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

• Miller v. State
  430 So. 2d 611· Fla. 4th DCA· 1983-05-04 ·cited 22×·via Writ Of Habeas Corpus
  Miller petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus claiming ineffective assistance of appellate counsel for failing to raise various issues on direct appeal of his conviction for solicitation to commit murder. The Fourth District Court of Appeal rejected all of Miller's ineffectivenes
• Hopper v. United States Parole Comm'n
  702 F.2d 842· 9th Cir.· 1983-04-01 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the appellant's claims regarding credit for state custody time and timely parole revocation hearings were premature or lacked demonstrated prejudice, and that the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act did not apply to parole violator warrants.
• Francois v. Klein
  431 So. 2d 165· Fla.· 1983-01-27 ·cited 22×
  The trial court erred in dismissing a Rule 3.850 motion for lack of jurisdiction due to a pending habeas corpus petition.
• United States ex rel. Clarence Rivers v. Franzen
  692 F.2d 491· 7th Cir.· 1982-11-10 ·cited 22×·via Habeas Corpus Petition
  The court held that the post-trial evidence of the petitioner's alleged incompetency did not retroactively render his trial unfair, and thus, the trial court was not constitutionally required to hold a post-trial competency hearing.
• Naranjo v. Ricketts
  696 F.2d 83· 10th Cir.· 1982-08-27 ·cited 22×·via Habeas Corpus Petition
  A state's waiver of the exhaustion requirement in federal habeas corpus proceedings is not dispositive; federal courts must still ensure exhaustion to uphold comity and the state's role in enforcing federal law.
• United States ex rel. Alonzo Howard Jones v. Franzen
  676 F.2d 261· 7th Cir.· 1982-04-16 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the habeas corpus petition without reviewing the full state court record, as required by 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(8).
• Tobias Q. Poole v. Perini
  659 F.2d 730· 6th Cir.· 1981-09-18 ·cited 22×·via Habeas Corpus Petition
  The Sixth Circuit held that the admission of portions of accomplice statements adopted by the appellant constituted admissible adoptive confessions, and any remaining hearsay was harmless error. The court also found that the admission of polygraph evidence, to which the appellant
• Bailey v. Redman
  657 F.2d 21· 3d Cir.· 1981-08-06 ·cited 22×
  The court held that a defendant must demonstrate an actual deprivation of the right to consult counsel, not just potential prejudice, to succeed on a Sixth Amendment claim based on a trial court's instruction.
• Myers v. State OF Wash.
  646 F.2d 355· 9th Cir.· 1981-05-26 ·cited 22×·via Habeas Corpus Petition
  The majority opinion holds that the Wainwright v. Sykes rule is not implicated by the defendant's jury instruction claim, and that even if it were, the defendant satisfied the cause and prejudice requirements. The dissent disagrees with both holdings.
• Ogle v. Estelle
  641 F.2d 1122· 5th Cir.· 1981-04-06 ·cited 22×·via Habeas Corpus Petition
  The court held that the suppression of FBI reports did not violate Brady v. Maryland because the evidence was not material, and the participation of judges who did not hear oral argument did not violate the right to effective assistance of counsel.
• Robinson v. Wyrick
  635 F.2d 757· 8th Cir.· 1981-01-09 ·cited 22×
  The court held that a defendant denied the right to a direct appeal due to counsel's deficient brief is entitled to habeas corpus relief without a showing of prejudice.
• Jones v. Estelle
  632 F.2d 490· 5th Cir.· 1980-12-08 ·cited 22×·via Habeas Corpus Petition
  The court held that the petitioner's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and an improper jury verdict due to a change in foreman lacked sufficient substance for habeas relief.
• Plant v. Wyrick
  636 F.2d 188· 8th Cir.· 1980-11-07 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the appellant's Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel was not violated by his trial attorney's actions or omissions.
• Rodgers v. Wyrick
  621 F.2d 921· 8th Cir.· 1980-05-19 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the prisoner must exhaust state remedies by filing a motion to recall the mandate before seeking federal habeas corpus relief, as his prior convictions were used to enhance his current sentence.
• Johnson v. Mabry
  602 F.2d 167· 8th Cir.· 1979-07-18 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the district court did not err in finding that the original sentence imposed consecutive terms, and that the subsequent commitment order merely corrected a clerical error, thus the petitioner was not entitled to habeas corpus relief.
• Keiko Asai v. Leonel J. Castillo
  593 F.2d 1222· D.C. Cir.· 1978-11-16 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the Board of Immigration Appeals did not abuse its discretion in denying motions to reopen deportation proceedings, and denied motions for costs and attorney's fees.
• Pierce v. Cardwell
  572 F.2d 1339· 9th Cir.· 1978-04-04 ·cited 22×·via Habeas Corpus Petition
  A habeas petitioner is entitled to an evidentiary hearing if the state court did not resolve disputed factual issues relevant to constitutional claims, especially when the waiver of rights is complex and the state court's application of legal standards is unclear.
