus Petition
  The court held that the district court erred in granting habeas corpus without an evidentiary hearing on the issue of whether the appellee competently and intelligently waived his right to counsel at arraignment.
• Reeves v. Warden, Maryland Penitentiary
  346 F.2d 915· 4th Cir.· 1965-02-25 ·cited 32×·via Writ Of Habeas Corpus
  The admission of a yellow note, seized during an unconstitutional search of the petitioner's room, was prejudicial and violated his Fourth Amendment rights, and this constitutional objection was not waived by his counsel's failure to object at trial.
• Morehead v. State OF Cal.
  339 F.2d 170· 9th Cir.· 1964-11-27 ·cited 32×
  The court held that a federal court cannot grant a writ of habeas corpus if the petitioner has not exhausted available state remedies, unless those remedies are unavailable or ineffective.
• United States ex rel. Alvin R. Drew v. Myers
  327 F.2d 174· 3d Cir.· 1964-01-23 ·cited 32×
  The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the habeas corpus petition, not on the merits of the due process claims, but on the grounds that the petitioner failed to exhaust available state remedies regarding the cumulative effect of the alleged errors.
• United States ex rel. John Buono v. Kenton
  287 F.2d 534· 2d Cir.· 1961-03-09 ·cited 32×
  An unreasonable delay in holding a parole violation hearing does not automatically invalidate the hearing or entitle the parolee to release if the eventual hearing is fair and the violation is properly adjudicated.
• McLEOD v. Peterson
  283 F.2d 180· 3d Cir.· 1960-10-06 ·cited 32×·via Application For Writ Of Habeas Corpus
  The court held that the appellant's departure under the circumstances did not interrupt his continuous physical presence for the purpose of the statute, and the prior erroneous denial of discretionary relief should be reviewed.
• Rushing v. Wilkinson
  272 F.2d 633· 5th Cir.· 1959-11-25 ·cited 32×·via Habeas Corpus Petition
  The court held that the petitioner received adequate assistance of counsel and a fair trial, and that the military courts properly considered all claims.
• GAY v. Marcell Graham
  269 F.2d 482· 10th Cir.· 1959-07-29 ·cited 32×·via Application For Writ Of Habeas Corpus
  The court held that petitioners failed to demonstrate a substantial question regarding a denial of due process, and thus a certificate of probable cause should be denied.