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

• Ruff v. Kincheloe
  843 F.2d 1240· 9th Cir.· 1988-04-08 ·cited 8×·via Presumption Of Correctness Of State Court Factual Determinations
  A district court must review the entire state court record to determine if a constitutional error in jury instructions was harmless, and has a duty to obtain the record if not provided by the parties.
• Chappee v. Vose
  843 F.2d 25· 1st Cir.· 1988-03-28 ·cited 8×·via Deference To State Court Findings
  The court held that the preclusion of defense expert testimony was a constitutionally permissible sanction for a deliberate and prejudicial discovery violation, even if less severe sanctions were theoretically available.
• Estock v. Lane
  842 F.2d 184· 7th Cir.· 1988-03-16 ·cited 8×·via 28 U.S.C. § 2254(D) Presumption Of Correctness
  The court held that the district court properly granted the writ of habeas corpus because the state court's finding of no bona fide doubt as to the petitioner's competence was not supported by the record.
• Jeffers v. Ricketts
  832 F.2d 476· 9th Cir.· 1987-11-09 ·cited 8×·via 28 U.S.C. § 2254(D) Presumption Of Correctness
  The Arizona Supreme Court's construction of A.R.S. § 13-703(F)(6) to find aggravating circumstances was not unconstitutional, and federal courts should apply a deferential standard of review to such findings.
• United States ex rel. Alonzo Lewis v. Lane
  822 F.2d 703· 7th Cir.· 1987-06-17 ·cited 8×·via Deference To State Court Findings
  The court held that the petitioner failed to present substantial facts to doubt his competency, and therefore, the restoration hearing procedures were adequate and the conviction stands.
• Hall v. A.L. Lockhart
  806 F.2d 165· 8th Cir.· 1986-11-25 ·cited 8×
  The court should afford Hall an evidentiary hearing on his claim of newly discovered evidence.
• Kealohapauole v. Edwin Shimoda and the Attorney General
  800 F.2d 1463· 9th Cir.· 1986-09-29 ·cited 8×
  The admission of an autopsy videotape, even if unpleasant, does not violate due process if it is probative of the cause of death and not unduly inflammatory, especially when presented clinically with expert testimony.
• Phillips v. A.I. Murphy and Michael Turpen
  796 F.2d 1303· 10th Cir.· 1986-07-16 ·cited 8×
  The court held that a federal evidentiary hearing was not required because the petitioner's claims were incredible and unsupported by specifics, and the state court's findings of historical fact were entitled to a presumption of correctness. The court also held that the failure t
• Bennett v. Scroggy
  793 F.2d 772· 6th Cir.· 1986-06-19 ·cited 8×·via 28 U.S.C. § 2254(D) Presumption Of Correctness For State Court Findings
  The Sixth Circuit held that the trial court's denial of a continuance to secure a witness violated the appellant's Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights, warranting a grant of habeas corpus relief.
• United States ex rel. Rickie Cole v. Lane
  793 F.2d 155· 7th Cir.· 1986-06-11 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court erred in applying 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) to the ultimate issue of confession voluntariness, which is a question of law, not a finding of fact. The case must be reexamined in light of Miller v. Fenton.
• Esquivel v. O.L. McCOTTER
  791 F.2d 350· 5th Cir.· 1986-06-07 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the Batson v. Kentucky rule should not be applied retroactively to federal habeas proceedings, and vacated the district court's stay of execution.
• Cola v. Reardon
  787 F.2d 681· 1st Cir.· 1986-03-26 ·cited 8×·via 28 U.S.C. § 2254(D) Presumption Of Correctness
  The court held that the conviction was fundamentally unfair due to inadequate notice in the bill of particulars and jury instructions.
• Bailey v. Procunier
  744 F.2d 1166· 5th Cir.· 1984-10-29 ·cited 8×
  The court affirmed the denial of federal habeas corpus relief, finding no violation of due process from the admission of evidence regarding the victim's will, the alleged withholding of exculpatory evidence, or the jury charge.
• Rowe v. A.L. Lockhart
  736 F.2d 457· 8th Cir.· 1984-06-06 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court correctly denied the habeas corpus petition because the lineup identification was not unconstitutional and the rule of lenity did not apply to the sentencing issue.
• Carrillo v. Perkins
  723 F.2d 1165· 5th Cir.· 1984-01-30 ·cited 8×
  A restriction on cross-examination of a prosecution witness regarding potential bias, even if it violates the Sixth Amendment's confrontation clause, can be harmless error if other evidence of guilt is overwhelming.