• Addonizio v. United States
  573 F.2d 147· 3d Cir.· 1978-02-27 ·cited 22×
  Sentencing courts have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to grant relief when subsequent changes in parole criteria frustrate the sentencing judge's original intentions and expectations, regardless of the specific statute under which the sentence was imposed.
• Eutues White v. Finkbeiner
  570 F.2d 194· 7th Cir.· 1978-02-01 ·cited 22×·via Habeas Corpus Petition
  The court held that the district court erred in summarily denying the habeas corpus petition, as the petition stated a legally sufficient claim under Miranda if the petitioner had indeed requested an attorney.
• White v. Maggio
  556 F.2d 1352· 5th Cir.· 1977-08-08 ·cited 22×·via Habeas Corpus Petition
  The court held that the denial of access to critical evidence, if subject to varying expert opinion, violates due process and requires a new trial, and that the retroactivity of this rule favors application in this case.
• State of N.J. v. Chesimard
  555 F.2d 63· 3d Cir.· 1977-03-09 ·cited 22×·via Habeas Corpus Petition
  The dissenting judge would find that federal intervention is permissible, either because the relief sought is collateral to the state criminal proceeding under Gerstein v. Pugh, or because exceptional circumstances warrant intervention under Younger v. Harris.
• Mucie v. Mo. State Dep't OF Corr.
  543 F.2d 633· 8th Cir.· 1976-11-02 ·cited 22×·via Habeas Corpus Petition
  The court held that further exhaustion of state remedies was unnecessary due to state delay and the petitioner's lack of standing in state court.
• Roberts v. Collins
  544 F.2d 168· 4th Cir.· 1976-10-28 ·cited 22×
  The court held that imposing a sentence for simple assault that exceeds the statutory maximum for assault with intent to murder constitutes cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment.
• Maynard Allen Jacobson v. United States
  542 F.2d 725· 8th Cir.· 1976-09-29 ·cited 22×·via Habeas Corpus Petition
  The court held that a petitioner is not entitled to resentencing under Kortness if the parole guidelines pre-dated the sentence and did not change its import, and due process claims regarding parole execution are cognizable only in habeas corpus under § 2241.
• United States ex rel. Birchel Leonard Carson v. Taylor
  540 F.2d 1156· 2d Cir.· 1976-07-22 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the parolee's due process rights were violated by the failure to provide written notice of all claimed violations and by the reliance on undisclosed documentary evidence.
• Dawson v. Cowan
  531 F.2d 1374· 6th Cir.· 1976-03-26 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the failure to provide a limiting instruction regarding prior convictions used for habitual offender status, when those convictions were presented to the jury for the principal charge, constitutes a due process violation entitling the appellant to habeas corpu
• United States ex rel. Francisco Martinez v. Warden James A. Thomas
  526 F.2d 750· 2d Cir.· 1975-12-08 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the defendant's waiver of counsel was not knowing and intelligent due to his mental condition and the circumstances surrounding the denial of his adjournment requests, thus violating his due process rights.
• United States ex rel. Sheldon Selikoff v. Comm'r OF Corr. OF the State OF NEW York
  524 F.2d 650· 2d Cir.· 1975-10-21 ·cited 22×
  The court held that a trial judge's statements regarding sentencing, made before a pre-sentence report, do not constitute an unconditional promise that must be specifically enforced, and the opportunity to withdraw the guilty plea is a sufficient remedy.
• Malone v. State OF Ala.
  514 F.2d 77· 5th Cir.· 1975-06-06 ·cited 22×·via Habeas Corpus Petition
  The court held that a retained counsel's failure to inform a client of their right to appeal in forma pauperis, without notice to the court of the client's indigency, does not constitute state action denying constitutional rights.
• Captain Roger G. Sanger v. Honorable Robert C. Seamans, Jr.
  507 F.2d 814· 9th Cir.· 1974-11-29 ·cited 22×·via Habeas Corpus Petition
  The court held that the Secretary of the Air Force's denial of a conscientious objector discharge application must be supported by a record that includes the reasons for the adverse decision, especially the recommendation of the Air Force Personnel Board.
• Wilkins v. Erickson
  505 F.2d 761· 9th Cir.· 1974-11-06 ·cited 22×
  Boykin v. Alabama does not require a state court judge to specifically articulate the three federal constitutional rights waived by a guilty plea; a reviewing court can find a plea voluntary and intelligent from the entire record, including a post-conviction evidentiary hearing.
• Singleton v. Estelle
  492 F.2d 671· 5th Cir.· 1974-04-12 ·cited 22×
  The court affirmed the denial of the habeas corpus petition, finding that some claims were unexhausted and the jury discrimination claim failed to establish a prima facie case.
