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

• Christopher v. U. S. Bd. OF Parole
  589 F.2d 924· 7th Cir.· 1978-12-29 ·cited 16×·via Habeas Corpus Petition
  The court should have remanded for a determination of whether the Board's denial of confrontation and cross-examination was a proper exercise of discretion.
• Smith v. Lou V. Brewer
  577 F.2d 466· 8th Cir.· 1978-06-22 ·cited 16×
  The court affirmed the district court's denial of the petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
• Gray v. Estelle
  574 F.2d 209· 5th Cir.· 1978-05-30 ·cited 16×·via Habeas Corpus Proceedings
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion in denying the respondent's motion for relief from judgment under Rule 60(b)(6) and remanded for a full evidentiary hearing on the conflict of interest and waiver issues.
• Bulger v. McCLAY
  575 F.2d 407· 2d Cir.· 1978-05-04 ·cited 16×·via Habeas Corpus Petition
  The court held that the state court's failure to provide a full and fair hearing on the issue of jury prejudice, due to the introduction of extrinsic evidence, warranted federal habeas corpus relief.
• Balthazar v. Superior Court OF the Commonwealth OF Mass.
  573 F.2d 698· 1st Cir.· 1978-04-04 ·cited 16×·via Habeas Corpus Petition
  The court held that the Massachusetts statute prohibiting "unnatural and lascivious acts" was unconstitutionally vague as applied to the petitioner's conduct of fellatio and oral-anal contact.
• Allard v. Helgemoe
  572 F.2d 1· 1st Cir.· 1978-03-03 ·cited 16×
  A defendant's incapacity to understand certain elements of a charged offense does not, without more, render a guilty plea involuntary in constitutional terms, provided the defendant had the ability to consult with counsel and a rational understanding of the proceedings.
• Bergman v. Honorable Louis J. Lefkowitz
  569 F.2d 705· 2d Cir.· 1977-12-19 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the Special Prosecutor did not breach the plea agreement by his conduct or recommendations, and therefore, the petitioner was not entitled to habeas corpus relief.
• Zimmerman v. Spears
  565 F.2d 310· 5th Cir.· 1977-12-13 ·cited 16×
  The court affirmed the dismissal of damage suits based on official immunity and affirmed the denial of habeas corpus petitions, dismissing one as an original petition to the court.
• ST. John v. Estelle
  563 F.2d 168· 5th Cir.· 1977-11-17 ·cited 16×·via Habeas Corpus Petition
  The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, sitting en banc, reversed the district court's grant of a writ of habeas corpus. The majority held that the petitioner's failure to comply with the Texas contemporaneous objection rule barred federal habeas review of his claim that the prosecut
• White v. Warden, United States Penitentiary
  566 F.2d 57· 9th Cir.· 1977-11-15 ·cited 16×·via Writ Of Habeas Corpus
  The Parole Commission and Reorganization Act of 1976 does not apply retroactively to grant credit for time spent on parole prior to its effective date.
• Ferguson v. Boyd
  566 F.2d 873· 4th Cir.· 1977-10-11 ·cited 16×·via Habeas Corpus Petition
• Nimrod T. Solomon v. Benson
  563 F.2d 339· 7th Cir.· 1977-10-06 ·cited 16×·via 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition For Writ Of Habeas Corpus
  A federal prisoner is not entitled to a due process hearing prior to being classified as a special offender, as such classification does not deprive them of a constitutionally protected liberty or property interest.
• White v. Estelle
  556 F.2d 1366· 5th Cir.· 1977-08-08 ·cited 16×
  The court held that a 1976 statute retroactively validated a magistrate's evidentiary hearing, and the state court's findings were not entitled to a presumption of correctness due to insufficient written indicia.
• Leahmon Triplett v. Wyrick
  549 F.2d 57· 8th Cir.· 1977-02-04 ·cited 16×
  The court held that a district court should address exhausted claims in a habeas petition even if unexhausted claims are also present, and that the petitioner had not exhausted state remedies for all claims.
• Agee v. Wyrick
  546 F.2d 1324· 8th Cir.· 1976-12-30 ·cited 16×·via Habeas Corpus Petition
  The dissenting judge believes the ineffective assistance of counsel claim is not unexhausted, even if a specific consequence like sentence enhancement was not explicitly raised in state courts.
• Makal v. State OF Ariz. & Harold G. Card-well
  544 F.2d 1030· 9th Cir.· 1976-10-26 ·cited 16×·via Habeas Corpus Petition
  The court held that the petitioner's guilty plea was validly accepted because the trial court adequately ensured it was knowing and voluntary, and the petitioner's mental competency to plead guilty was sufficiently established or reconstructible from the record. The court also he
• Simpson v. Woodham
  332 So. 2d 693· Fla. 1st DCA· 1976-06-07 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the failure to formally mark a rendition warrant as an exhibit did not invalidate the extradition proceedings.
