Petition For Writ Of Habeas Corpus

7,517 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 5,493 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• Istvan Kele v. Carlson
  877 F.2d 775· 9th Cir.· 1989-06-08 ·via Petition For Habeas Corpus Relief
  The court held that while the Parole Commission's discretion is broad, it is bound by its own regulations, allowing review for violations of those regulations.
• Taylor v. T.H. Bigham
  543 So. 2d 884· Fla. 1st DCA· 1989-06-02
• Julius v. Jones
  875 F.2d 1520· 11th Cir.· 1989-05-31 ·via Habeas Corpus Petition
  The court held that while the prosecution should have produced all interviews of a witness under Brady v. Maryland, the suppression did not warrant a new trial because there was no reasonable probability that the outcome would have been different. The court also found that previo
• Felts v. Estelle
  875 F.2d 785· 9th Cir.· 1989-05-30 ·via Writ Of Habeas Corpus
  The court held that compelling an indigent defendant to stand trial in prison garb due to financial inability to obtain other attire violates the due process clause.
• Mayner v. Callahan
  873 F.2d 1300· 9th Cir.· 1989-05-04
  The court held that restarting a prisoner's mandatory minimum time toward parole eligibility after an escape does not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause or the Equal Protection Clause.
• Sheppard v. State OF La. Bd. OF Parole
  873 F.2d 761· 5th Cir.· 1989-04-27 ·via Habeas Corpus Proceedings
  The court held that a prisoner's civil rights claims challenging parole supervision fees as an ex post facto violation should not be dismissed prematurely and may require a stay or dismissal without prejudice pending habeas corpus exhaustion.
• COX v. Wyrick
  873 F.2d 200· 8th Cir.· 1989-04-26
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a motion for reconsideration of a habeas corpus petition denial, as the new rule cited was inapposite and the prior decision was the law of the case.
• McVEIGH v. Smith
  872 F.2d 725· 6th Cir.· 1989-04-11
  The Sixth Amendment right to counsel does not attach prior to a decision to submit to a blood-alcohol test, and refusal to take such a test is not protected by the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.
• Mulero v. Lefevre
  873 F.2d 534· 2d Cir.· 1989-04-10
  The court held that while the district court did not err in dismissing the petition on the merits, the case should be remanded in the interests of justice to allow appointed counsel to brief the merits of the habeas petition.
• In re Larch v. Ina Quinn Larch
  872 F.2d 66· 4th Cir.· 1989-04-07
  The district court had jurisdiction, but the Tribe failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted under the Indian Child Welfare Act.
• Bonacci v. Kindt
  868 F.2d 1442· 5th Cir.· 1989-04-04
  A prisoner does not have a constitutional right to have another inmate represent or argue a motion for him in a court hearing.
• McGANN v. The State OF NEW York
  870 F.2d 908· 2d Cir.· 1989-03-23
  The court held that the habeas corpus petition should be dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust state remedies, as the appellant had initiated a state court appeal after filing the federal petition.
• United States v. Honorable Walter Kelly
  870 F.2d 854· 2d Cir.· 1989-03-17
  The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendant's choice of counsel due to a serious potential conflict of interest, thus not violating the Sixth Amendment right to counsel.
• Little v. A.L. Lockhart
  868 F.2d 989· 8th Cir.· 1989-02-27
  The court held that a minor's youth is a factor, but not determinative, in waiving constitutional rights, and affirmed the district court's denial of the habeas corpus petition.
• Giraldo-Rincon v. Dugger
  707 F. Supp. 504· M.D. Fla.· 1989-02-24
  The court held that the trial court's failure to inquire into the petitioner's ability to pay for and need for an interpreter, and subsequent denial of the request, violated his constitutional rights to due process and confrontation.
• Smith v. A.L. Lockhart
  868 F.2d 265· 8th Cir.· 1989-02-10
  The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the habeas corpus petition, finding competency claims without merit and other claims barred by procedural default.
• Houston v. A.L. Lockhart
  866 F.2d 264· 8th Cir.· 1989-01-27
  The court held that the district court did not err in finding the in-custody statement voluntary and admissible for impeachment purposes, and any error was harmless.
