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

• Hawkman v. Parratt
  661 F.2d 1161· 8th Cir.· 1981-10-14 ·cited 36×·via 28 U.S.C. § 2254(D) Presumption Of Correctness
  The court held that a defendant's attorney's failure to adequately investigate facts, inform the defendant of charges and consequences, and initiate plea negotiations constitutes ineffective assistance of counsel, warranting habeas corpus relief.
• Maes v. Patterson
  401 F.2d 200· 10th Cir.· 1968-10-02 ·cited 36×·via 28 U.S.C. § 2254(D) Presumption Of Correctness
  A federal court cannot summarily dismiss a state prisoner's habeas corpus petition without independently reviewing the state court's record and determining if due process was observed.
• Bundy v. Louie L. Wainwright
  808 F.2d 1410· 11th Cir.· 1987-01-15 ·cited 35×·via 28 U.S.C. § 2254(D) Presumption Of Correctness
  The district court erred in denying the habeas corpus petition and stay of execution, and its judgment must be reversed and remanded for proper consideration of the constitutional issues.
• Lincoln v. Franklin Y.K. Sunn
  807 F.2d 805· 9th Cir.· 1987-01-06 ·cited 35×·via 28 U.S.C. § 2254(D) Presumption Of Correctness
  The court held that the district court erred in denying habeas corpus relief without an evidentiary hearing and lacked sufficient findings to affirm the denial. The court reversed and remanded for further proceedings on prosecutorial misconduct and notice issues.
• Hayes v. Kincheloe
  784 F.2d 1434· 9th Cir.· 1986-03-19 ·cited 35×·via 28 U.S.C. § 2254(D) Presumption Of Correctness For State Court Findings
  A guilty plea is involuntary if the defendant does not receive actual notice of the true nature of the charge against him or possess an understanding of the law in relation to the facts.
• Ross v. Kemp
  756 F.2d 1483· 11th Cir.· 1985-03-25 ·cited 35×·via 28 U.S.C. § 2254(D) Presumption Of Correctness
• United States ex rel. Sidney Foster v. DeROBERTIS
  741 F.2d 1007· 7th Cir.· 1984-08-16 ·cited 35×
  The court held that the district court correctly denied the habeas corpus petition, finding no constitutional error in the state court proceedings regarding competency, sufficiency of evidence, or evidentiary rulings.
• United States ex rel. William Stanbridge v. Zelker
  514 F.2d 45· 2d Cir.· 1975-04-15 ·cited 35×
  The court held that the district judge erred in granting a writ of habeas corpus based on the Bruton rule, as the confessions of co-defendants interlocked and did not violate the petitioner's Sixth Amendment rights. The court affirmed the denial of the other habeas corpus claims.
• Agan v. Dugger
  835 F.2d 1337· 11th Cir.· 1987-12-30 ·cited 34×·via 28 U.S.C. § 2254(D) Presumption Of Correctness
  The court held that the inmate's claims of incompetence and ineffective assistance of counsel warranted an evidentiary hearing, which had not been provided by the state court.
• Agee v. J.D. White
  809 F.2d 1487· 11th Cir.· 1987-02-13 ·cited 34×
  The court held that a confession obtained after an illegal arrest is admissible if the taint of the arrest is sufficiently attenuated by intervening circumstances, and that a suspect's subjective belief of immunity, absent police misrepresentation, does not render a Miranda waive
• Hitchcock v. Louie L. Wainwright
  745 F.2d 1332· 11th Cir.· 1984-10-18 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the petitioner's counsel's belief about the limitations on mitigating evidence was reasonable at the time, and the petitioner was not denied an individualized sentencing hearing. The court also held that the death sentence was not imposed as punishment for ref
• Conner v. Wingo
  429 F.2d 630· 6th Cir.· 1970-06-05 ·cited 34×·via Deference To State Court Findings
  The dissenting judge would hold that the trial judge's awareness of the petitioner's mental state and behavior created a bona fide doubt regarding his competence to stand trial, necessitating a sua sponte inquiry.
• Allen v. State OF Ala.
  728 F.2d 1384· 11th Cir.· 1984-04-02 ·cited 33×·via 28 U.S.C. § 2254(D) Presumption Of Correctness For State Court Findings
  The court held that a federal district court must grant an evidentiary hearing to a habeas applicant when the merits of the factual dispute were not resolved in the state hearing, and the state factual determination is not fairly supported by the record.
• Shuler v. Louie L. Wainwright
  491 F.2d 1213· 5th Cir.· 1974-03-27 ·cited 33×
  The court held that the district court erred in granting habeas corpus relief based on the alleged faking of footprint casts, as the state court's findings were supported by substantial evidence. The court also found that the failure to voluntarily disclose the victim's statement
• Cordova v. Collins
  953 F.2d 167· 5th Cir.· 1992-01-21 ·cited 32×
• Daugherty v. Dugger
  839 F.2d 1426· 11th Cir.· 1988-02-12 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the appellant failed to demonstrate prejudice from his counsel's alleged ineffectiveness regarding a jury instruction and the failure to present psychiatric testimony, and that his claim regarding prosecutorial discretion was procedurally barred.
