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

• Brown v. McGINNIS
  922 F.2d 425· 7th Cir.· 1991-01-15 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the petitioner failed to show prejudice from his counsel's failure to recall the victim, as her testimony would have been damaging to his defense.
• Bradley v. Meachum
  918 F.2d 338· 2d Cir.· 1990-11-02 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the defendant did not invoke his right to remain silent and that prosecutorial misconduct during summation did not cause substantial prejudice, nor was the jury charge on mistake of fact attempt improper.
• Rainer v. Dep't OF Corr.
  914 F.2d 1067· 8th Cir.· 1990-09-19 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the admission of prior bad acts evidence and the state investigator's involvement in defense expert testing did not violate the defendant's constitutional rights.
• Micheaux v. Collins
  911 F.2d 1083· 5th Cir.· 1990-09-17 ·cited 4×·via 28 U.S.C. § 2254(D) Presumption Of Correctness
  The court held that a state court's finding that a petitioner would not have pleaded guilty if properly admonished is a factual finding entitled to a presumption of correctness under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), and that a federal court cannot disregard such findings by labeling them mix
• Ingrassia v. Armontrout
  902 F.2d 1368· 8th Cir.· 1990-05-15 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court properly applied the presumption of correctness to state court findings and that the petitioner's guilty plea was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent, and he received effective assistance of counsel.
• Galowski v. Murphy
  891 F.2d 629· 7th Cir.· 1989-12-14 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the petitioner was not denied effective assistance of counsel and affirmed the district court's denial of the habeas corpus petition.
• Smith v. Jago
  888 F.2d 399· 6th Cir.· 1989-10-20 ·cited 4×
  The Sixth Circuit held that the district court erred by failing to defer to state court findings of fact and by applying an improper standard of prejudice. The court found the state court's factual determinations were supported by the record and that the defendant failed to demon
• Hamblen v. Dugger
  719 F. Supp. 1051· M.D. Fla.· 1989-07-10 ·cited 4×
  The court denied the petition for a writ of habeas corpus and the motion for a stay of execution, finding no merit in the petitioner's claims of error.
• Buck v. Green
  874 F.2d 1578· 11th Cir.· 1989-06-13 ·cited 4×
  The court held that state courts did resolve the merits of the factual dispute regarding jury discrimination by finding the evidence unsubstantiated, thus the presumption of correctness under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1) should apply.
• Dung Thai Tran v. A.L. Lockhart
  849 F.2d 1064· 8th Cir.· 1988-06-13 ·cited 4×·via 28 U.S.C. § 2254(D) Presumption Of Correctness
  The dissenting judge would vacate the judgment dismissing the writ and remand for an evidentiary hearing.
• Brooks v. Kincheloe
  848 F.2d 940· 9th Cir.· 1988-05-25 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the Sixth Amendment right to counsel was not violated because the jailhouse informant was not a government agent acting to deliberately elicit incriminating statements.
• Escalera v. Coombe
  826 F.2d 185· 2d Cir.· 1987-08-13 ·cited 4×·via 28 U.S.C. § 2254(D) Presumption Of Correctness
  The court held that precluding an alibi witness solely as a sanction for noncompliance with notice statutes, absent a showing of substantial prejudice, violates the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments, and that the district court erred in failing to review the sufficiency of evidenti
• Meadows v. Kuhlmann
  812 F.2d 72· 2d Cir.· 1987-02-20 ·cited 4×
  Any error in admitting the lineup identification and the defendant's incriminating statements for impeachment was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt due to overwhelming evidence of guilt.
• Wang v. Withworth
  811 F.2d 952· 6th Cir.· 1987-02-11 ·cited 4×
  The dissenting judge would deny the writ of habeas corpus, finding that the trial judge's declaration of a mistrial due to prejudice, rather than insufficient evidence, does not bar retrial under the Double Jeopardy Clause.
• Hunt v. M.L. Woodson
  800 F.2d 416· 4th Cir.· 1986-09-11 ·cited 4×·via Deference To State Court Findings
  The dissenting judge believes the majority opinion incorrectly reversed the district court's judgment.
• Myrick v. Herb Maschner & the Attorney Gen. of the State of Kan.
  799 F.2d 642· 10th Cir.· 1986-08-29 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a constitutionally deficient jury instruction regarding intent was harmless error because the evidence overwhelmingly established the petitioner's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and the instruction did not affect the verdict. The court also held that the pet
• McCOY v. Cabana
  794 F.2d 177· 5th Cir.· 1986-07-11 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the petitioner's constitutional rights were not violated during his state court conviction, affirming the denial of his habeas corpus petition.