• Castillo-Sicairos v. United States Parole Comm'n
  866 F.2d 262· 8th Cir.· 1989-01-25
  The court held that the Parole Commission did not abuse its discretion by considering information from dismissed counts when calculating the offense severity rating, and that the plea agreement did not prohibit such consideration.
• Hopkinson v. Shillinger
  866 F.2d 1185· 10th Cir.· 1989-01-23 ·via Habeas Corpus Petition
  The dissenting judge would hold that the prosecutor's argument violated Caldwell v. Mississippi, diminishing the jury's sense of responsibility, and that a strict standard of review requires vacating the death sentence.
• Kelly v. Risley
  865 F.2d 201· 9th Cir.· 1989-01-09 ·via Habeas Corpus Petition
  The court held that the majority miscalculates parole eligibility for the second (escape) sentence by not adhering to the completion requirement of MAR § 20.25.304(3).
• Goodman v. Meko
  861 F.2d 1259· 11th Cir.· 1988-12-19
  The court held that the statute requiring mandatory release after serving two-thirds of a sentence applies to the remaining portion of the sentence at the time of reincarceration, not the original sentence.
• Huston v. Jones
  863 F.2d 30· 8th Cir.· 1988-12-15
  The court held that the appellant's third habeas corpus petition did not constitute an abuse of the writ, but that his claims of involuntariness were belied by the plea transcript.
• Nottlemann v. Welding
  861 F.2d 1087· 8th Cir.· 1988-11-23
  The court held that federal courts must dismiss habeas corpus actions when a petitioner has failed to exhaust state remedies.
• MacHado v. Commanding Officer
  860 F.2d 542· 2d Cir.· 1988-10-28
  The court held that the district court did not make a sufficient inquiry to determine if the appellant was discharged before his court-martial, requiring a remand for further proceedings.
• Tippitt v. A.L. Lockhart
  859 F.2d 595· 8th Cir.· 1988-10-17 ·via Writ Of Habeas Corpus
  A custodial statement given in exchange for a fulfilled promise not to prosecute for an additional crime is not per se involuntary; voluntariness is determined by the totality of the circumstances.
• Solheim v. Armstrong
  859 F.2d 755· 9th Cir.· 1988-10-14
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying the habeas corpus petition because the initial notice of parole was void due to lack of final approval, and the subsequent decision to set parole at 60 months was supported by good cause.
• Dunckhurst v. Deeds
  859 F.2d 110· 9th Cir.· 1988-10-07
  The court held that the trial court's jury instructions, when viewed as a whole, adequately informed the jury of the State's burden to prove all elements of first-degree murder beyond a reasonable doubt, including the absence of adequate provocation, thus satisfying due process.
• White v. A.L. Lockhart
  857 F.2d 1218· 8th Cir.· 1988-09-27 ·via Habeas Corpus Petition
  The court held that the denial of a continuance was not a constitutional error, and thus affirmed the dismissal of the habeas petition.
• Pilotto v. United States Parole Comm'n
  857 F.2d 474· 8th Cir.· 1988-09-19
  The court held that the Parole Commission did not abuse its discretion in departing from the guidelines to set a longer presumptive parole date, as the reasons provided were sufficiently documented and unique.
• Morgan v. Sullivan
  856 F.2d 1188· 8th Cir.· 1988-09-16 ·via Habeas Corpus Petition
  The court held that the Parole Commission did not abuse its discretion in determining parole eligibility and that the revised parole guidelines do not violate the ex post facto clause.
• Woomer v. Aiken
  856 F.2d 677· 4th Cir.· 1988-09-14
  The court held that the admission of psychiatric testimony regarding future dangerousness did not violate the defendant's Fifth or Sixth Amendment rights, and that the defendant received effective assistance of counsel.
• Kearns v. State
  530 So. 2d 479· Fla. 5th DCA· 1988-09-01
• GEE v. Clair Cripe
  853 F.2d 510· 7th Cir.· 1988-07-21 ·via Writ Of Habeas Corpus
  The court held that the district court's transfer rule, which required inmates with pending litigation to remain in the Marion prison, was invalid as it usurped the Attorney General's statutory authority to designate prisoner confinement locations.
• Ruiz Velez v. State
  528 So. 2d 933· Fla. 5th DCA· 1988-07-07 ·via Writ Of Habeas Corpus
  The court granted the petition for writ of habeas corpus, allowing a belated appeal of the conviction.