• Nelson v. Callahan
  721 F.2d 397· 1st Cir.· 1983-11-14 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the petitioner's guilty plea to second-degree murder was voluntary and intelligent, but his plea to sodomy was not, affirming the district court's partial grant of habeas corpus relief.
• United States v. DeROBERTIS
  718 F.2d 209· 7th Cir.· 1983-08-17 ·cited 8×
  The court held that summary judgment was inappropriate because a genuine issue of material fact existed regarding whether the state trial judge promised a specific sentence in exchange for the guilty plea.
• Birt v. Montgomery
  709 F.2d 690· 11th Cir.· 1983-07-11 ·cited 8×
• Bishop v. Rose
  701 F.2d 1150· 6th Cir.· 1983-03-08 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the state's acquisition and use of a defendant's confidential statement prepared for his attorney violated the Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel, and this violation was not harmless error.
• Mata v. Sumner
  696 F.2d 1244· 9th Cir.· 1983-01-20 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the pretrial photographic identification procedures used were so impermissibly suggestive as to create a substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification, violating the defendant's due process rights.
• Lamar v. Fred Banks
  684 F.2d 714· 11th Cir.· 1982-08-26 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the Georgia 'fighting words' statute is not facially unconstitutional, but reversed and remanded for an evidentiary hearing on whether it was unconstitutionally applied.
• Williford v. Estelle
  672 F.2d 552· 5th Cir.· 1982-04-09 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the petitioner knowingly and intelligently waived his right to counsel, and the Louisiana conviction was not void.
• Pennington v. Housewright
  666 F.2d 329· 8th Cir.· 1981-12-16 ·cited 8×
• Johnson v. Wyrick
  653 F.2d 1234· 8th Cir.· 1981-07-20 ·cited 8×·via 28 U.S.C. § 2254(D) Presumption Of Correctness For State Court Findings
  The court held that the district court correctly denied the petition for a writ of habeas corpus, affirming the denial of relief.
• Alexander v. Smith
  582 F.2d 212· 2d Cir.· 1978-08-07 ·cited 8×
  The court affirmed the denial of the habeas corpus petition, holding that the petitioner's confession was voluntary and not obtained in violation of his Fifth or Sixth Amendment rights.
• Howard v. Maggio
  540 F.2d 1280· 5th Cir.· 1976-10-22 ·cited 8×
  The court affirmed the denial of habeas relief, finding no constitutional violations in the state court proceedings.
• Banda v. Estelle
  519 F.2d 1057· 5th Cir.· 1975-09-19 ·cited 8×
  The federal district court did not err in denying the habeas petition without an independent evidentiary hearing, as the state habeas hearing was full and fair.
• Bowman v. Louie L. Wainwright
  460 F.2d 1298· 5th Cir.· 1972-06-01 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the petitioner deliberately bypassed available state court remedies by failing to raise his intoxication claim at trial or on direct appeal, thus forfeiting his right to federal habeas corpus relief.
• United States ex rel. Dominick Sabella v. Hon. H. W. Follette
  432 F.2d 572· 2d Cir.· 1970-10-13 ·cited 8×
  The court affirmed the denial of the habeas corpus petition, finding no constitutional error in the state court convictions.
• Adams v. R.S. Peterson
  968 F.2d 835· 9th Cir.· 1992-06-24 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the majority's distinction between de jure and de facto guilty pleas, focusing on labels rather than substance, is flawed and undermines constitutional protections.
• Michael Hardy Bros. v. Dowdle
  817 F.2d 1388· 9th Cir.· 1987-05-21 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the state court's identification procedure was not so suggestive as to violate due process and affirmed the denial of ineffective assistance of counsel claims, but remanded for further examination of sentencing issues.
• Siers v. Ryan
  773 F.2d 37· 3d Cir.· 1985-09-20 ·cited 7×
  A guilty plea induced by the fear of a heavier sentence if a jury trial is chosen, or by the perceived leniency of a judge in a non-jury trial, does not render the plea involuntary or unconstitutional, provided it is made intelligently and with competent legal advice.
• Williams v. Crispus NIX
  700 F.2d 1164· 8th Cir.· 1983-01-10 ·cited 7×
  The court denied the petition for rehearing, adhering to its prior ruling that the State must prove a lack of bad faith to invoke the inevitable-discovery exception to the exclusionary rule.
• Jefferson v. Upton
  11th Cir.· 2010-05-24 ·cited 6×
  The Court of Appeals did not err in its application of 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) and the issue decided by the Supreme Court was not raised by the parties below.
