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

• Manlove v. Tansy
  981 F.2d 473· 10th Cir.· 1992-12-16 ·cited 2×
  The court should not grant a writ of habeas corpus based on a defense strategy not presented to the trial court.
• Jernigan v. Collins
  980 F.2d 292· 5th Cir.· 1992-12-15 ·cited 2×
  The court held that Jernigan failed to demonstrate that any errors by his counsel or the trial judge prejudiced his trial, and thus he is not entitled to habeas relief.
• Herta Spitzweiser-Wittgenstein v. Newton
  978 F.2d 1195· 10th Cir.· 1992-11-03 ·cited 2×
  The district court erred in relying on the presumption of correctness under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) to uphold the state court's competency finding, as material facts were not adequately developed in state court.
• Self v. Collins
  973 F.2d 1198· 5th Cir.· 1992-09-22 ·cited 2×·via 28 U.S.C. § 2254(D) Presumption Of Correctness
  The court held that the district court erred in disregarding state court findings of fact and making its own credibility determinations, and that the confession was not obtained contrary to the Constitution.
• Hunley v. Godinez
  975 F.2d 316· 7th Cir.· 1992-09-11 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court correctly granted a writ of habeas corpus because the burglary of jurors during deliberations created circumstances justifying a presumption of implied bias, violating the defendant's right to a fair and impartial jury.
• Jeffries v. Blodgett
  974 F.2d 1179· 9th Cir.· 1992-09-09 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying the habeas corpus petition, affirming the denial of relief.
• Hendricks v. Vasquez
  974 F.2d 1099· 9th Cir.· 1992-09-02 ·cited 2×·via 28 U.S.C. § 2254(D) Presumption Of Correctness
  The court held that the district court erred in failing to conduct an evidentiary hearing on the petitioner's ineffective assistance of counsel claim, but otherwise affirmed the denial of the petition.
• Perez v. Groose
  973 F.2d 630· 8th Cir.· 1992-08-21 ·cited 2×·via Deference To State Court Findings
  The court held that substantial evidence supported the conviction, and a rational fact-finder could have found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
• Galindo v. Ylst
  971 F.2d 1427· 9th Cir.· 1992-08-05 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the exclusion of the victim's statement did not deprive the defendant of constitutional rights, and the defendant waived his claim regarding impeachment with a prior conviction by not testifying.
• Gilley v. Collins
  968 F.2d 465· 5th Cir.· 1992-08-04 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the evidence was insufficient to support Richard Gilley's conviction for marijuana possession because the state failed to establish an affirmative link between him and the contraband.
• Sims v. Livesay
  970 F.2d 1575· 6th Cir.· 1992-08-03 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the petitioner's trial counsel's failure to investigate crucial physical evidence, specifically a quilt with gunshot residue, constituted ineffective assistance of counsel under the Strickland standard. This failure prejudiced the outcome of the trial.
• Amirault v. Fair
  968 F.2d 1404· 1st Cir.· 1992-07-08 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the petitioner's Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury and right to a fair trial were not violated by a juror's nondisclosure of a past trauma or by prosecutorial remarks.
• Squires v. Dugger
  794 F. Supp. 1568· M.D. Fla.· 1992-05-26 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the petitioner's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and Brady violations lacked merit, and that procedural default barred one claim.
• Dunn v. Roberts
  963 F.2d 308· 10th Cir.· 1992-05-01 ·cited 2×·via 28 U.S.C. § 2254(D) Presumption Of Correctness
  The court held that the state trial court's refusal to fund a psychiatric expert for an indigent defendant, when her mental condition was a significant factor in her defense, violated her due process rights.
• Campbell v. Blodgett
  978 F.2d 1502· 9th Cir.· 1992-04-01 ·cited 2×
  A defendant's right to be present at all stages of a criminal trial, including jury selection, can be knowingly and voluntarily waived, even in a capital case, as long as it does not implicate Confrontation Clause issues.
• Wellman v. State OF Me.
  962 F.2d 70· 1st Cir.· 1992-02-26 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the petitioner's guilty plea was not rendered involuntary by the state's retraction of pretrial detention credit, as he failed to demonstrate prejudice from the alleged misinformation or omission.
• Monroe v. Collins
  951 F.2d 49· 5th Cir.· 1992-01-03 ·cited 2×
  The court held that brief, isolated, and substantially correct comments about parole by jurors, even if violating state law, do not necessarily rise to the level of a federal constitutional violation warranting habeas relief.