• Daniel v. Warden, State Corr. Inst. AT Huntingdon, PA. & the Attorney Gen. of the State of Pa. Appeal of John Robert Daniel
  794 F.2d 880· 3d Cir.· 1986-07-08 ·cited 4×·via 28 U.S.C. § 2254(D) Presumption Of Correctness
  The court held that the district court erred in applying the presumption of correctness under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) to the state court's determination of the double jeopardy claim, but affirmed the denial of the writ because the double jeopardy claim lacked merit.
• Reed Wayne Hamilton v. Crispus NIX
  781 F.2d 619· 8th Cir.· 1985-12-31 ·cited 4×·via 28 U.S.C. § 2254(D) Presumption Of Correctness
  The dissenting judge argues that the Iowa Supreme Court's findings regarding the independent source doctrine should be presumed correct under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), and that the majority improperly disregarded these findings.
• Schaeffer v. Black
  774 F.2d 865· 8th Cir.· 1985-10-01 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a habeas petitioner claiming ineffective assistance of counsel due to external constraints must still demonstrate actual prejudice, and that state court factual findings are entitled to a presumption of correctness.
• Smith v. Zimmerman
  768 F.2d 69· 3d Cir.· 1985-07-16 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a federal court is bound by the presumption of correctness of state court factual findings, and that a state appellate court's reliance on a trial judge's post-trial opinion to clarify the basis for denying a jury trial waiver does not constitute a denial of f
• Jacobson v. Henderson
  765 F.2d 12· 2d Cir.· 1985-06-13 ·cited 4×·via Deference To State Court Findings
  The court held that alleged jury misconduct, failure to produce a witness, and exclusion of testimony did not violate the petitioner's constitutional rights.
• Corcoran v. Wyrick
  757 F.2d 207· 8th Cir.· 1985-03-18 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a state court's factual finding regarding a habeas petitioner's understanding of potential punishment is presumed correct under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), and an erroneous statement by the sentencing judge does not invalidate a guilty plea if the petitioner was othe
• Brewster v. Bordenkircher
  745 F.2d 913· 4th Cir.· 1984-10-05 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the trial court's failure to articulate reasons for compelling the defendant to wear manacles during trial violated his due process rights, and this error was not harmless.
• Austad v. Risley
  739 F.2d 428· 9th Cir.· 1984-07-31 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court correctly denied habeas corpus relief, as the state court's findings on mental fitness and impartiality of the jury were entitled to deference.
• McKinley Robinson v. Wyrick
  735 F.2d 1091· 8th Cir.· 1984-06-06 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the state trial court did not err in denying the motion to sever offenses and that the in-court identification was admissible.
• Denton v. Ricketts
  728 F.2d 489· 10th Cir.· 1984-03-02 ·cited 4×
  The federal district court and its magistrate failed to comply with the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) by relying on an informal investigatory hearing rather than a formal, adversarial evidentiary hearing.
• Donnie L. Sloan v. W.J. Estelle, Jr.
  710 F.2d 229· 5th Cir.· 1983-07-28 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the petitioner's guilty pleas were voluntary and that the trial court did not err in failing to sua sponte order a competency hearing.
• Asper v. W.J. Estelle, Jr.
  709 F.2d 356· 5th Cir.· 1983-07-11 ·cited 4×·via 28 U.S.C. § 2254(D) Presumption Of Correctness
  The court held that the state trial judge's refusal to credit the petitioner's testimony regarding his indigency was not constitutional error, and thus federal habeas relief was properly denied.
• Reardon v. Manson
  644 F.2d 122· 2d Cir.· 1981-03-18 ·cited 4×·via 28 U.S.C. § 2254(D) Presumption Of Correctness
  The court held that the district court failed to properly apply the presumption of correctness required by 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) when overturning state court convictions based on the same record. The case is remanded for reconsideration.
• United States ex rel. Raymond Cooper v. Warden, Ill. State Penitentiary, Pontiac Branch
  566 F.2d 28· 7th Cir.· 1977-11-29 ·cited 4×·via Deference To State Court Findings
  The court held that the district court properly denied the petition for a writ of habeas corpus, affirming the judgment for the respondent.
• Lyle v. Wyrick
  565 F.2d 529· 8th Cir.· 1977-11-16 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court did not err in applying the presumption of correctness to the state court's finding that the confession was voluntary, and that petitioner failed to present convincing evidence to overcome this presumption.
• Ramirez v. Rodriguez
  467 F.2d 822· 10th Cir.· 1972-10-19 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the petitioner's arrest and the subsequent search were based on probable cause, and federal habeas corpus review is available for constitutional claims.