• United States ex rel. Sheldon Leeson v. Damon
  496 F.2d 718· 2d Cir.· 1974-04-01 ·cited 22×·via Habeas Corpus Petition
  The court held that erroneous advice from counsel regarding sentencing does not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel unless it is so egregious as to shock the conscience.
• Harris v. Estelle
  487 F.2d 1293· 5th Cir.· 1974-01-11 ·cited 22×·via Habeas Corpus Petition
  The court held that claims not presented to state courts must be dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust state remedies, while exhausted claims can be decided on the merits.
• Montgomery v. Hopper
  488 F.2d 877· 5th Cir.· 1973-12-13 ·cited 22×·via Habeas Corpus Petition
  The court held that the petitioner did not knowingly and understandingly bypass state remedies, thus federal habeas review is not precluded.
• Lofton v. Procunier
  487 F.2d 434· 9th Cir.· 1973-09-17 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the district court erred in denying the petition without an evidentiary hearing on the adequacy of the appointed counsel.
• United States ex rel. Alexander Little v. Twomey
  477 F.2d 767· 7th Cir.· 1973-04-19 ·cited 22×·via Habeas Corpus Petition
  Defense counsel's failure to properly present an insanity defense, even if the psychiatrist's testimony was improperly excluded, did not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel because the defense lacked substance.
• Essex RAY v. Fritz
  468 F.2d 586· 2d Cir.· 1972-10-19 ·cited 22×·via Habeas Corpus Petition
  A federal court must hear a prisoner's § 1983 suit if no adequate state administrative or judicial remedy exists.
• Taylor v. The State OF Ariz.
  471 F.2d 848· 9th Cir.· 1972-10-06 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the photograph was lawfully seized incident to a lawful arrest based on probable cause, and that the 'mere evidence' rule, as rejected by Warden v. Hayden, did not require vacating the conviction.
• United States ex rel. Jerry Roth v. Zelker
  455 F.2d 1105· 2d Cir.· 1972-02-15 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the petitioner was not denied due process because the facts of his case were distinguishable from Pate v. Robinson, and no reasonable doubt existed regarding his competency to plead guilty.
• In re Lieutenant Commander Elliott R. Tressan v. Hon. Melvin Laird
  454 F.2d 761· 9th Cir.· 1972-01-25 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the Chief of Naval Personnel's denial of Tressan's conscientious objector discharge application lacked a basis in fact, as Tressan's explanation for the late crystallization of his beliefs was reasonable and supported by the record.
• Johnson v. Louie L. Wainwright
  453 F.2d 385· 5th Cir.· 1971-12-28 ·cited 22×
  The court affirmed the denial of the petition for writ of habeas corpus because the petitioner had not exhausted his state remedies regarding the claim of denial of a right to appeal.
• The State OF S.C. v. Moore
  447 F.2d 1067· 4th Cir.· 1971-09-08 ·cited 22×·via Writ Of Habeas Corpus
• Lovallo v. Resor
  443 F.2d 1262· 2d Cir.· 1971-05-24 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the Army's denial of a conscientious objector discharge had a sufficient basis in fact, particularly regarding the applicant's objection to a specific assignment.
• Ulis Lando Pennington v. Beto
  437 F.2d 1281· 5th Cir.· 1971-02-05 ·cited 22×·via Habeas Corpus Petition
  The court held that the district court's hearing on habeas corpus was overly restricted and its findings inadequate, requiring remand for further proceedings.
• Williams v. Smith
  434 F.2d 592· 5th Cir.· 1970-11-17 ·cited 22×
  A voluntary guilty plea waives all prior non-jurisdictional defects, including claims of illegal arrest, incommunicado detention, and ineffective assistance of counsel.
• Tyler v. Swenson
  427 F.2d 412· 8th Cir.· 1970-06-12 ·cited 22×·via Habeas Corpus Petition
  A state court evidentiary hearing is not fair when the judge who presided over the original plea also acts as the trier of fact, relying on his own recollection of events that are disputed by the petitioner and cannot be cross-examined.
• Earnest v. Moseley
  426 F.2d 466· 10th Cir.· 1970-04-14 ·cited 22×
• United States ex rel. Donnell Leonard Luster v. Colonel William H. McBEE
  422 F.2d 562· 7th Cir.· 1970-02-09 ·cited 22×
  The court held that there was a basis in fact for the Selective Service Board's classification and denial of hardship deferment, and that the induction order was valid despite procedural irregularities in its postponement.
• Moreno v. Beto
  415 F.2d 154· 5th Cir.· 1969-08-11 ·cited 22×·via Habeas Corpus Petition
  The failure of trial counsel to question the voluntariness of a confession, based on an unawareness of the then-unconstitutional Texas procedure for determining voluntariness, does not constitute a deliberate bypass of state procedures, allowing the issue to be raised on federal