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

• Kramer v. O.C. Jenkins
  803 F.2d 896· 7th Cir.· 1986-10-15 ·cited 24×
  The Parole Commission may rely on an IRS Deficiency Notice to determine tax liability for parole purposes, provided the taxpayer is afforded due process.
• Cartwright v. Maynard
  802 F.2d 1203· 10th Cir.· 1986-09-29 ·cited 24×
  The court held that considering the suffering of a surviving victim is a constitutionally permissible way to determine if a murder was 'especially heinous, atrocious, and cruel.'
• Junji Yamamoto v. U.S. Parole Comm'n
  794 F.2d 1295· 8th Cir.· 1986-06-27 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the retrospective application of federal parole guidelines does not violate the ex post facto clause because the guidelines are not laws and do not result in a more onerous punishment due to the Parole Commission's retained discretion.
• Adamson v. Ricketts
  789 F.2d 722· 9th Cir.· 1986-05-09 ·cited 24×
  The majority's requirement of double jeopardy waiver is pointless and rests on incorrect assumptions about double jeopardy law when a plea bargain is breached.
• United States ex rel. Lawrence Smith v. Fairman
  769 F.2d 386· 7th Cir.· 1985-07-22 ·cited 24×
  The State's failure to disclose a police firearms worksheet indicating the gun was inoperable violated Brady v. Maryland, entitling the petitioner to habeas corpus relief.
• Purnell v. Mo. Dep't OF Corr.
  753 F.2d 703· 8th Cir.· 1985-02-01 ·cited 24×
  The court should affirm the district court's dismissal for failure to exhaust state remedies, as the state's concession of exhaustion was based on a mistake and thus ineffective.
• Meeks v. Bergen
  749 F.2d 322· 6th Cir.· 1984-11-27 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the petitioner was denied effective assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment due to counsel's failure to investigate and present available witnesses and evidence, including the battered spouse syndrome defense.
• Ford v. Strickland
  734 F.2d 538· 11th Cir.· 1984-05-30 ·cited 24×·via Habeas Corpus Petition
  The court should affirm the district court's judgment denying the stay of execution and certificate of probable cause.
• Harlin Phillip Seritt, Jr. v. State OF Ala.
  731 F.2d 728· 11th Cir.· 1984-05-03 ·cited 24×·via Habeas Corpus Petition
  A mandatory life sentence without parole under Alabama's Habitual Felony Offenders Statute for a defendant with three prior felony convictions who commits a Class A felony (armed robbery) does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment.
• Code v. Montgomery
  725 F.2d 1316· 11th Cir.· 1984-02-27 ·cited 24×·via Habeas Corpus Proceedings
  The court held that the in-court identification was not impermissibly suggestive, but remanded the ineffective assistance of counsel claim for an evidentiary hearing due to unresolved factual issues.
• Javor v. United States
  724 F.2d 831· 9th Cir.· 1984-01-26 ·cited 24×
  The court should affirm the lower court's finding that the defendant did not demonstrate prejudice from counsel's alleged ineffectiveness.
• Ramos v. Haig
  716 F.2d 471· 7th Cir.· 1983-09-02 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the government's long-term confinement of petitioners was substantially justified, thus denying their motion for attorney's fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act.
• Antone v. Strickland
  706 F.2d 1534· 11th Cir.· 1983-06-13 ·cited 24×
  The court affirmed the denial of habeas corpus relief, finding petitioner's claims without merit, but remanded to the district court to consider the effects of a pending Supreme Court decision.
• Nevail Mitchell v. Wyrick
  698 F.2d 940· 8th Cir.· 1983-01-31 ·cited 24×·via Habeas Corpus Petition
  The court held that the lack of a complete transcript did not violate the petitioner's right to due process or a proper record for appeal, and that the district court did not err in denying the habeas petition without an evidentiary hearing.
• Jones v. W.J. Estelle, Jr.
  692 F.2d 380· 5th Cir.· 1982-11-29 ·cited 24×·via Habeas Corpus Petition
  The court held that a petitioner must be given specific notice of a potential summary judgment and an opportunity to respond with factual support, but that the magistrate's show cause order satisfied these requirements in this case.
• Jackson v. Hoyt C. Cupp
  693 F.2d 867· 9th Cir.· 1982-11-29 ·cited 24×
  The state cannot concede exhaustion of remedies in federal habeas corpus proceedings; a prisoner's deliberate bypass of state remedies precludes federal review.
• Marks v. Estelle
  691 F.2d 730· 5th Cir.· 1982-11-15 ·cited 24×·via Habeas Corpus Petition
  The court held that a petitioner's delay in filing a habeas petition is excused until the right asserted in the petition legally exists, and the state must demonstrate prejudice occurring after that point. The court also held that ineffective assistance of counsel does not consti
• Butler v. Rose
  686 F.2d 1163· 6th Cir.· 1982-08-13 ·cited 24×·via Habeas Corpus Petition
  The court should have found that prosecutorial statements commenting on the defendant's failure to testify were impermissible.