• Gerson Merrill Kartman v. Parratt
  535 F.2d 450· 8th Cir.· 1976-05-12 ·cited 16×
  Procedural errors in probation revocation hearings were not prejudicial, and therefore, habeas corpus relief is not warranted.
• RAY v. Rose
  535 F.2d 966· 6th Cir.· 1976-05-10 ·cited 16×·via Habeas Corpus Petition
  The court held that James Earl Ray's guilty plea was entered voluntarily and knowingly, and he was not denied effective assistance of counsel despite potential conflicts of interest and alleged procedural improprieties.
• Yellowwolf v. Morris
  536 F.2d 813· 9th Cir.· 1976-04-12 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the ruling in United States ex rel. Pebworth v. Conte should not be applied retroactively to guilty pleas entered before its decision.
• Weiland v. Parratt
  530 F.2d 1284· 8th Cir.· 1976-02-24 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying the habeas corpus petition, affirming the conviction.
• Scarborough v. Kellum
  525 F.2d 931· 5th Cir.· 1976-01-07 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court properly denied the petition for a writ of habeas corpus, finding no constitutional infirmity in the petitioner's conviction.
• United States ex rel. Leon Wash. v. Vincent
  525 F.2d 262· 2d Cir.· 1975-11-05 ·cited 16×·via Writ Of Habeas Corpus
  A conviction obtained through a prosecutor's knowing use of perjured testimony, even if the defense had reason to suspect it and failed to act, violates due process if the false testimony could have affected the jury's judgment.
• Sherrill v. Wyrick
  524 F.2d 186· 8th Cir.· 1975-10-17 ·cited 16×·via Habeas Corpus Petition
  The court held that the petitioner's trial counsel's failure to object to jury instructions or call certain witnesses did not render the trial fundamentally unfair or constitute a miscarriage of justice, thus not violating constitutional rights.
• Austin v. Swenson
  522 F.2d 168· 8th Cir.· 1975-09-19 ·cited 16×·via Habeas Corpus Petition
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the habeas corpus petition on non-exhaustion grounds when new evidence warranted an evidentiary hearing and the state had previously had a chance to address the issue.
• Farr v. Pitchess
  522 F.2d 464· 9th Cir.· 1975-08-07 ·cited 16×·via Writ Of Habeas Corpus
  A reporter's First Amendment right to protect news sources must yield when it conflicts with a court's compelling interest in enforcing orders designed to ensure a fair trial for criminal defendants.
• The Honorable Robert W. Rawlins v. Kelley
  322 So. 2d 10· Fla.· 1975-07-31 ·cited 16×·via Writ Of Habeas Corpus
  The Florida Supreme Court held that a juvenile's prior discharge from juvenile court proceedings under the speedy trial rule bars subsequent prosecution of the same offenses as an adult in criminal court, based on equitable estoppel principles, even though double jeopardy did not
• Carey M. Horowitz v. Henderson
  514 F.2d 740· 5th Cir.· 1975-06-12 ·cited 16×·via Writ Of Habeas Corpus
  The court held that an attorney representing co-defendants with conflicting interests must fully disclose the dual representation and its consequences to ensure a defendant's plea is informed.
• Bryan v. Louie L. Wainwright
  511 F.2d 644· 5th Cir.· 1975-04-16 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the supplemental jury instruction, including a time limit, did not rise to the level of unconstitutional coercion, and thus habeas corpus relief was not warranted.
• Keiper v. Hoyt C. Cupp
  509 F.2d 238· 9th Cir.· 1975-01-13 ·cited 16×·via Habeas Corpus Petition
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying the habeas corpus petition without an evidentiary hearing, as the state court record adequately demonstrated the voluntariness of the appellant's statements.
• Spencer v. Mrs. Rochelle Terebelo Spencer
  305 So. 2d 256· Fla. 3d DCA· 1974-12-31 ·cited 16×
  In this consolidated appeal from a Florida divorce proceeding, the court affirmed a trial court's award of permanent child custody to the mother and child support to the appellee, but reduced the attorney's fee award. The case arose after the mother fled Louisiana with the childr
• Blunt v. Wolff
  501 F.2d 1138· 8th Cir.· 1974-08-27 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the federal district court should not have considered claims that were intertwined with an unexhausted Sixth Amendment claim regarding appellate counsel, and thus the case must be remanded for dismissal without prejudice to allow the state courts to address th
• Manning v. Gale Jarnigan
  501 F.2d 408· 6th Cir.· 1974-07-30 ·cited 16×
  The dissenting judge would find that the appellant voluntarily consented to the search of his automobile and that prosecutorial misconduct and irrelevant evidence prejudiced the appellant, warranting reversal.
