Rose V. Lundy

63 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• Thompson v. Louie L. Wainwright
  714 F.2d 1495· 11th Cir.· 1983-09-06 ·cited 93×
  A federal court may grant a continuance of a habeas petition to allow a petitioner to exhaust unraised claims in state court, and a state attorney general can waive the exhaustion requirement for federal habeas corpus.
• Niziolek v. Ashe
  694 F.2d 282· 1st Cir.· 1982-11-24 ·cited 45×
  The court held that the Rose v. Lundy 'total exhaustion' rule does not require a federal appellate court to decline review of a district court decision on the merits of exhausted claims in a mixed petition when the district court opinion issued before Rose or so close in time as
• 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.
• Darden v. Louie L. Wainwright
  725 F.2d 1526· 11th Cir.· 1984-02-22 ·cited 44×
  The court held that the disqualification of a prospective juror based on opposition to the death penalty was improper without a clear showing that the juror would automatically vote against imposition of capital punishment regardless of the evidence.
• Quinton Bowen v. State OF Tenn.
  698 F.2d 241· 6th Cir.· 1983-01-14 ·cited 43×
• Santana v. Fenton
  685 F.2d 71· 3d Cir.· 1982-07-23 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the petitioner failed to demonstrate exhaustion of state remedies for his right-to-testify claim, as New Jersey's post-conviction relief rules might permit consideration of such constitutional claims.
• Guthrie v. Warden, Maryland Penitentiary
  683 F.2d 820· 4th Cir.· 1982-07-06 ·cited 30×
  The dissenting judge holds that the jury instructions did not improperly place the burden of proof for self-defense on the defendant.
• Perry v. J.W. Fairman and Tyrone Fahner
  702 F.2d 119· 7th Cir.· 1983-03-16 ·cited 29×
  The court held that a federal habeas corpus petition should be dismissed if any claim within it is unexhausted, but that a petitioner need not pursue state post-conviction relief if Illinois courts would deem the claim res judicata or waived.
• Lefkowitz v. Fair
  816 F.2d 17· 1st Cir.· 1987-04-13 ·cited 28×
  A petitioner must be in custody at the time of filing a habeas corpus petition, and a fully served sentence, even with collateral consequences like license revocation, does not satisfy this requirement. Furthermore, a district court's dismissal of a habeas petition without prejud
• Gulliver v. Dalsheim
  687 F.2d 655· 2d Cir.· 1982-09-09 ·cited 25×
  The court vacated the district court's order granting habeas corpus and remanded for further proceedings to determine if petitioner exhausted state remedies and properly raised his claims.
• Purnell v. Mo. Dep't OF Corr.
  753 F.2d 703· 8th Cir.· 1985-02-01 ·cited 24×
  The court should affirm the district court's dismissal for failure to exhaust state remedies, as the state's concession of exhaustion was based on a mistake and thus ineffective.
• Butler v. Rose
  686 F.2d 1163· 6th Cir.· 1982-08-13 ·cited 24×
  The court should have found that prosecutorial statements commenting on the defendant's failure to testify were impermissible.
• Joseph D. McMAHON P-7814 v. Fulcomer
  821 F.2d 934· 3d Cir.· 1987-06-08 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the habeas petition as mixed, and that the petitioner did not knowingly and intelligently waive his right to counsel.
• Reynolds v. Ellingsworth
  843 F.2d 712· 3d Cir.· 1988-03-31 ·cited 20×
  The court held that Delaware Superior Court Criminal Rule 51 does not act as a procedural bar to claims raised for the first time in a Rule 35 proceeding when counsel did not object at trial or on appeal, and that the adequacy of a state procedural rule depends on consistent appl
• Swanger v. Zimmerman
  750 F.2d 291· 3d Cir.· 1984-12-21 ·cited 20×
  The court held that a habeas corpus petitioner has exhausted state remedies if the claims were presented to the state courts, even if the appellate court did not discuss them due to a finding of waiver.
• Brown v. Marshall
  704 F.2d 333· 6th Cir.· 1983-04-12 ·cited 20×
  The court held that new issues not presented to the district court cannot be raised for the first time on appeal in a habeas corpus proceeding.
• Dickerson v. Walsh
  750 F.2d 150· 1st Cir.· 1984-12-18 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the petitioner failed to exhaust his state remedies regarding his equal protection claim, and therefore, federal jurisdiction should not be exercised.
