Presumption Of Correctness Of State Court Findings

674 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 230 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• Fitzgerald v. Estelle
  505 F.2d 1334· 5th Cir.· 1974-12-30 ·cited 153×
• Hance v. Zant
  696 F.2d 940· 11th Cir.· 1983-01-24 ·cited 144×
  The Court of Appeals held that the prosecutor's conduct during the sentencing phase of the trial was constitutionally impermissible, rendering the sentencing fundamentally unfair, but the prosecutor's conduct during the guilt phase, while improper, was not unconstitutional. The C
• Lightbourne v. Dugger
  829 F.2d 1012· 11th Cir.· 1987-09-18 ·cited 128×·via 28 U.S.C. § 2254(D) Presumption Of Correctness
  The court held that the informant's actions were attributable to the state and that the informant deliberately elicited incriminating statements, violating the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel.
• Nollie Lee Martin v. Louie L. Wainwright
  770 F.2d 918· 11th Cir.· 1985-08-26 ·cited 118×
  The court's precedent on general deterrence evidence in capital penalty phases is contradictory and creates an unfair advantage for the prosecution.
• Pye v. Warden, Georgia Diagnostic Prison
  50 F.4th 1025· 11th Cir.· 2022-10-04 ·cited 111×
  Willie James Pye, convicted of murder, kidnapping, rape, and robbery, challenged his death sentence on federal habeas review, arguing that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance during sentencing by failing to investigate and present mitigating evidence of his difficul
• Thomas v. Zant
  697 F.2d 977· 11th Cir.· 1983-02-10 ·cited 103×
• Lindsey v. Smith
  820 F.2d 1137· 11th Cir.· 1987-06-12 ·cited 78×
  The court affirmed the denial of the habeas corpus petition, finding that the appellant's claims were either procedurally barred or without merit.
• Carzell Moore v. Kemp
  809 F.2d 702· 11th Cir.· 1987-01-21 ·cited 78×
• O'Bryan v. W.J. Estelle, Jr.
  714 F.2d 365· 5th Cir.· 1983-08-26 ·cited 75×·via Deference To State Court Findings
  The Fifth Circuit should apply the same standard of review in Witherspoon cases as in other habeas corpus matters, giving deference to state court factual findings unless clearly erroneous, and remanding for evidentiary hearings when the record is unclear.
• Dickerson v. State OF Ala.
  667 F.2d 1364· 11th Cir.· 1982-02-16 ·cited 72×
  The court held that the denial of a continuance to secure an alibi witness, a police officer, violated the defendant's Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to compulsory process.
• Mason v. Balcom
  531 F.2d 717· 5th Cir.· 1976-05-13 ·cited 71×
  The court affirmed the district court's judgment, finding that the petitioner's representation was perfunctory and thus ineffective.
• Askia Mustafa Raheem v. GDCP Warden
  995 F.3d 895· 11th Cir.· 2021-04-26 ·cited 70×
  Raheem was convicted of two homicides and sentenced to death by a Georgia judge; he challenged his conviction and sentence on federal habeas review, arguing that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to fully investigate and present mitigating evidence of h
• Bertolotti v. Dugger
  883 F.2d 1503· 11th Cir.· 1989-08-31 ·cited 69×·via 28 U.S.C. § 2254(D) Presumption Of Correctness
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying an evidentiary hearing on the ineffective assistance of counsel claim, and that counsel's performance was not deficient under the Sixth Amendment.
• Bashor v. Risley
  730 F.2d 1228· 9th Cir.· 1984-02-07 ·cited 66×
  The court held that the trial court's refusal to grant a change of venue denied the petitioner due process of law.
• Crosley Alexander Green v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr.
  28 F.4th 1089· 11th Cir.· 2022-03-14 ·cited 64×
  Crosley Green, a state prisoner convicted of murder, armed robbery, and kidnapping, petitioned for federal habeas corpus relief challenging his convictions on constitutional grounds. The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's denial of the writ, finding t
• Campbell v. Louie L. Wainwright
  738 F.2d 1573· 11th Cir.· 1984-08-20 ·cited 62×
  The court held that the district court properly denied the petition for a writ of habeas corpus, affirming the denial of an evidentiary hearing and the rejection of the petitioner's claims.
• Graham v. Solem
  728 F.2d 1533· 8th Cir.· 1984-03-05 ·cited 59×·via Deference To State Court Findings
  The court held that the admission of the victim's identification of Graham violated his due process rights due to impermissibly suggestive identification procedures that created a substantial likelihood of misidentification.
