Writ Of Habeas Corpus

3,651 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 2,273 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• Martsay Bolder v. Delo
  985 F.2d 941· 8th Cir.· 1993-01-26
  The court denied the petition for rehearing and suggestion for rehearing en banc, as well as the emergency motion for stay of execution.
• Claudio v. Scully
  982 F.2d 798· 2d Cir.· 1992-12-28 ·via Habeas Corpus Relief
  The court held that the failure of appellate counsel to raise a meritorious state constitutional claim regarding ineffective assistance of counsel constitutes a violation of the Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel.
• Yokley v. Belaski
  982 F.2d 423· 10th Cir.· 1992-12-23 ·via Habeas Corpus Relief
  A sentence imposed in 'years' includes calendar years, regardless of whether they contain 365 or 366 days, and does not violate due process or equal protection.
• Hudson v. Whitley
  979 F.2d 1058· 5th Cir.· 1992-12-10 ·via Habeas Corpus Proceedings
  The dissenting judge argues that the case should not be remanded because the evidence of prejudice is overwhelming and the merits of the claim are clear, making the conviction fatally flawed.
• Orrin W. Payne v. Borg
  982 F.2d 335· 9th Cir.· 1992-12-10 ·via Habeas Corpus Review
  The court held that the evidence was insufficient to support a finding beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant intended to aid in the killing that occurred.
• Bridge v. United States Parole Comm'n & J.T. Holland
  981 F.2d 97· 3d Cir.· 1992-12-01 ·via Habeas Corpus Review
  The court held that the district court erred by precluding the Parole Commission from considering new evidence when reconsidering a parole eligibility date, as agencies are not permanently bound by initial judicial review if new evidence emerges.
• Hosey B. Johnson v. Hargett
  978 F.2d 855· 5th Cir.· 1992-11-17 ·via Habeas Corpus Proceedings
  The court should not deny federal courts the opportunity to hear constitutional errors in habeas proceedings.
• Akrawi v. Jabe
  979 F.2d 418· 6th Cir.· 1992-11-09 ·via Habeas Corpus Relief
  The court held that the trial court's error in barring a witness for violating a sequestration order was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, and that the petitioner's other claims of constitutional error and ineffective assistance of counsel lacked merit.
• Bolander v. State OF Iowa
  978 F.2d 1079· 8th Cir.· 1992-11-05 ·via Habeas Corpus Relief
  The dissenting judge holds that the majority erred in finding prejudice based on a misinterpretation of the trial court's pretrial statement and an incorrect application of the Strickland standard.
• GEE v. Shillinger
  979 F.2d 176· 10th Cir.· 1992-11-02 ·via Federal Habeas Corpus
  The court held that the appellant's third federal habeas corpus petition was properly dismissed as a successive petition because he failed to demonstrate cause and prejudice or a fundamental miscarriage of justice.
• Wang Zong Xiao v. Barr
  979 F.2d 151· 9th Cir.· 1992-10-30 ·via Habeas Corpus Review
  The court held that the district court lacked jurisdiction because the alien failed to exhaust administrative remedies before challenging the INS's authority to initiate exclusion proceedings.
• Loyd v. Whitley
  977 F.2d 149· 5th Cir.· 1992-10-29 ·via Habeas Corpus Relief
  The court held that the petitioner's counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to adequately investigate and present independent psychiatric evidence regarding the petitioner's mental state during the penalty phase of his capital murder trial.
• T.R.A. v. State
  605 So. 2d 551· Fla. 5th DCA· 1992-09-21
  A child detained for contempt of court must be released via habeas corpus because Florida law prohibits incarcerating juveniles for contempt under Chapter 39, despite the court's disapproval of the result.
• Cornell v. Crispus NIX
  976 F.2d 376· 8th Cir.· 1992-09-14 ·via Habeas Corpus Proceedings
  The dissenting judges believe the majority improperly disregarded the trial court's findings regarding newly discovered evidence and its potential impact on the petitioner's trial outcome.
• Garcia v. Powers
  973 F.2d 684· 8th Cir.· 1992-08-31 ·via Habeas Corpus Review
  The court held that a state law corroboration requirement is not cognizable on federal habeas review, and that sufficient evidence supported the conviction and the denial of a new trial motion.