• Gray v. Greer
  707 F.2d 965· 7th Cir.· 1983-05-25 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the Illinois Post-Conviction Hearing Act does not provide a meaningful remedy for the petitioner's claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, thus satisfying the exhaustion requirement for federal habeas corpus review.
• Silverstein v. Henderson
  706 F.2d 361· 2d Cir.· 1983-04-12 ·cited 18×
  The court held that a defendant's failure to raise incompetence on direct appeal does not bar federal habeas relief, as incompetence prevents a knowing waiver of rights. The trial court's failure to order a competency hearing despite conflicting psychiatric reports and other indi
• Snethen v. Crispus NIX
  736 F.2d 1241· 8th Cir.· 1984-06-20 ·cited 16×
  A federal habeas corpus petition containing both exhausted and unexhausted claims must be dismissed, and the futility exception to exhaustion requires a clear manifestation that state courts will refuse to entertain claims, not merely a prediction of an unfavorable outcome.
• Smith v. Atkins
  678 F.2d 883· 10th Cir.· 1982-05-19 ·cited 16×
  A federal district court must allow a habeas petitioner to amend their petition to delete unexhausted claims rather than dismissing the entire petition, unless the petitioner chooses not to amend.
• United States ex rel. John Clauser v. Shadid
  677 F.2d 591· 7th Cir.· 1982-05-07 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the petitioner failed to exhaust state remedies for his ineffective assistance of counsel claim, requiring dismissal of his entire habeas petition.
• Greene v. Meese
  875 F.2d 639· 7th Cir.· 1989-05-24 ·cited 15×
  A federal prisoner's suit seeking both damages and restoration of good-time credits is predominantly a habeas corpus action requiring complete exhaustion of administrative remedies.
• Ventura v. Hoyt C. Cupp
  690 F.2d 740· 9th Cir.· 1982-10-21 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court must determine whether the petitioner exhausted state remedies, considering potential excuses for non-exhaustion, before ruling on the merits of the habeas petition.
• Stamper v. Alton Baskerville
  724 F.2d 1106· 4th Cir.· 1984-01-13 ·cited 12×
  The court reversed the district court's decision, finding that even if discretion existed to depart from a prior order, the district court abused that discretion.
• Scott v. Maggio
  695 F.2d 916· 5th Cir.· 1983-01-20 ·cited 12×
  The court affirmed the denial of habeas relief, holding that the petitioner's Fourth Amendment claims were either inapplicable or justified by exigent circumstances, the identification procedure was not impermissibly suggestive, hearsay was not admitted or did not deny fundamenta
• Howard v. Mr. Leoneal Davis
  815 F.2d 1429· 11th Cir.· 1987-05-04 ·cited 11×
  The court held that the district court did not err in refusing to consider an unexhausted claim and that Howard's other claims lacked merit.
• McQUOWN v. D.J. McCartney
  795 F.2d 807· 9th Cir.· 1986-07-28 ·cited 11×
  The court held that the prisoner had not exhausted his state remedies because the California Supreme Court denied his petition for hearing on procedural grounds, not on the merits.
• Ewing v. Norris W. McMACKIN
  799 F.2d 1143· 6th Cir.· 1986-09-03 ·cited 10×
  The court held that failure to raise claims on direct appeal or appeal post-conviction relief denials constitutes a procedural default, barring federal habeas review absent cause and prejudice, unless the actual innocence exception applies. Ineffective assistance of counsel must
• Harding v. State OF N.C.
  683 F.2d 850· 4th Cir.· 1982-07-20 ·cited 10×
  A federal habeas court cannot accept a state's conditional waiver of the exhaustion requirement for unexhausted claims; such a petition must be dismissed as mixed.
• KIM v. C.J. Villalobos
  799 F.2d 1317· 9th Cir.· 1986-09-15 ·cited 9×
  A state prisoner fairly presents federal claims to the state courts, satisfying the exhaustion requirement, even if the state court cites In re Swain for lack of particularity, if the claims are alleged with as much particularity as is practicable.
• Humphrey v. Boney
  785 F.2d 1495· 11th Cir.· 1986-03-25 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the jury instructions on implied malice and intent did not unconstitutionally shift the burden of proof or create a mandatory presumption, and the vagueness claim was procedurally barred.