• Jones v. State
  446 So. 2d 1059· Fla.· 1984-02-02 ·cited 58×·via Presumption Of Correctness Of State Court Factual Determinations
  Leslie Jones, under a death sentence, appeals the trial court's denial of his Rule 3.850 motion for postconviction relief and motion to disqualify the trial judge. The Florida Supreme Court affirms both denials, holding that the trial judge's comments and compensation decisions d
• Norris v. Risley
  878 F.2d 1178· 9th Cir.· 1989-06-30 ·cited 57×
  The court held that the trial court's failure to assess the potential prejudice from spectators wearing 'Women Against Rape' buttons, instead relying on a standard of imminent threat, was an incorrect legal standard, and thus a federal evidentiary hearing is required.
• Mattheson v. King
  751 F.2d 1432· 5th Cir.· 1985-01-22 ·cited 57×
  The court held that the defendant failed to demonstrate ineffective assistance of counsel and that the jury selection process was constitutional. Therefore, the district court's denial of habeas corpus relief is affirmed.
• Laws v. Armontrout
  863 F.2d 1377· 8th Cir.· 1988-12-20 ·cited 56×
  The court held that the district court erred in granting habeas corpus relief based on an erroneous legal test for ineffective assistance of counsel and an unsupported assessment of the evidence.
• Walberg v. Israel
  766 F.2d 1071· 7th Cir.· 1985-07-01 ·cited 56×
  The dissenting judge believes the petitioner failed to prove denial of effective assistance of counsel, and that state court findings of fact should be presumed correct.
• Smith v. Kemp
  715 F.2d 1459· 11th Cir.· 1983-09-09 ·cited 55×
  The court held that the petitioner's claims regarding a Giglio violation, arbitrary application of the death penalty, and jury unconstitutionality were without merit or procedurally barred.
• Sullivan v. Cuyler
  723 F.2d 1077· 3d Cir.· 1983-12-08 ·cited 54×·via Presumption Of Correctness Of State Court Factual Determinations
• Coleman v. Brown
  802 F.2d 1227· 10th Cir.· 1986-09-30 ·cited 50×
  The court held that the trial court properly excluded jurors opposed to the death penalty, the exclusion did not violate the cross-section requirement, and the petitioner received effective assistance of counsel.
• Conrado Vela v. W.J. Estelle, Jr.
  708 F.2d 954· 5th Cir.· 1983-07-05 ·cited 50×
  The court held that the petitioner's counsel at the sentencing proceeding was constitutionally deficient, and that counsel's errors resulted in actual and substantial disadvantage to the client's defense.
• Panzavecchia v. Louie L. Wainwright
  658 F.2d 337· 5th Cir.· 1981-10-05 ·cited 49×·via Presumption Of Correctness Of State Court Factual Determinations
  The admission of irrelevant and prejudicial evidence of a prior conviction, due to the denial of a severance motion, violated the petitioner's Fourteenth Amendment right to a fair trial, warranting habeas corpus relief.
• Wilson v. O'Leary
  895 F.2d 378· 7th Cir.· 1990-02-07 ·cited 48×
  The court held that the statement made to Assistant State's Attorney Gainer was inadmissible as it was a mere relay of a coerced confession, and the state forfeited its harmless error argument. Statements made to Officer Dubois after Miranda warnings were admissible as they were
• Marino v. Vasquez
  812 F.2d 499· 9th Cir.· 1987-03-09 ·cited 48×·via 28 U.S.C. § 2254(D) Presumption Of Correctness
  The court held that jury misconduct involving an unauthorized dictionary definition of malice and an out-of-court experiment created a reasonable possibility of prejudice, warranting habeas relief for murder and attempted murder convictions, but not for felony false imprisonment.
• Sotelo v. Ind. State Prison & Linley E. Pearson
  850 F.2d 1244· 7th Cir.· 1988-06-29 ·cited 46×
  The court's opinion, which the author concurs with, applies de novo appellate review to the ultimate issue of confession voluntariness. However, the author argues this approach is incorrect.
• Wicker v. O.L. McCOTTER
  783 F.2d 487· 5th Cir.· 1986-02-18 ·cited 46×·via 28 U.S.C. § 2254(D) Presumption Of Correctness
  The court affirmed the denial of habeas corpus relief, finding no constitutional violations in the conviction or sentencing, including issues of hypnotically-enhanced testimony, juror exclusion, ineffective assistance of counsel, and Fourth Amendment claims.
• Quince v. Crosby
  360 F.3d 1259· 11th Cir.· 2004-02-18 ·cited 45×
  The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of habeas relief, holding that a claim challenging a state judge's recusal in a collateral proceeding is not cognizable on federal habeas review. The court also found no ineffective assistance of counsel based on the trial
• Stano Perri v. Dir., Dep't OF Corr., State OF Ill.
  817 F.2d 448· 7th Cir.· 1987-04-29 ·cited 44×·via 28 U.S.C. § 2254(D) Presumption Of Correctness
  The court held that a state court's determination of whether a defendant knowingly and intelligently waived Miranda rights is a factual finding entitled to the presumption of correctness under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).
