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

• Cary Michael Lambrix v. Dugger
  529 So. 2d 1110· Fla.· 1988-08-18 ·cited 32×
  Cary Michael Lambrix, a death row inmate, petitioned for habeas corpus relief arguing his appellate counsel was ineffective. The Florida Supreme Court rejected his claims regarding jury selection procedures and the refusal to instruct on voluntary intoxication, finding no constit
• Foster v. State
  518 So. 2d 901· Fla.· 1987-12-03 ·cited 32×
  Charles Kenneth Foster, sentenced to death in 1975 for murder, challenged his sentence on grounds that the jury and judge were not instructed to consider nonstatutory mitigating factors. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the denial of his postconviction motion but granted his ha
• Messer v. Kemp
  831 F.2d 946· 11th Cir.· 1987-10-16 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the denial of a defendant's motion for independent psychiatric assistance, when sanity was a significant issue, violated due process under Ake v. Oklahoma.
• Rose v. Dugger
  508 So. 2d 321· Fla.· 1987-05-07 ·cited 32×
  James Franklin Rose sought habeas corpus relief and a stay of execution for his capital murder conviction, raising claims of inadequate appellate review, arbitrary imposition of the death penalty, ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, and improper jury communications. The
• United States ex rel. Charles "Chuck" Miller v. Greer
  789 F.2d 438· 7th Cir.· 1986-04-09 ·cited 32×·via Habeas Corpus Review
  The court should affirm the district court's judgment because the prosecutor's improper inquiry did not affect the verdict and was harmless error.
• Tinghitella v. State OF Cal.
  718 F.2d 308· 9th Cir.· 1983-10-12 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the Interstate Agreement on Detainers (IAD) and the Sixth Amendment speedy trial right do not require a state to return a prisoner for sentencing if the prisoner has not made a proper request for final disposition under the IAD and has waived the right to be p
• Witt v. Louie L. Wainwright
  714 F.2d 1069· 11th Cir.· 1983-09-16 ·cited 32×
  Johnny Paul Witt was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death for the 1973 killing of an 11-year-old boy. On federal habeas review, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's rejection of Witt's challenges to the admission of his confession, the Florida Sup
• Brooks v. Francis
  716 F.2d 780· 11th Cir.· 1983-09-15 ·cited 32×·via Habeas Corpus Relief
  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.
• Vaughan v. Estelle
  671 F.2d 152· 5th Cir.· 1982-03-25 ·cited 32×·via Federal Habeas Corpus
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the habeas petition as an abuse of the writ without affording the petitioner a reasonable opportunity to explain his failure to raise claims in a prior petition.
• Ford v. State
  407 So. 2d 907· Fla.· 1981-12-04 ·cited 32×
  Ford, sentenced to death for first-degree murder, challenged his conviction and sentence through post-conviction relief and habeas corpus petitions, alleging ineffective assistance of both trial and appellate counsel. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the denial of relief, apply
• Hines v. Enomoto
  658 F.2d 667· 9th Cir.· 1981-10-05 ·cited 32×·via Federal Habeas Corpus
  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.
• Runnels v. Hess
  653 F.2d 1359· 10th Cir.· 1981-07-13 ·cited 32×·via Federal Habeas Corpus
  The court held that enforcement of Oklahoma's contemporaneous objection rule in this case fails to serve a legitimate state interest and should not bar review of the federal question.
• Batten v. Scurr
  649 F.2d 564· 8th Cir.· 1981-05-19 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the state's evidentiary rulings do not raise a federal constitutional question reviewable by writ of habeas corpus unless they directly implicate constitutional rights.
• Cherry v. Dir., State Bd. OF Corr.
  635 F.2d 414· 5th Cir.· 1981-01-27 ·cited 32×·via Habeas Corpus Review
  The court concurred that the trial judge's sua sponte grant of a mistrial was violative of manifest necessity standards, but denied habeas relief because the Jorn decision does not retroactively apply to the pre-Jorn mistrial.
• Lincoln Isaac v. Engle
  646 F.2d 1129· 6th Cir.· 1980-12-12 ·cited 32×·via Federal Habeas Corpus
• Burr v. Sullivan
  618 F.2d 583· 9th Cir.· 1980-05-09 ·cited 32×·via Habeas Corpus Review
• Bufalino v. Reno
  613 F.2d 568· 5th Cir.· 1980-03-13 ·cited 32×·via Federal Habeas Corpus
  A federal court should dismiss a habeas petition containing only unexhausted claims, even if the district court erroneously reached the merits, to allow the state courts the first opportunity to address the claims.