• Flanagan v. Henderson
  496 F.2d 1274· 5th Cir.· 1974-07-12 ·cited 16×·via Habeas Corpus Petition
  The court held that the federal habeas court erred in denying an evidentiary hearing, as the state court record was inadequate to resolve disputed factual issues regarding the alleged suppression of exculpatory evidence and the effectiveness of appellate counsel.
• Harris v. Procunier
  498 F.2d 576· 9th Cir.· 1974-05-22 ·cited 16×
  The court concurs in the reversal of the judgment, finding that the absence of counsel at the time of waiver undermines confidence in the reliability of the process leading to trial.
• Hook v. State OF Ariz.
  496 F.2d 1172· 9th Cir.· 1974-05-15 ·cited 16×
  A prisoner is entitled to credit for presentence confinement if it results in confinement beyond the statutory maximum sentence, and a prosecutor's unkept promise may entitle the prisoner to relief.
• United States ex rel. Raynard Dunn v. Casscles
  494 F.2d 397· 2d Cir.· 1974-03-25 ·cited 16×·via Habeas Corpus Petition
  A guilty plea entered to avoid the risks of trial, especially when coupled with protestations of innocence, is constitutionally invalid if the sentencing judge fails to ascertain a factual basis for the plea.
• United States ex rel. Nathaniel Williams v. LaVALLEE
  487 F.2d 1006· 2d Cir.· 1973-11-20 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court erred in denying the habeas petition without a hearing, as the state court's findings did not clearly establish whether the petitioner was informed of his right to appointed appellate counsel or the 30-day time limit for appeal.
• Dempsey v. Louie L. Wainwright
  471 F.2d 604· 5th Cir.· 1973-01-08 ·cited 16×
  A federal district court is not required to hold an evidentiary hearing on a habeas corpus petition if the state court previously conducted a full and fair hearing on the issue.
• Davis v. United States
  470 F.2d 1128· 3d Cir.· 1972-12-22 ·cited 16×·via Habeas Corpus Petition
  A guilty plea is valid even if the prosecutor, with the court present, asks some Rule 11 questions, as long as the defendant is personally addressed and understands the plea's nature and consequences.
• Arechiga v. State OF Tex.
  469 F.2d 646· 5th Cir.· 1972-11-24 ·cited 16×·via Habeas Corpus Petition
  The court held that petitioners' claims of prosecutorial misconduct and vindictive sentencing were without merit.
• Hill v. Nelson
  466 F.2d 1346· 9th Cir.· 1972-08-29 ·cited 16×
  A federal court may not presume the correctness of state court factual findings unless they are written findings from the trial court, not merely statements in an appellate opinion.
• Miller v. The Honorable John A. Chafee
  462 F.2d 335· 9th Cir.· 1972-06-20 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court had jurisdiction and that the denial of the conscientious objector discharge was unsupported by the record, and the condition of reimbursement was improper.
• Martinez v. Turner
  461 F.2d 261· 10th Cir.· 1972-06-08 ·cited 16×·via Habeas Corpus Petition
  The court held that the suggestive lineup and unlawful seizure of the coat violated federal constitutional rights, and that the admission of this evidence was not harmless error. However, the court modified the order for immediate release to allow the state an opportunity for ret
• United States ex rel. Mackey Raymond Choice v. Brierley
  460 F.2d 68· 3d Cir.· 1972-05-19 ·cited 16×·via Habeas Corpus Petition
  The court held that the district court should conduct an evidentiary hearing to determine if in-court identifications were free from impermissible suggestion, given the circumstances of the conviction.
• Friedberg v. Resor
  453 F.2d 935· 2d Cir.· 1971-12-29 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the Army Review Board's denial of a conscientious objector discharge was invalid because the Board failed to follow the procedural safeguards mandated by its own regulations, specifically AR 15-6.
• Eisentrager v. Hocker
  450 F.2d 490· 9th Cir.· 1971-10-21 ·cited 16×·via Habeas Corpus Petition
  The court should vacate the dismissal order and remand for appointment of counsel.
• Biggers v. Neil
  448 F.2d 91· 6th Cir.· 1971-08-18 ·cited 16×·via Habeas Corpus Petition
  The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's grant of habeas corpus, holding that a prior 4-4 affirmance by the Supreme Court did not preclude federal review of the due process claim and that the identification procedures were indeed violative of due process.
• Walsh v. Picard
  446 F.2d 1209· 1st Cir.· 1971-07-29 ·cited 16×·via Habeas Corpus Petition
  The dissenting judge argues that due process requires an appellate court to provide reasons when increasing a sentence, as this is constitutionally compelled and prevents arbitrary action.
• Cleo Gregory v. United States
  446 F.2d 498· 5th Cir.· 1971-07-13 ·cited 16×·via Habeas Corpus Petition
  The court held that the petitioner was denied his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel on appeal due to inadequate representation by court-appointed attorneys, entitling him to an out-of-time appeal.