• Martin v. Kemp
  760 F.2d 1244· 11th Cir.· 1985-05-21 ·cited 44×
  The court held that a guilty plea induced by threats against a third party is not an absolute bar to challenging the plea's voluntariness, and a remand for an evidentiary hearing is necessary if the state did not have probable cause for the threats.
• United States ex rel. Johnnie L. Savory v. Lane
  832 F.2d 1011· 7th Cir.· 1987-10-30 ·cited 43×·via 28 U.S.C. § 2254(D) Presumption Of Correctness
  The court held that even though constitutional errors occurred during the trial, they were harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because the evidence of guilt was overwhelming.
• Griffin v. Louie L. Wainwright
  760 F.2d 1505· 11th Cir.· 1985-05-10 ·cited 42×
  The court held that the appellant did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel at any stage of the proceedings and that the district court did not err in denying an evidentiary hearing.
• Winfield C. Patterson v. Cuyler
  729 F.2d 925· 3d Cir.· 1984-03-13 ·cited 42×·via 28 U.S.C. § 2254(D) Presumption Of Correctness
  The court held that the state court's findings regarding custody and the voluntariness of the waiver of Miranda rights were entitled to a presumption of correctness under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) and were supported by the record.
• Lusk v. Dugger
  890 F.2d 332· 11th Cir.· 1989-11-22 ·cited 41×
  The court held that Lusk failed to demonstrate prejudice from counsel's performance at any stage of the trial and that the Florida courts did not unconstitutionally apply the jury override standard. The denial of relief as to the conviction is affirmed, the grant of relief as to
• Darden v. Louie L. Wainwright
  699 F.2d 1031· 11th Cir.· 1983-02-14 ·cited 41×
• Blasingame v. Estelle
  604 F.2d 893· 5th Cir.· 1979-10-16 ·cited 40×
  The court held that a request for an attorney at arraignment does not automatically bar subsequent interrogation if the request was not made in a manner that effectively exercised the right to preclude any subsequent interrogation.
• Smith v. Louie L. Wainwright
  777 F.2d 609· 11th Cir.· 1985-11-14 ·cited 39×
  The court held that the appellant was denied his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel due to his trial attorney's failure to move to suppress numerous confessions, and that an evidentiary hearing is necessary to determine if this failure constituted sound tria
• Fendler v. Goldsmith
  728 F.2d 1181· 9th Cir.· 1983-10-14 ·cited 39×
  The majority erred by making contrary factual findings and failing to decide a ripe constitutional question, exceeding its jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).
• United States ex rel. Robert Harris v. State OF Ill.
  457 F.2d 191· 7th Cir.· 1972-03-17 ·cited 39×
  The court held that even if a state trial court improperly placed the burden of proof on the defendant regarding the independence of an in-court identification, a federal court on habeas review can still determine independence from the record if adequate, and if independent, no c
• Steele v. Taylor
  684 F.2d 1193· 6th Cir.· 1982-07-28 ·cited 38×
  The dissenting judge believes the defendants were deprived of their Sixth Amendment right to confrontation due to the admission of double hearsay evidence, and that the waiver of this right was improperly found.
• Eldridge v. Atkins
  665 F.2d 228· 8th Cir.· 1981-12-03 ·cited 38×
  The court held that trial counsel's failure to adequately investigate and present the defense of misidentification constituted ineffective assistance of counsel, violating the fourteenth amendment.
• Selz v. The State OF Cal.
  423 F.2d 702· 9th Cir.· 1970-02-19 ·cited 38×·via 28 U.S.C. § 2254(D) Presumption Of Correctness
  A federal district court cannot rely on state court findings under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) without reviewing the state court record, especially when allegations of an unfair hearing or newly discovered evidence exist.
• Oliver v. Louie L. Wainwright
  782 F.2d 1521· 11th Cir.· 1986-02-24 ·cited 37×·via 28 U.S.C. § 2254(D) Presumption Of Correctness
  The court held that the joint representation of co-defendants did not create an actual conflict of interest that adversely affected counsel's performance, as the alternative defense theory was not plausible based on the evidence.
• Martin v. Rose
  744 F.2d 1245· 6th Cir.· 1984-10-04 ·cited 37×
  A defendant is deprived of the Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel when his attorney refuses to participate in the trial, even if this is a deliberate tactic, because such a tactic fails to subject the prosecution's case to meaningful adversarial testing.
• Haggins v. Warden, Fort Pillow State Farm
  715 F.2d 1050· 6th Cir.· 1983-08-11 ·cited 37×
  The admission of a child victim's hearsay statements, made under the stress of excitement from a startling event, does not violate the Sixth Amendment confrontation clause if they possess sufficient indicia of reliability, even if the child is unavailable to testify.
• Burns v. Clusen
  798 F.2d 931· 7th Cir.· 1986-08-04 ·cited 36×
  The court held that while the state may have failed to adequately prove witness unavailability, the admission of preliminary hearing testimony was harmless error due to the circumstances of the case.