• Sandoval v. Rodriguez
  461 F.2d 1097· 10th Cir.· 1972-06-22 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the federal district court erred in dismissing the claim regarding the jury instruction on failure to testify for failure to exhaust state remedies, but that the instruction and any alleged prosecutorial comment were not constitutional violations or were harml
• White v. Gnann
  422 F.2d 1306· 5th Cir.· 1970-02-19 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a guilty plea entered voluntarily and understandingly waives all prior non-jurisdictional defects, and affirmed the denial of habeas corpus relief.
• United States ex rel. Herbert James Daley v. Yeager
  415 F.2d 779· 3d Cir.· 1969-08-11 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the relator's constitutional rights under the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments were violated when police obtained consent to search his apartment after he had requested counsel at a preliminary hearing.
• United States ex rel. Anthony Trignani v. Russell
  405 F.2d 1119· 3d Cir.· 1968-12-20 ·cited 4×
  The dissenting judge would affirm the lower court's decision, finding that the relator's due process claim was already decided.
• Justus v. State OF NEW Mexico
  378 F.2d 344· 10th Cir.· 1967-02-13 ·cited 4×
  The federal district court did not err in dismissing the habeas corpus petition because the appellant failed to overcome the presumption of correctness afforded to the state court's factual determination regarding the confession.
• Duckett v. McDonough
  701 F. Supp. 2d 1245· M.D. Fla.· 2010-03-25 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the petitioner's claims lacked merit and the petition for writ of habeas corpus would be denied.
• Grossman v. Crosby
  359 F. Supp. 2d 1233· M.D. Fla.· 2005-01-31 ·cited 3×
  The court denied Petitioner Martin E. Grossman's amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
• Johnson v. Armontrout
  961 F.2d 748· 8th Cir.· 1992-04-10 ·cited 3×·via Deference To State Court Findings
  The court held that a defendant is deprived of his constitutional right to an impartial jury and effective counsel when jurors who convicted a co-defendant in the same crime are empaneled without sufficient inquiry into their bias, and counsel fails to challenge them for cause.
• Davis v. Dugger
  703 F. Supp. 916· M.D. Fla.· 1988-12-23 ·cited 3×
  The court held that a claim not fairly presented to state courts, even if the state waives the exhaustion defense, may be dismissed if it requires judicial findings of fact and would violate comity and federalism principles.
• Jaffe v. Smith
  825 F.2d 304· 11th Cir.· 1987-08-21 ·cited 3×·via 28 U.S.C. § 2254(D) Presumption Of Correctness
  The court held that a fugitive cannot challenge their trial and conviction based on an alleged violation of an extradition treaty unless governmental action was involved in their removal from the asylum state.
• Pryor v. Rose
  699 F.2d 287· 6th Cir.· 1983-01-26 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the Double Jeopardy Clause is not violated when a defendant is punished for two distinct offenses, as determined by the statutes upon which the defendant was indicted and the Blockburger test, not by jury instructions that may have introduced other statutory p
• Wilson v. Veron Atchley
  412 F.2d 230· 9th Cir.· 1969-05-27 ·cited 3×·via Presumption Of Correctness Of State Court Factual Determinations
• Wyon Dale Childers v. Floyd
  608 F.3d 776· 11th Cir.· 2010-06-08 ·cited 2×
  Wyon Dale Childers was convicted of bribery and unlawful compensation based primarily on testimony from Willie Junior, a co-conspirator who received a favorable plea agreement in exchange for cooperation. The trial court prohibited Childers from cross-examining Junior about the E
• Cassidy v. McNeil
  621 F. Supp. 2d 1222· M.D. Fla.· 2008-06-24 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the state court's adjudication of Petitioner's claim regarding the pocketknife as a deadly weapon was not contrary to federal law and was based on a reasonable determination of the facts.
• Sawyers v. Collins
  986 F.2d 1493· 5th Cir.· 1993-03-23 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the defendant's Penry claim was not procedurally barred, but that it lacked factual support. The court also held that an evidentiary hearing was not required for the ineffective assistance of counsel claim. Therefore, the request for a certificate of probable
• Pagan v. Keane
  984 F.2d 61· 2d Cir.· 1993-01-19 ·cited 2×
  A district court has discretion to hold an evidentiary hearing in a habeas corpus case, even if not strictly required, and this discretion was erroneously believed to be absent by the lower court.
• Krantz v. Briggs
  983 F.2d 961· 9th Cir.· 1993-01-19 ·cited 2×·via 28 U.S.C. § 2254(D) Presumption Of Correctness
  The court held that a state court's determination of whether a defendant was 'in custody' for Miranda purposes is a factual finding entitled to a presumption of correctness under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).