• Clay v. Lynaugh
  849 F.2d 908· 5th Cir.· 1988-06-30 ·via Habeas Corpus Petition
  The court is certifying a question to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals regarding whether the Texas carving doctrine, if still in effect, would have barred the petitioner's conviction for aggravated rape.
• Flugence v. Butler
  848 F.2d 77· 5th Cir.· 1988-06-29
  A subsequent diagnosis of mental illness does not automatically entitle a habeas petitioner to an evidentiary hearing if the record, including prior competency evaluations and the plea colloquy, does not clearly and substantially raise doubt about competency at the time of the pl
• Huckelbury v. Dugger
  847 F.2d 732· 11th Cir.· 1988-06-20
  The court held that the district court correctly granted summary judgment because no interrogation occurred, and the advice from counsel was not a recommendation to confess.
• Aimone v. Scully
  849 F.2d 87· 2d Cir.· 1988-06-13
  The court held that the denial of a severance motion was not an abuse of discretion and that a nunc pro tunc ruling allowing the state to appeal a dismissal did not violate double jeopardy principles.
• Moore v. Dubois
  848 F.2d 1115· 10th Cir.· 1988-06-09
  The Parole Commission did not abuse its discretion or violate due process by rejecting a hearing examiner's credibility determination and relying on a victim's affidavit, as due process in parole revocation does not require the decision-maker to personally hear live testimony.
• Jones v. Lanson Newsome
  846 F.2d 62· 11th Cir.· 1988-05-27 ·via Habeas Corpus Petition
  The court affirmed the denial of the habeas corpus petition, holding that the in-court identifications were reliable under the totality of the circumstances.
• Jaster Lee Marbley v. A.L. Lockhart
  846 F.2d 1161· 8th Cir.· 1988-05-23
  A habeas petitioner must demonstrate both deficient performance by counsel and prejudice resulting from that deficiency to warrant relief.
• Robinson v. State
  523 So. 2d 1281· Fla. 4th DCA· 1988-05-04 ·via Writ Of Habeas Corpus
  The court held that the motion for post conviction relief was timely, reversing the summary denial.
• Kelly v. Trickey
  844 F.2d 557· 8th Cir.· 1988-04-14
  The court held that the petitioner failed to exhaust state remedies because his federal constitutional claim was not fairly presented to the state courts, and affirmed the denial of his habeas corpus petition.
• Magna v. Dugger
  523 So. 2d 734· Fla. 4th DCA· 1988-04-13
  Ralph Magna petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus challenging his 1976 first-degree murder conviction on grounds of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel and denial of due process. The court denied the petition, finding that Magna failed to preserve his arguments at trial
• Rayford Conner v. Bowen
  842 F.2d 279· 11th Cir.· 1988-04-12 ·via Habeas Corpus Petition
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the petitioner's request for a continuance, and the denial did not render the trial fundamentally unfair.
• Frazier v. Wilkinson
  842 F.2d 42· 2d Cir.· 1988-03-21
  A federal prisoner may challenge a consecutive state sentence via habeas corpus even without a detainer, if enforcement is reasonably apprehended, but the petition was correctly dismissed on the merits.
• Randall v. Yakima Nation Tribal Court
  841 F.2d 897· 9th Cir.· 1988-03-01
  The court held that dismissing an appeal due to the tribal court's failure to rule on an indigency motion violates the Indian Civil Rights Act's due process protections.
• Elliott v. Warden, Seagoville, Texas (G.H. Rodgers)
  838 F.2d 194· 6th Cir.· 1988-02-04
  The court held that federal courts lack the authority to compel a state to accept custody of a prisoner or to order that a federal sentence run concurrently with a state sentence.
• Perkins v. Grammer
  838 F.2d 294· 8th Cir.· 1988-02-01
  The court affirmed the district court's denial of the habeas corpus petition, finding no error in the lower court's analysis of the appellant's claims.
• Kearns v. C.A. Turner
  837 F.2d 336· 8th Cir.· 1988-01-21
  The court affirmed the dismissal of the habeas corpus petition, finding that the prisoner's claims were either moot or required exhaustion of state remedies.