• Reese v. Fulcomer
  946 F.2d 247· 3d Cir.· 1991-10-15 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court did not err in relying on state court findings for ineffective assistance of counsel claims, as the underlying facts were supported by the record and the petitioner failed to rebut the presumption of correctness.
• Jones v. Murray
  947 F.2d 1106· 4th Cir.· 1991-10-01 ·cited 2×·via 28 U.S.C. § 2254(D) Presumption Of Correctness For State Court Findings
  The court affirmed the denial of the habeas corpus petition, finding no constitutional error in the denial of the petition or the underlying state court judgment.
• Dante Todaro # AJ-1779 v. Fulcomer
  944 F.2d 1079· 3d Cir.· 1991-09-10 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the state trial court's fact-finding procedure afforded the defendant a full and fair hearing, and the district court did not err in denying an evidentiary hearing on the habeas corpus petition.
• Leichman v. Sec'y, La. Dep't OF Corr.
  939 F.2d 315· 5th Cir.· 1991-08-23 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the systematic exclusion of women from jury service violated the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments, entitling the appellant to relief.
• Evans v. Denis Dowd
  932 F.2d 739· 8th Cir.· 1991-05-08 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the confession was not involuntary and affirmed the dismissal of the habeas corpus petition.
• Lahay v. Armontrout
  923 F.2d 578· 8th Cir.· 1991-01-09 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the habeas petition without an evidentiary hearing, as circumstances cast doubt on the reliability of state court findings.
• Capps v. Sullivan
  921 F.2d 260· 10th Cir.· 1990-12-10 ·cited 2×
  The court held that defense counsel's strategy of pursuing jury nullification instead of an entrapment defense, despite evidence supporting it, constituted ineffective assistance of counsel, and the new evidence presented satisfied the prejudice prong for habeas relief.
• Ford v. A.L. Lockhart
  904 F.2d 458· 8th Cir.· 1990-06-04 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the defendant received effective assistance of counsel and his guilty plea was voluntary, knowing, and intelligent.
• Wilton Howell v. W.R. Barker
  904 F.2d 889· 4th Cir.· 1990-05-24 ·cited 2×
  A defendant seeking due process relief for preindictment delay must prove actual prejudice, after which the court balances the prejudice against the government's justification for the delay.
• Harriman v. Lynn
  901 F.2d 64· 5th Cir.· 1990-05-15 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the Supreme Court's decision in Arizona v. Roberson, which prohibited further interrogation after a suspect invokes the right to counsel, announced a "new rule" and therefore does not apply retroactively to cases on collateral review where the conviction was f
• Smith v. Honorable Richard J. Cadagin
  902 F.2d 553· 7th Cir.· 1990-05-14 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the prosecutor's cross-examination about the defendant's characterization of the incident did not violate Doyle v. Ohio because the defendant had made post-arrest statements about the event, and the questioning sought an explanation for an arguably inconsisten
• Henderson v. Smith
  903 F.2d 534· 8th Cir.· 1990-05-09 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a defendant in state court can validly waive their Sixth Amendment right to conflict-free counsel without an on-the-record inquiry, provided the waiver is knowing, voluntary, and intelligent.
• Butzin v. Wood
  886 F.2d 1016· 8th Cir.· 1989-09-26 ·cited 2×·via Presumption Of Correctness Of State Court Factual Determinations
  The court held that the suspect's confession was not the product of interrogation requiring full Miranda warnings because he initiated the conversation and the statements were volunteered.
• Paster v. Lynaugh
  876 F.2d 1184· 5th Cir.· 1989-06-27 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the petitioner's claims were procedurally barred or unsupported by the record, and thus denied his motions for a certificate of probable cause and a stay of execution.
• Patino v. State OF S.D.
  851 F.2d 1118· 8th Cir.· 1988-07-19 ·cited 2×
  The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the § 1983 complaints, finding that the plaintiff failed to adequately identify the officers responsible for his alleged unlawful extradition and that his claim regarding presentence jail time was barred by a prior state court
• Cannon v. A.L. Lockhart
  850 F.2d 437· 8th Cir.· 1988-06-28 ·cited 2×·via 28 U.S.C. § 2254(D) Presumption Of Correctness For State Court Findings
  The court held that a new trial requires demonstrating that a juror failed to honestly answer a material question on voir dire and that a correct answer would have provided a basis for a challenge for cause.