• Markham Duff-Smith v. Collins
  973 F.2d 1175· 5th Cir.· 1992-09-17 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a federal habeas petitioner is not entitled to relief based on claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, procedural default, insufficient evidence, or improper use of evidence, as these claims were either procedurally barred, lacked merit, or were based on
• Roberts v. Singletary
  794 F. Supp. 1106· S.D. Fla.· 1992-06-05 ·cited 6×·via 28 U.S.C. § 2254(D) Presumption Of Correctness
  The court held that the exclusion of evidence regarding the victim's prior sexual history was not a constitutional violation because the defense theory was not presented at trial and the defendant denied making the statement at issue. The court also found no ineffective assistanc
• Robert v. Black, Jr.
  962 F.2d 394· 5th Cir.· 1992-05-21 ·cited 6×
  The court denied the application for a certificate of probable cause and the motion for a stay of execution.
• Ellis v. Collins
  956 F.2d 76· 5th Cir.· 1992-03-03 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a petitioner seeking federal habeas relief based on newly discovered evidence of actual innocence must demonstrate that a constitutional violation prevented them from presenting this evidence earlier, and that claims not raised in the first federal habeas peti
• Dickie Cokeley v. A.L. Lockhart
  951 F.2d 916· 8th Cir.· 1991-12-20 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the conviction for rape was not fundamentally unfair despite a variance between the charge and the jury instruction, as the evidence supported guilt under either method defined by the statute.
• Pharr v. Gudmanson
  951 F.2d 117· 7th Cir.· 1991-12-16 ·cited 6×
  A confession is not rendered involuntary by a misunderstanding of collateral consequences or the silence of an officer regarding charges outside the scope of a non-prosecution agreement.
• Burton v. Johnson
  948 F.2d 1150· 10th Cir.· 1991-11-01 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the majority opinion created an erroneous rule of constitutional law by presuming juror bias based on past abuse and alleged dishonesty, rather than requiring proof of fixed opinions preventing impartial judgment.
• Ouimette v. Moran
  942 F.2d 1· 1st Cir.· 1991-08-06 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the state prosecutor's failure to disclose the extensive criminal record and deals made with a key witness violated the petitioner's due process rights under Brady v. Maryland.
• Purvis v. Dugger
  932 F.2d 1413· 11th Cir.· 1991-06-10 ·cited 6×
  The dissenting judge would grant the writ of habeas corpus, finding that the admission of Purvis's confession violated Miranda, either due to custody issues or the improper admission of details obtained after custody began.
• Webb v. Lane
  922 F.2d 390· 7th Cir.· 1991-01-08 ·cited 6×·via Presumption Of Correctness Of State Court Factual Determinations
  The admission of the victim's statements, identified as 'Little Gage,' did not violate the Confrontation Clause because they qualified as excited utterances and a dying declaration, which are firmly rooted hearsay exceptions.
• Bumgarner v. A.L. Lockhart
  920 F.2d 510· 8th Cir.· 1990-12-03 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the confinement prior to trial did not interfere with the defendant's ability to prepare his defense or obtain counsel, and that his waiver of counsel was knowing and intelligent.
• Coleman v. Saffle
  912 F.2d 1217· 10th Cir.· 1990-08-28 ·cited 6×
  The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the denial of post-conviction relief, holding that the petitioner's claims regarding competency and fair trial were previously litigated and that newly discovered evidence was insufficient to warrant relief.
• Derrick v. R.S. Peterson
  924 F.2d 813· 9th Cir.· 1990-08-28 ·cited 6×·via 28 U.S.C. § 2254(D) Presumption Of Correctness
  The court held that Derrick's confession was voluntary under the Fourteenth Amendment and his Miranda waiver was knowing and intelligent, affirming the denial of his habeas corpus petition.
• Clark v. Commonwealth OF Pa.
  892 F.2d 1142· 3d Cir.· 1989-12-27 ·cited 6×·via 28 U.S.C. § 2254(D) Presumption Of Correctness For State Court Findings
  The court held that the 1974 convictions, obtained without a required juvenile certification hearing, were constitutionally infirm and should not have been considered in sentencing for the 1979 conviction.
• Mayo v. Lynaugh
  882 F.2d 134· 5th Cir.· 1989-06-30 ·cited 6×·via 28 U.S.C. § 2254(D) Presumption Of Correctness
  The court held that the prisoner's constitutional rights were not violated and affirmed the denial of his habeas corpus petition.
• Frank v. Brookhart
  877 F.2d 671· 8th Cir.· 1989-06-09 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the petitioner failed to establish grounds for habeas corpus relief, as the state courts' factual findings were supported by the record and the petitioner did not demonstrate prejudice from alleged prosecutorial misconduct, ineffective assistance of counsel, o