• Wingo v. Blackburn
  783 F.2d 1046· 5th Cir.· 1986-02-24 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the state court's finding of specific intent to kill was supported by the evidence and that Wingo's other constitutional claims lacked merit.
• Green v. Zant
  715 F.2d 551· 11th Cir.· 1983-09-19 ·cited 32×
  The court held that material facts pertaining to the petitioner's federal constitutional claim were not adequately developed in the state court, necessitating an evidentiary hearing and findings of fact.
• Brooks v. Francis
  716 F.2d 780· 11th Cir.· 1983-09-15 ·cited 32×
  The court held that while prosecutorial misconduct occurred during the sentencing phase, it did not render the guilt phase fundamentally unfair. However, the misconduct during sentencing was so prejudicial that it denied the defendant a fair sentencing hearing.
• Hines v. Enomoto
  658 F.2d 667· 9th Cir.· 1981-10-05 ·cited 32×
  The majority's conclusion that the state's inadvertent provision of fewer peremptory challenges than statutorily required violates the Due Process Clause is foreclosed by Supreme Court precedent.
• Linroy Davis v. Heyd
  479 F.2d 446· 5th Cir.· 1973-05-29 ·cited 32×
  The majority opinion, which the dissent disagrees with, found that factual inconsistencies in witness statements presented a question of law, potentially requiring a retrial of the state conviction.
• Cikora v. Dugger
  840 F.2d 893· 11th Cir.· 1988-03-25 ·cited 31×
  The court held that the standard of review for the district court's conclusion on identification procedure suggestiveness is 'clearly erroneous'.
• Hobbs v. Blackburn
  752 F.2d 1079· 5th Cir.· 1985-02-14 ·cited 31×
  A guilty plea is valid if entered voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently, even if the state trial judge fails to explain all elements or lesser included offenses, provided the defendant understood the charge and consequences.
• Shaw v. Martin
  733 F.2d 304· 4th Cir.· 1984-04-26 ·cited 31×
  The court affirmed the denial of habeas corpus relief, finding no merit in claims of judicial bias, improper denial of an evidentiary hearing, or invalidity of the guilty plea.
• Buxton v. Lynaugh
  879 F.2d 140· 5th Cir.· 1989-07-21 ·cited 30×·via 28 U.S.C. § 2254(D) Presumption Of Correctness
  The state court's determination of a factual issue based solely on conflicting affidavits, without an evidentiary hearing, was not adequate to afford a full and fair hearing as required by 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2).
• Bryan v. Warden, Ind. State Reformatory
  820 F.2d 217· 7th Cir.· 1987-05-15 ·cited 30×·via 28 U.S.C. § 2254(D) Presumption Of Correctness
  The court held that the voluntariness of a Miranda waiver is a factual determination entitled to deference under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), and that the appellant waived his due process claim by failing to raise it on rehearing.
• Fields v. Wyrick
  682 F.2d 154· 8th Cir.· 1982-04-23 ·cited 30×·via Presumption Of Correctness Of State Court Factual Determinations
  A defendant's waiver of counsel for a polygraph examination does not extend to subsequent post-test interrogation, and the government must prove a knowing and intelligent waiver for such interrogation.
• In re Parker
  423 F.2d 1021· 8th Cir.· 1970-03-23 ·cited 30×
  The federal court erred in granting habeas corpus relief because it failed to give presumptive weight to the state court's factual findings, and the petitioner did not provide convincing evidence to overcome this presumption.
• Streetman v. Lynaugh
  812 F.2d 950· 5th Cir.· 1987-03-09 ·cited 29×
  The court held that the facts relevant to the petitioner's ineffective assistance of counsel claim were not adequately developed in state court, requiring a remand for an evidentiary hearing.
• United States ex rel. James L. Worlow v. Pate
  411 F.2d 972· 7th Cir.· 1969-06-10 ·cited 29×·via Deference To State Court Findings
  The district court erred in denying habeas corpus petitions without compelling the state court record to determine if petitioners received a full and fair hearing.
• Adkins v. Warden, Holman CF, Comm'r, Ala. Dep't of Corr.
  710 F.3d 1241· 11th Cir.· 2013-02-27 ·cited 28×·via Presumption Of Correctness Of State Court Factual Determinations
  The Court of Criminal Appeals' decision did not adjudicate a federal constitutional claim on the merits, but rather a state law claim arising from its application of the plain error doctrine. Therefore, federal habeas relief under AEDPA is not warranted.
• Tinsley v. Borg
  895 F.2d 520· 9th Cir.· 1990-01-19 ·cited 28×·via Deference To State Court Findings
  A juror's prior professional experience counseling a rape victim, without more, does not create implied bias sufficient to warrant a new trial, especially when the state courts found no actual bias and the juror testified to impartiality.