• Verdin v. O'Leary
  972 F.2d 1467· 7th Cir.· 1992-08-28
  The court held that the jury instruction claim based on the state's burden of proof was not federally cognizable, but the claim that the instructions misled the jury on murder versus manslaughter was potentially a federal due process issue. The court also found the ex parte commu
• Smith v. Black
  970 F.2d 1383· 5th Cir.· 1992-08-20 ·via Federal Habeas Corpus
  The court held that the Mississippi Supreme Court's procedural bars were not strictly or regularly followed, allowing federal habeas review of the 'especially heinous' aggravating circumstance claim. The death sentence was unconstitutional due to the improper use of this circumst
• Starchild v. Fed. Bureau OF Prisons
  973 F.2d 610· 8th Cir.· 1992-08-19
  The court held that time spent on highly restricted house arrest is not creditable as jail time for sentence credit purposes.
• Neal v. Morris
  972 F.2d 675· 6th Cir.· 1992-08-07 ·via Habeas Corpus Review
  The court held that sufficient evidence, viewed favorably to the prosecution, supported Neal's conviction, and thus his due process rights were not violated.
• Maula v. Freckleton
  972 F.2d 27· 2d Cir.· 1992-08-06 ·via Federal Habeas Corpus
  The court held that the defendant's failure to object to the non-submission of certain charges to the jury constituted consent, thereby waiving any double jeopardy claim regarding reprosecution on those charges.
• Becker v. A.L. Lockhart
  971 F.2d 172· 8th Cir.· 1992-08-03 ·via Habeas Corpus Review
  The court held that the evidence was insufficient to prove that the defendant used physical force to resist apprehension immediately after a misdemeanor theft, entitling him to habeas relief.
• Griffin v. Warden, Md. Corr. Adjustment Ctr.
  970 F.2d 1355· 4th Cir.· 1992-07-28 ·via Habeas Corpus Relief
  The court held that the petitioner was denied effective assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment due to his attorneys' failure to investigate and present alibi witnesses, which prejudiced his defense.
• Crank v. Duckworth
  969 F.2d 363· 7th Cir.· 1992-07-22
  A prisoner's claim challenging a prior conviction used for sentence enhancement is barred by procedural default if the default resulted from the prisoner's own lack of diligence in pursuing post-conviction remedies.
• Byrnes v. Vose
  969 F.2d 1306· 1st Cir.· 1992-07-17 ·via Federal Habeas Corpus
  The court held that the petitioner failed to exhaust state remedies and the futility exception did not apply, affirming the dismissal of his federal habeas corpus petition.
• Butler v. State
  600 So. 2d 56· Fla. 4th DCA· 1992-07-08
  The court held that a motion for post-conviction relief is the appropriate avenue to seek a belated appeal based on ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to file an appeal.
• Frink v. The State OF Iowa
  968 F.2d 734· 8th Cir.· 1992-07-06 ·via Federal Habeas Corpus
  The court held that a state prisoner's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel at trial, on appeal, and in post-conviction proceedings were without merit and did not warrant federal habeas corpus relief.
• R.W. v. State
  599 So. 2d 286· Fla. 5th DCA· 1992-06-09
• Zoilo Linares and David Munoz v. Senkowski
  964 F.2d 1295· 2d Cir.· 1992-05-26 ·via Habeas Corpus Review
  The court held that the claim that a conviction is invalid because the prosecutor was not admitted to the bar constitutes a 'new rule' under Teague v. Lane, and therefore cannot be applied on federal habeas corpus review.
• Williamson v. Parke
  963 F.2d 863· 6th Cir.· 1992-05-07 ·via Federal Habeas Corpus
  The court held that the district court's decision could be reversed using McNeil v. Wisconsin, as Teague v. Lane does not bar its application in this context, or alternatively, by applying existing Sixth Circuit precedent in Boles v. Foltz.
• Thomas v. Gunter
  962 F.2d 1477· 10th Cir.· 1992-04-28 ·via Federal Habeas Corpus
  The court held that admitting videotaped depositions of child victims did not violate the appellant's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation, as the procedures met the standards set forth in Maryland v. Craig.
• Greenawalt v. Ricketts
  961 F.2d 1457· 9th Cir.· 1992-04-23 ·via Habeas Corpus Review
• Olan Randle Robison v. Maynard
  958 F.2d 1013· 10th Cir.· 1992-03-12 ·via Federal Habeas Corpus
  The court affirmed the dismissal of the appellant's second and third federal habeas corpus petitions and the denial of his Rule 60(b) motion, finding he failed to meet the standards for successive or abusive claims.
• Fischer v. Powers
  957 F.2d 609· 8th Cir.· 1992-02-26
  The admission of a certified laboratory report into evidence, even without the direct testimony of the analyst, does not violate the Sixth Amendment confrontation clause when the state provides a mechanism for the defendant to subpoena the analyst.