• Vinston v. A.L. Lockhart
  850 F.2d 420· 8th Cir.· 1988-06-24 ·cited 2×·via Deference To State Court Findings
  The court affirmed the denial of the habeas corpus petition, finding the Sixth Amendment jury claim was procedurally defaulted and the identification procedures were not impermissibly suggestive.
• Sellers v. Morris
  840 F.2d 352· 6th Cir.· 1988-02-26 ·cited 2×·via 28 U.S.C. § 2254(D) Presumption Of Correctness
• Winfrey v. Wyrick
  836 F.2d 406· 8th Cir.· 1988-02-17 ·cited 2×
  A confession is voluntary if obtained in a manner compatible with constitutional requirements, considering the totality of the circumstances, even if the defendant has diminished mental capacity, as long as there is no evidence of state coercion.
• Sterling Williams v. A.L. Lockhart
  837 F.2d 324· 8th Cir.· 1988-01-19 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court correctly dismissed the habeas corpus application because the appellant's guilty pleas were voluntary and his sentences did not violate the double jeopardy clause.
• Holsclaw v. Smith
  822 F.2d 1041· 11th Cir.· 1987-07-29 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the petitioner's trial counsel's failure to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence constituted ineffective assistance of counsel, entitling him to relief.
• Nichols v. E.P. Perini
  818 F.2d 554· 6th Cir.· 1987-05-12 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the state court's factual finding that the petitioner was aware of the maximum sentence was entitled to deference under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) and was not overcome by the evidence presented.
• Oviedo v. Jago
  809 F.2d 326· 6th Cir.· 1987-01-21 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the juvenile court's reliance on facts and information not formally introduced into evidence at a transfer hearing did not violate the petitioner's federal due process rights, as the state court had found all relevant criteria were considered.
• Woolls v. O.L. McCOTTER
  798 F.2d 695· 5th Cir.· 1986-08-14 ·cited 2×
  The court denied the appellant's motion for a certificate of probable cause, finding no substantial showing of the denial of a federal right, and dismissed the appeal.
• Harris v. Rees
  794 F.2d 1168· 6th Cir.· 1986-07-16 ·cited 2×
  The court held that denying an indigent defendant's statutory right to appeal solely because his family could afford trial counsel violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
• Roscoe Cotton v. Armontrout
  784 F.2d 320· 8th Cir.· 1986-02-18 ·cited 2×·via Deference To State Court Findings
  The court held that suggestive pretrial identification procedures did not create a substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification, and the jury was adequately instructed on eyewitness identification.
• Brown v. Louie L. Wainwright
  772 F.2d 780· 11th Cir.· 1985-09-30 ·cited 2×
  A federal court granting a writ of habeas corpus must explain why the statutory presumption of correctness of state court findings does not apply. The district court's order granting the writ is vacated and remanded for specific findings.
• Claudio Fernandez v. Rodriguez
  761 F.2d 558· 10th Cir.· 1985-04-04 ·cited 2×·via Deference To State Court Findings
  The admission of polygraph test results, which are testimonial communications, in a criminal trial cannot be harmless error if the confession was involuntary or if the error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
• Hollis G. Byrd v. McKASKLE
  733 F.2d 1133· 5th Cir.· 1984-06-08 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the appellant's claims of prosecutorial vindictiveness, due process violation regarding prior conviction evidence, and improper testimony by former jurors lacked merit or were not properly preserved for appeal.
• Brantley v. McKASKLE
  722 F.2d 187· 5th Cir.· 1984-01-03 ·cited 2×
  The federal court must defer to state court findings of fact unless clearly erroneous, but may independently review conclusions of law regarding confession voluntariness.
• Smith v. A.L. Lockhart
  697 F.2d 267· 8th Cir.· 1983-01-12 ·cited 2×
• Royal v. Wyrick
  694 F.2d 525· 8th Cir.· 1982-12-07 ·cited 2×
  The court affirmed the dismissal of Royal's claims without prejudice, but the concurring judge disagreed with the majority's reasoning on exhaustion of state remedies.
• Shriner v. Wainwright
  570 F. Supp. 766· N.D. Fla.· 1982-04-20 ·cited 2×
  The court denied the petition for a writ of habeas corpus and the application for a stay of execution, finding no constitutional violations in the petitioner's conviction or sentence.