• Green v. Loggins
  614 F.2d 219· 9th Cir.· 1980-02-25 ·cited 32×·via Federal Habeas Corpus
  An accidental pre-trial encounter between an accused and a witness can support a federal habeas corpus claim if the encounter was unnecessarily suggestive and undermined the reliability of the subsequent identification.
• Mata v. Sumner
  611 F.2d 754· 9th Cir.· 1979-12-21 ·cited 32×·via Habeas Corpus Proceedings
  The court held that the pre-trial photographic identification procedure was so impermissibly suggestive as to create a substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification, violating due process.
• Eutues White v. Finkbeiner
  611 F.2d 186· 7th Cir.· 1979-12-07 ·cited 32×·via Habeas Corpus Relief
• United States v. Bailey
  585 F.2d 1087· D.C. Cir.· 1978-07-12 ·cited 32×·via Writ Of Habeas Corpus Ad Subjiciendum
  The court held that the trial court erred by improperly instructing the jury on the definition of escape and by refusing to allow the jury to consider the defense of duress based on an erroneous application of a 'return requirement'.
• United States ex rel. Conrad A. Dancy v. Arnold
  572 F.2d 107· 3d Cir.· 1978-02-21 ·cited 32×
  A youth offender sentenced under the Federal Youth Corrections Act (YCA) cannot be confined in the general population of a federal penitentiary, as this violates the Act's requirement for segregation from adult offenders.
• Finis Smith Blankenship v. Estelle
  545 F.2d 510· 5th Cir.· 1977-01-17 ·cited 32×·via Habeas Corpus Relief
  The court held that the admission of other crimes evidence did not violate due process because a strong link was established between the defendant and the other offenses, satisfying the fundamental fairness standard.
• Minor v. Black
  527 F.2d 1· 6th Cir.· 1975-12-08 ·cited 32×·via Federal Habeas Corpus
  The court held that the prosecutor's cross-examination and closing argument regarding the petitioner's post-arrest silence, after being advised by counsel, violated his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent and was constitutional error.
• Donald v. Dumont
  513 F.2d 793· 5th Cir.· 1975-05-30 ·cited 32×·via Federal Habeas Corpus
  The court held that a procedural waiver of a challenge to grand jury composition under state law, absent a showing of cause and actual prejudice, bars federal habeas corpus relief, even if the law at the time of trial was unfavorable to the claim.
• Noorlander v. Ciccone
  489 F.2d 642· 8th Cir.· 1973-12-27 ·cited 32×·via Habeas Corpus Proceedings
  A district court rule permitting a magistrate to hold preliminary evidentiary hearings in habeas corpus cases is valid, provided the district judge retains ultimate decision-making power and a de novo review is available.
• Wansley v. Slayton
  487 F.2d 90· 4th Cir.· 1973-11-08 ·cited 32×·via Federal Habeas Corpus
  The Court of Appeals reversed the District Court's grant of habeas relief, finding no constitutional violation regarding pre-trial publicity, admission of evidence, or grand jury composition.
• Linroy Davis v. Heyd
  479 F.2d 446· 5th Cir.· 1973-05-29 ·cited 32×·via Habeas Corpus Review
  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.
• Stinson v. Turner
  473 F.2d 913· 10th Cir.· 1973-02-27 ·cited 32×·via Federal Habeas Corpus
  The court held that the record affirmatively showed the guilty plea was intelligent and voluntary, satisfying due process requirements.
• Private Donald Silverthorne, Jr. v. Laird
  460 F.2d 1175· 5th Cir.· 1972-04-14 ·cited 32×·via Habeas Corpus Review
  The court denied the petition for rehearing, finding the appellant's claim frivolous and outside the scope of review for internal military affairs.
• Von Perry v. State OF Tex.
  456 F.2d 879· 5th Cir.· 1972-03-23 ·cited 32×·via Federal Habeas Corpus
  The court affirmed the denial of habeas corpus relief, finding that the witness's identification was based on direct observation and not tainted by suggestive lineups, and that the appellant was not entitled to a free transcript for a pro se appeal.
• State v. The Honorable Paul Baker
  248 So. 2d 468· Fla.· 1971-05-19 ·cited 32×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that it has constitutional authority to transfer cases involving improvidently invoked original jurisdiction to the appropriate district court of appeal, not merely dismiss them without prejudice. The Court overruled prior precedent restricting tran
• Burlee Carroll v. Beto
  421 F.2d 1065· 5th Cir.· 1970-01-27 ·cited 32×
• United States ex rel. Kelly Wilson v. The Hon. Daniel McMANN
  408 F.2d 896· 2d Cir.· 1969-03-14 ·cited 32×·via Habeas Corpus Proceedings
  The denial of an indigent defendant's request for a transcript of prior trial testimony, which was necessary to impeach a key witness, violated the defendant's constitutional right to equal protection.