• Gulliver v. Dalsheim
  739 F.2d 104· 2d Cir.· 1984-07-18 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the appellate counsel's brief, while perhaps not perfect, met the constitutional standard for effective assistance, and reversed the grant of habeas corpus.
• Tyler v. Wyrick
  730 F.2d 1209· 8th Cir.· 1984-04-02 ·cited 8×
  The court held that a state prisoner's federal habeas petition must be dismissed if it contains any unexhausted claims, even if other claims have been exhausted.
• Hindman v. Wyrick
  702 F.2d 148· 8th Cir.· 1983-03-16 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the petitioner was not prejudiced by his trial counsel's failure to call a specific witness, and thus was not denied effective assistance of counsel.
• Hall v. Wainwright
  565 F. Supp. 1222· M.D. Fla.· 1983-05-18 ·cited 7×
  The court held that certain claims were procedurally defaulted and precluded from federal habeas review absent a showing of cause and prejudice, which the petitioner failed to demonstrate. Other claims were either exhausted or could be considered on their merits.
• Blackmon v. Armontrout
  875 F.2d 164· 8th Cir.· 1989-05-12 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the trial court's refusal to allow the defendant to represent himself was proper, and the defendant was not prejudiced by his appellate counsel's failure to argue for a competency hearing.
• Kramer v. Butler
  845 F.2d 1291· 5th Cir.· 1988-05-26 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the petitioner did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel and the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a motion to dismiss without prejudice.
• Scott v. Dugger
  686 F. Supp. 1488· S.D. Fla.· 1988-05-26 ·cited 6×
  The court denied the petition for writ of habeas corpus, finding no basis for federal relief and lifting the stay of execution.
• Doyle J. Williams v. Wyrick
  763 F.2d 363· 8th Cir.· 1985-06-06 ·cited 6×
  The court held that motions to recall the mandate are not an adequate or appropriate means of exhausting state remedies for all claims in a federal habeas petition.
• Pringle v. Court OF Common Pleas
  744 F.2d 297· 3d Cir.· 1984-07-05 ·cited 6×
  A federal court has jurisdiction to hear a habeas corpus petition challenging a state statute's constitutionality if the petitioner was in custody when the petition was filed, even if a state sentence appeal might later result in a non-custodial sentence.
• Rodriguez v. McKASKLE
  724 F.2d 463· 5th Cir.· 1984-02-06 ·cited 6×
  A federal court must dismiss a habeas corpus petition if the petitioner has not exhausted all available state remedies, even if an evidentiary hearing has been held in federal court and the merits of the petition have been briefed.
• Traver Stewart v. Scully
  925 F.2d 58· 2d Cir.· 1991-02-01 ·cited 4×
  Increasing a state prisoner's maximum sentence after he has served a substantial portion of his original sentence violates the Double Jeopardy Clause by disturbing his legitimate expectation of finality.
• Lacy v. Gabriel
  732 F.2d 7· 1st Cir.· 1984-04-11 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a Sixth Amendment confrontation clause claim, raised sua sponte by the district court and not exhausted in state courts, renders a habeas petition "mixed" and requires dismissal of that claim, but the petition is not considered mixed if the petitioner only rai
• Isidoro Cruz-Sanchez v. Cordero
  728 F.2d 1531· 1st Cir.· 1984-03-09 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the petitioner had not exhausted his state remedies regarding his claim for a new trial based on new evidence, and thus his federal habeas petition was properly dismissed.
• 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.
• Weaver v. Foltz
  888 F.2d 1097· 6th Cir.· 1989-11-02 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the District Court erred in dismissing a mixed habeas corpus petition without considering Granberry v. Greer, which allows consideration of exhausted issues in such petitions.
• Hicks v. Callahan
  859 F.2d 1054· 1st Cir.· 1988-10-20 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court erred in granting habeas corpus relief, as the Massachusetts felony-murder rule as applied at the time of petitioner's conviction was constitutional and supported by the evidence.
• Jeffers v. Sargent
  842 F.2d 1008· 8th Cir.· 1988-03-22 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the petitioner has an available unexhausted state court remedy, and therefore, his federal habeas petition must be denied.
• Al Mancuso v. Scully
  818 F.2d 1· 2d Cir.· 1987-04-30 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a federal habeas petition containing unexhausted claims must be dismissed entirely, even if other claims have been previously adjudicated.