• Dulin v. Cook
  957 F.2d 758· 10th Cir.· 1992-02-18
  The court held that a prisoner's claim of lack of access to state appellate rules due to incarceration in another state may constitute 'cause' for procedural default, requiring further factual inquiry.
• Strausser v. State
  592 So. 2d 375· Fla. 3d DCA· 1992-01-28
  Kenneth Strausser appealed the trial court's denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence following his guilty plea to second-degree murder and armed robbery. Strausser argued that he did not knowingly waive his right to appeal the upward departure sentence and that the la
• Johnson v. Bart Ross
  955 F.2d 178· 2d Cir.· 1992-01-28
  Any error in admitting clothing identification was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, making it unnecessary to decide the constitutional issue of taint.
• Linwood Fields v. Keohane
  954 F.2d 945· 3d Cir.· 1992-01-28 ·via Habeas Corpus Proceedings
  The court held that the District of Columbia Good Time Credits Act, by its terms, applies only to prisoners confined in a District correctional facility, and therefore, prisoners convicted under District law but serving sentences in federal facilities are not entitled to its bene
• Morgan v. Shirley
  958 F.2d 662· 6th Cir.· 1992-01-27 ·via Habeas Corpus Review
  The court held that the use of a statutory presumption as evidence in a DUI case did not violate due process by impermissibly shifting the burden of persuasion to the defendant.
• Bell v. Baker
  954 F.2d 400· 6th Cir.· 1992-01-23
  The court held that the Sixth Amendment, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in Holland v. Illinois, does not prohibit the exclusion of cognizable groups from a petit jury through peremptory challenges.
• Worthen v. Kaiser
  952 F.2d 1266· 10th Cir.· 1992-01-03 ·via Federal Habeas Corpus
  The court held that the petitioner abused the writ by failing to raise new claims in his first federal habeas petition without adequate cause.
• Mendyk v. State
  592 So. 2d 1076· Fla.· 1992-01-02
  Todd Mendyk appeals the denial of his motion for post-conviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 and petitions for habeas corpus following his conviction for first-degree murder, kidnapping, and sexual battery, and subsequent death sentence. The Florida Supr
• Elam v. Crispus C. NIX
  951 F.2d 890· 8th Cir.· 1991-12-11
  The court held that a jury instruction creating a permissive inference of malice aforethought, even with potentially problematic language, did not violate due process because it did not impermissibly shift the burden of proof and any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
• Smith v. Kolb
  950 F.2d 437· 7th Cir.· 1991-12-06
  The court held that the exclusion of the DNR witness testimony did not violate the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to present a defense, and his claims of ineffective assistance of counsel were also without merit.
• Wilson v. A.L. Lockhart
  949 F.2d 1051· 8th Cir.· 1991-11-27 ·via Federal Habeas Corpus
  The court held that a prisoner challenging parole eligibility must pursue federal habeas corpus and exhaust state remedies, even if state law does not recognize habeas corpus for this purpose.
• Glover v. Norris W. McMACKIN
  950 F.2d 1236· 6th Cir.· 1991-11-22 ·via Habeas Corpus Review
  The court should not allow the state another opportunity to justify the mistrial order, as the record lacks manifest necessity and the trial court did not exercise sound discretion.
• Shackelford v. Armontrout
  950 F.2d 521· 8th Cir.· 1991-11-22 ·via Habeas Corpus Relief
  A state prisoner cannot excuse procedural default based on ineffective post-conviction counsel.
• Whatley v. Morrison
  947 F.2d 869· 8th Cir.· 1991-10-25
  A state prisoner must exhaust state remedies before seeking federal habeas relief for an out-of-state detainer, but such dismissal should be without prejudice.
• Wilson v. Hoke
  945 F.2d 1250· 2d Cir.· 1991-10-01
  The court held that the petitioner failed to establish a prima facie case of discriminatory jury selection under Batson v. Kentucky due to an insufficient record and lack of a timely, cognizable objection.
• Spence v. Crispus C. NIX
  945 F.2d 1030· 8th Cir.· 1991-09-24
  The court held that although counsel was deficient in failing to file a motion to arrest judgment, the petitioner could not show prejudice because his guilty pleas were voluntary and he would not have succeeded on appeal.
• Daniels v. Jones
  944 F.2d 429· 8th Cir.· 1991-09-11 ·via Federal Habeas Corpus
  The court held that the appellant had procedurally defaulted on claims that could have been raised in state court and were not, and that no state remedies remained available to him.