• Taylor v. Louie L. Wainwright
  418 So. 2d 1095· Fla. 5th DCA· 1982-08-06 ·cited 24×
  James Lamont Taylor petitioned for habeas corpus challenging the Florida Parole and Probation Commission's erroneous calculation of his presumptive parole release date. The court granted the writ, finding that the Commission misclassified Taylor's sexual battery offense at severi
• Daniels v. Maggio
  669 F.2d 1075· 5th Cir.· 1982-03-12 ·cited 24×·via Habeas Corpus Petition
  The court held that the appellant failed to demonstrate prejudice from alleged trial counsel errors, and therefore, his petition for habeas corpus relief was correctly denied.
• Brown v. Cuyler
  669 F.2d 155· 3d Cir.· 1982-01-29 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the petitioner failed to exhaust state remedies by not fairly presenting the Miranda waiver issue to the state courts.
• Seymour Styers v. Smith
  659 F.2d 293· 2d Cir.· 1981-09-10 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the identification procedures used were impermissibly suggestive and the resulting identifications were insufficiently reliable, mandating suppression of the in-court identification testimony.
• United States ex rel. Robert Graham v. The United States Parole Comm'n
  629 F.2d 1040· 5th Cir.· 1980-11-03 ·cited 24×·via Habeas Corpus Petition
  The court held that while the statutory claim regarding interim hearing scope was foreclosed by precedent, the ex post facto claim regarding the 'clearly exceptional circumstances' standard required further factual findings.
• Vicaretti v. Henderson
  645 F.2d 100· 2d Cir.· 1980-07-21 ·cited 24×·via Habeas Corpus Petition
  Appellate courts possess inherent discretion to limit issues on appeal when a certificate of probable cause is required, to manage caseloads while preserving access for valid grievances.
• Brewer v. Overberg
  624 F.2d 51· 6th Cir.· 1980-06-30 ·cited 24×·via Habeas Corpus Petition
  The failure of a state court to instruct the jury on lesser included offenses is cognizable on habeas corpus, but procedural noncompliance can bar review if not plain error. The evidence was sufficient to support the murder conviction.
• Schuemann v. Colo. State Bd. OF Adult Parole
  624 F.2d 172· 10th Cir.· 1980-06-30 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the state parole board's denial of parole was not arbitrary or capricious and did not violate due process, thus affirming the denial of the habeas corpus petition.
• McINERNEY v. Berman
  621 F.2d 20· 1st Cir.· 1980-05-08 ·cited 24×·via Habeas Corpus Petition
  The court held that the jury instructions regarding the inference of malice from the intentional use of a deadly weapon did not impermissibly shift the burden of proof to the defendant, thus not violating due process.
• Talamante v. Romero
  620 F.2d 784· 10th Cir.· 1980-05-05 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the district court properly denied the petition for a writ of habeas corpus, finding no constitutional error in the prosecution's actions regarding suppressed evidence, perjured testimony, or prosecutorial misconduct.
• Baker v. Muncy
  619 F.2d 327· 4th Cir.· 1980-04-24 ·cited 24×·via Habeas Corpus Petition
  Jury instructions that created a mandatory presumption of premeditation unconstitutionally shifted the burden of proof from the State to the defendant, violating due process.
• Brown v. Nutsch
  619 F.2d 758· 8th Cir.· 1980-04-18 ·cited 24×·via Writ Of Habeas Corpus
  Section 1983 provides a remedy for improper extradition in violation of the extradition clause and statute, but only if the alleged violations also breach minimal constitutional or statutory requirements.
• Sawyer v. Sandstrom
  615 F.2d 311· 5th Cir.· 1980-04-10 ·cited 24×
  The Dade County loitering ordinance is unconstitutionally overbroad because it punishes mere association with individuals known to be engaged in illegal drug activity, thereby infringing upon First Amendment associational rights.
• Fasano v. Hall
  615 F.2d 555· 1st Cir.· 1980-02-21 ·cited 24×
  The court held that alleged violations of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act (IAD) are not cognizable under the federal habeas corpus statute (28 U.S.C. § 2254) unless they constitute a fundamental defect resulting in a complete miscarriage of justice.
• Willett v. State OF Ga.
  608 F.2d 538· 5th Cir.· 1979-12-17 ·cited 24×·via Habeas Corpus Petition
  A guilty plea entered while protesting innocence is constitutionally invalid unless there is a factual basis for the plea, and the state court must develop facts to support it.
• Wynn v. Mahoney
  600 F.2d 448· 4th Cir.· 1979-06-29 ·cited 24×·via Habeas Corpus Petition
  The court affirmed the grant of a writ of habeas corpus, holding that the jury instruction placing the burden of proving self-defense on the defendant violated the due process clause.