• Uresti v. James
  821 F.2d 1099· 5th Cir.· 1987-07-17 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the petitioner's guilty plea was voluntary and counsel was not ineffective, and that the indictment was sufficient and the confession claim was unsupported.
• Davis v. Wyrick
  766 F.2d 1197· 8th Cir.· 1985-06-28 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the petitioner is not entitled to habeas corpus relief because his claims regarding competency, prosecutorial misconduct, insufficient evidence, trial court bias, and jury selection lack merit or are unexhausted.
• Schwander v. Blackburn
  750 F.2d 494· 5th Cir.· 1985-01-17 ·cited 28×
  The court held that an incomplete trial transcript did not deny a meaningful appeal and that the petitioner received effective assistance of counsel at trial and on appeal.
• Alderman v. Austin
  695 F.2d 124· 5th Cir.· 1983-01-10 ·cited 28×
• Maxwell v. Sumner
  673 F.2d 1031· 9th Cir.· 1982-02-25 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the state prisoner was not barred from federal habeas relief because the state courts denied his self-representation claim on the merits, not on a procedural default, and that the right to self-representation existed at the time of his trial, with his conduct
• Bramlett v. A.L. Lockhart
  876 F.2d 644· 8th Cir.· 1989-06-01 ·cited 27×
  The court held that the petitioner failed to demonstrate ineffective assistance of counsel or that his confession and guilty plea were involuntary, thus affirming the denial of his habeas corpus petition.
• Chaney v. Lewis
  801 F.2d 1191· 9th Cir.· 1986-10-09 ·cited 27×·via 28 U.S.C. § 2254(D) Presumption Of Correctness
  The court held that a district court must independently review the state court record for mixed questions of fact and law in habeas corpus petitions, but not for purely factual or purely legal questions. Counsel should be appointed in death penalty habeas cases on remand due to c
• Ross v. Kemp
  785 F.2d 1467· 11th Cir.· 1986-03-20 ·cited 27×
  The court held that the Murphy deposition should be added to the record on appeal, but the Cole deposition should not. The court remanded the issue of the 1984 affidavits to the district court to determine if the failure to present them earlier was inexcusable neglect.
• Love v. Young
  781 F.2d 1307· 7th Cir.· 1986-01-27 ·cited 27×
  The court held that the identification procedures were not unduly suggestive and that the admission of the defendant's statements to Detective Lombardo did not violate his Sixth Amendment right to counsel because he validly waived that right.
• Austad v. Risley
  761 F.2d 1348· 9th Cir.· 1985-05-23 ·cited 27×
  A federal habeas court is not required to sua sponte obtain state court record exhibits if the petitioner has not produced them or demonstrated an inability to do so.
• Evans v. Meyer
  742 F.2d 371· 7th Cir.· 1984-08-23 ·cited 26×
  A lawyer is not required to advise a client of every theoretically possible but practically hopeless defense, and failure to do so does not render a guilty plea involuntary or constitute ineffective assistance of counsel if prejudice cannot be shown.
• Winford v. Swenson
  517 F.2d 1114· 8th Cir.· 1975-06-04 ·cited 26×
• Maglaya v. Buchkoe
  515 F.2d 265· 6th Cir.· 1975-04-21 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the defendant may have been deprived of effective assistance of counsel due to counsel's failure to investigate and present critical evidence regarding the prosecution's key witness's mental condition.
• Nat Villiam Wright v. State OF N.C. & David Henry
  483 F.2d 405· 4th Cir.· 1973-08-02 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the Miranda warning given was constitutionally adequate and the petitioner's statement was voluntarily made, thus affirming the dismissal of his habeas petition.
• Andersen v. Thieret
  903 F.2d 526· 7th Cir.· 1990-06-05 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the petitioner's confession was voluntary and that the admission of his statements did not violate Miranda, affirming the denial of his habeas petition.
• Lundy v. Donal Campbell and Charles W. Burson
  888 F.2d 467· 6th Cir.· 1989-11-01 ·cited 24×·via Deference To State Court Findings
  The court held that while the trial court erred in limiting cross-examination, the cumulative effect of the alleged errors did not render the trial fundamentally unfair, and thus, habeas relief was not warranted.
• Case v. Eloy Mondragon
  887 F.2d 1388· 10th Cir.· 1989-10-25 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the state trial court did not violate Case's constitutional rights by refusing to conduct a post-verdict voir dire of the jury based on equivocal allegations of misconduct. The court also held that the denial of a continuance for a witness whose testimony was
• Dickson v. G.E. Sullivan
  849 F.2d 403· 9th Cir.· 1988-06-13 ·cited 24×
  The court held that a deputy sheriff's statement to two jurors that the defendant had "done something like this before" created a reasonable possibility of prejudice, requiring reversal of the habeas corpus denial.