• Bruce v. Beto
  396 F.2d 212· 5th Cir.· 1968-05-27 ·cited 32×
• Coley v. Alvis
  381 F.2d 870· 6th Cir.· 1967-09-06 ·cited 32×
  The court held that because the Ohio post-conviction relief statute, as construed by the Ohio Supreme Court, provides no effective state remedy for the appellant's claims, he is not required to exhaust state remedies before seeking federal habeas corpus relief.
• Jack T. Stewart (Jack T. Stuart) or Any Other Officer of the U. S. Dist. Court v. Vardaman S. Dunn
  363 F.2d 591· 5th Cir.· 1966-06-28 ·cited 32×
  The Mississippi District Court erred in holding the Oklahoma District Court's order of arrest void, as the order was appealable and the Oklahoma court had jurisdiction to issue a temporary restraining order to preserve the status quo.
• Reeves v. Warden, Maryland Penitentiary
  346 F.2d 915· 4th Cir.· 1965-02-25 ·cited 32×
  The admission of a yellow note, seized during an unconstitutional search of the petitioner's room, was prejudicial and violated his Fourth Amendment rights, and this constitutional objection was not waived by his counsel's failure to object at trial.
• McLEOD v. Peterson
  283 F.2d 180· 3d Cir.· 1960-10-06 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the appellant's departure under the circumstances did not interrupt his continuous physical presence for the purpose of the statute, and the prior erroneous denial of discretionary relief should be reviewed.
• GAY v. Marcell Graham
  269 F.2d 482· 10th Cir.· 1959-07-29 ·cited 32×
  The court held that petitioners failed to demonstrate a substantial question regarding a denial of due process, and thus a certificate of probable cause should be denied.
• Caryl Chessman v. Harley O. Teets
  239 F.2d 205· 9th Cir.· 1956-10-18 ·cited 32×
• Dunn v. United States
  234 F.2d 219· 6th Cir.· 1956-06-18 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the district court did not err in refusing to consider a successive motion to vacate sentence, as it was within the judge's discretion and the grounds were not new.
• Pelley v. United States
  214 F.2d 597· 7th Cir.· 1954-06-23 ·cited 32×
  The court should reverse and remand for a hearing on the defendant's motion to set aside his conviction, specifically limited to the charge of conspiracy between his chief counsel and the prosecution.
• United States ex rel. Phillips v. Downer
  135 F.2d 521· 2d Cir.· 1943-05-07 ·cited 32×
  The dissenting judge believes the draft board's factual findings, if based on substantial evidence and fair deliberation, should be upheld, even if the evidence is equivocal.
• Jones v. Biddle
  131 F.2d 853· 8th Cir.· 1942-12-14 ·cited 32×
  The court held that a habeas corpus application must name the person with actual physical custody of the petitioner as the respondent, not a supervisor with only regulatory custody.
• James v. Warden, Holman Correctional Facility
  957 F.3d 1184· 11th Cir.· 2020-04-28 ·cited 31×·via Federal Habeas Corpus
  The court held that the petitioner failed to show prejudice from his counsel's alleged ineffective assistance because he did not demonstrate a reasonable probability that he would have allowed mitigation evidence to be presented, even if it had been discovered.
• Belgica Nubia Cruz v. State
  822 So. 2d 595· Fla. 3d DCA· 2002-08-16 ·cited 31×
  Bélgica Nubia Cruz petitioned for a writ of mandamus to quash a capias issued after she failed to appear in person at a pretrial conference, despite having filed a valid written waiver of appearance under Florida criminal procedure rules. The State confessed error, and the court
• Bennie Demps v. Dugger
  714 So. 2d 365· Fla.· 1998-04-09 ·cited 31×
  Bennie Demps, a death row inmate convicted of murdering a fellow inmate in 1976, challenged his death sentence through a third Rule 3.850 motion and habeas corpus petition. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the denial of postconviction relief and rejected all claims of error, fi
• Rivera v. Dugger
  629 So. 2d 105· Fla.· 1993-10-28 ·cited 31×
  Samuel Rivera, a death-row inmate convicted of murdering a police officer, appealed the denial of his postconviction relief motion. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed his murder conviction but vacated his death sentence and remanded for resentencing because the trial court improp
• Perry v. A.L. Lockhart
  871 F.2d 1384· 8th Cir.· 1989-04-10 ·cited 31×·via Habeas Corpus Relief
  The court held that the state trial court's erroneous limitation on compulsory process did not warrant habeas relief as the absent witnesses' testimony was not material. It also held that the death sentence was not invalid under Collins v. Lockhart, as subsequent Supreme Court pr