• Rhinehart v. Gunn
  598 F.2d 557· 9th Cir.· 1979-06-13 ·cited 24×
  The court held that a federal court must independently review the state court record when considering a state prisoner's habeas corpus petition on self-representation grounds.
• Ellis v. Amos E. Reed
  596 F.2d 1195· 4th Cir.· 1979-04-25 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the rule prohibiting inquiry into a jury's numerical division, established in Brasfield v. United States, is a rule of judicial administration for federal courts and not a constitutional requirement applicable to state trials. Therefore, a state court's inquir
• Gully v. Kunzman
  592 F.2d 283· 6th Cir.· 1979-01-18 ·cited 24×·via Habeas Corpus Petition
  The Court held that petitioners are not entitled to pre-trial habeas corpus relief on double jeopardy grounds because the Double Jeopardy Clause does not prohibit exposing them to the risk of a death sentence on retrial, even if the death penalty was not sought in the first trial
• Clayton v. Blackburn
  578 F.2d 117· 5th Cir.· 1978-08-10 ·cited 24×·via Habeas Corpus Petition
  The court held that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a constitutional violation regarding his guilty plea, and thus, a federal evidentiary hearing was not warranted.
• Kaplan v. Bombard
  573 F.2d 708· 2d Cir.· 1978-02-15 ·cited 24×
  The court held that while joint representation is disfavored, the defendant did not suffer sufficient particularized prejudice to warrant a finding of unconstitutional denial of effective assistance of counsel.
• United States ex rel. John Hickey v. Jeffes
  571 F.2d 762· 3d Cir.· 1978-02-13 ·cited 24×·via Habeas Corpus Petition
  The district court erred in dismissing the habeas petition on exhaustion grounds, as the issues were presented on direct appeal. One of Hickey's claims for habeas relief is meritorious.
• Lussier v. Gunter
  552 F.2d 385· 1st Cir.· 1977-03-31 ·cited 24×
  The court held that even if the prosecutor's comment on the defendant's silence was improper, it was rendered harmless beyond a reasonable doubt by the trial judge's thorough jury instructions on the defendant's right not to testify.
• Pierre v. United States
  547 F.2d 1281· 5th Cir.· 1977-03-07 ·cited 24×·via Habeas Corpus Proceedings
  The court held that the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees did not substantively alter the existing U.S. immigration scheme, did not create new rights or entitlements for aliens, and did not invalidate INS procedures for determining refugee status.
• United States v. Clinkenbeard
  542 F.2d 59· 8th Cir.· 1976-09-20 ·cited 24×·via 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition For Writ Of Habeas Corpus
  The court held that the district court correctly denied the section 2255 petition and dismissed the due process claim for lack of jurisdiction.
• Caputo v. Henderson
  541 F.2d 979· 2d Cir.· 1976-09-03 ·cited 24×
  A guilty plea is constitutionally valid if the defendant was aware of the actual sentencing possibilities, and if not, whether accurate information would have made a difference in the decision to plead.
• Cunningham v. Estelle
  536 F.2d 82· 5th Cir.· 1976-07-29 ·cited 24×·via Habeas Corpus Petition
  The court held that the appellant's claims regarding incompetent counsel, prejudicial pretrial publicity, and jury composition were procedurally barred or unsupported, thus denying habeas relief.
• McCUNE v. Estelle
  534 F.2d 611· 5th Cir.· 1976-07-01 ·cited 24×·via Habeas Corpus Petition
  The court held that the appellant failed to allege facts sufficient to demonstrate he was mentally incompetent to stand trial in 1950.
• Gomori v. Arnold
  533 F.2d 871· 3d Cir.· 1976-03-30 ·cited 24×
  The court held that a federal prisoner's challenge to the execution of his sentence, specifically the computation of his release date based on time served in state custody, is properly brought as a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, not a motion to vacate sentence und
• Johnson v. Lou V. Brewer
  521 F.2d 556· 8th Cir.· 1975-08-08 ·cited 24×·via Habeas Corpus Petition
  The court held that the refusal to permit extrinsic evidence of a witness-informer's conduct did not violate any constitutional right of the defendant.
• Jackson v. Hutto
  508 F.2d 890· 8th Cir.· 1975-01-09 ·cited 24×·via Habeas Corpus Petition
  Ex parte communications between a judge and jury are presumptively prejudicial but can constitute harmless error if the record shows no prejudice to the defendant.
• Flint v. Mullen
  499 F.2d 100· 1st Cir.· 1974-06-25 ·cited 24×·via Habeas Corpus Petition
  The court held that a deferred sentence violation hearing, held before a criminal trial for the same incident, does not unconstitutionally compel a defendant to choose between waiving their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination or forfeiting their due process right to