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

• Myers v. State OF Wash.
  646 F.2d 355· 9th Cir.· 1981-05-26 ·cited 22×·via Habeas Corpus Review
  The majority opinion holds that the Wainwright v. Sykes rule is not implicated by the defendant's jury instruction claim, and that even if it were, the defendant satisfied the cause and prejudice requirements. The dissent disagrees with both holdings.
• Ogle v. Estelle
  641 F.2d 1122· 5th Cir.· 1981-04-06 ·cited 22×·via Habeas Corpus Relief
  The court held that the suppression of FBI reports did not violate Brady v. Maryland because the evidence was not material, and the participation of judges who did not hear oral argument did not violate the right to effective assistance of counsel.
• Trans-Canada Enters., Ltd. v. Muckleshoot Indian Tribe
  634 F.2d 474· 9th Cir.· 1980-12-24 ·cited 22×·via Habeas Corpus Relief
  The court held that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because constitutional guarantees are not generally applicable to the exercise of governmental powers by an Indian tribe.
• Johnson v. Mabry
  602 F.2d 167· 8th Cir.· 1979-07-18 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the district court did not err in finding that the original sentence imposed consecutive terms, and that the subsequent commitment order merely corrected a clerical error, thus the petitioner was not entitled to habeas corpus relief.
• Fisher v. Louie L. Wainwright
  584 F.2d 691· 5th Cir.· 1978-11-20 ·cited 22×·via Federal Habeas Corpus
  The court held that the petitioner's nolo contendere plea was voluntary and intelligently made, despite his claims of ineffective counsel.
• United States ex rel. Sheldon Selikoff v. Comm'r OF Corr. OF the State OF NEW York
  524 F.2d 650· 2d Cir.· 1975-10-21 ·cited 22×
  The court held that a trial judge's statements regarding sentencing, made before a pre-sentence report, do not constitute an unconditional promise that must be specifically enforced, and the opportunity to withdraw the guilty plea is a sufficient remedy.
• Johnson v. Wright
  509 F.2d 828· 5th Cir.· 1975-03-13 ·cited 22×·via Federal Habeas Corpus
  The court held that the jury charge shifting the burden of proof to the defendant regarding the unlicensed nature of a pistol violated due process. However, the arrest and search were constitutional.
• Johnson v. Louie L. Wainwright
  453 F.2d 385· 5th Cir.· 1971-12-28 ·cited 22×
  The court affirmed the denial of the petition for writ of habeas corpus because the petitioner had not exhausted his state remedies regarding the claim of denial of a right to appeal.
• The State OF S.C. v. Moore
  447 F.2d 1067· 4th Cir.· 1971-09-08 ·cited 22×
• Bannister v. United States
  446 F.2d 1250· 3d Cir.· 1971-07-07 ·cited 22×·via Federal Habeas Corpus
  The court held that a voluntary guilty plea, entered with comprehension of then-existing circumstances, is generally invulnerable to collateral attack, even on constitutional grounds.
• Odsen v. Moore
  445 F.2d 806· 1st Cir.· 1971-06-14 ·cited 22×·via Federal Habeas Corpus
  The court held that an inordinate and inexcusable delay in pursuing state appellate remedies may constitute a denial of due process, allowing federal habeas corpus relief.
• Woodards v. Cardwell
  430 F.2d 978· 6th Cir.· 1970-08-17 ·cited 22×·via Federal Habeas Corpus
  The court held that excluding jurors for general objections to the death penalty violates Witherspoon v. Illinois, and that shackling a defendant throughout a trial without sufficient justification constitutes a denial of due process and a fair trial.
• United States ex rel. Cosme Rosado v. Flood
  394 F.2d 139· 2d Cir.· 1968-04-24 ·cited 22×
  A witness before a grand jury cannot impede the investigation by raising issues that could be litigated later by an indicted defendant.
• Baines v. Swenson
  384 F.2d 621· 8th Cir.· 1967-10-31 ·cited 22×·via Federal Habeas Corpus
  The court held that the appellant has not exhausted his state remedies because a revised post-conviction rule now provides an adequate avenue for relief.
• Hield v. State
  201 So. 2d 235· Fla. 4th DCA· 1967-07-24 ·cited 22×
  The court did not explicitly state a holding as this is a special concurrence commenting on a point of law.
• Jere Lane Henry v. Tinsley
  344 F.2d 109· 10th Cir.· 1965-04-12 ·cited 22×·via Federal Habeas Corpus
  The court held that the appellant had not exhausted his state court remedies, as required by 28 U.S.C. § 2254, when he filed his federal habeas corpus petition.
• Sandoval v. Tinsley
  338 F.2d 48· 10th Cir.· 1964-11-12 ·cited 22×·via Habeas Corpus Proceedings
  The court held that the appellant competently and understandingly waived his right to counsel, and the district court's finding of waiver was adequately supported by the record.
• Kostal v. Tinsley
  337 F.2d 845· 10th Cir.· 1964-11-02 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying the writ of habeas corpus because the disciplinary actions taken by prison officials were within their authority and not cruel and inhuman.
• Sutton v. Settle
  302 F.2d 286· 8th Cir.· 1962-04-17 ·cited 22×
  The court held that issues not raised in the trial court cannot be considered on appeal, and the trial court properly dismissed the petition.
• Anderson v. Bannan
  250 F.2d 654· 6th Cir.· 1958-01-03 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the appellants failed to demonstrate a denial of due process due to ineffective assistance of counsel, and thus their petition for a writ of habeas corpus was properly denied.
• Winhoven v. Swope
  195 F.2d 181· 9th Cir.· 1952-02-28 ·cited 22×
  The court held that a federal prisoner seeking habeas corpus relief after denial of a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 must demonstrate the inadequacy of the § 2255 remedy, and a second or successive § 2255 motion is generally not permitted.
• Eisentrager v. Forrestal
  174 F.2d 961· D.C. Cir.· 1949-04-15 ·cited 22×
  A person deprived of liberty by U.S. officials in violation of the Constitution has a substantive right to habeas corpus, and this right cannot be defeated by jurisdictional omissions; the petition may be filed in the district court with jurisdiction over the officials exercising
• Craig v. Hunter
  167 F.2d 721· 10th Cir.· 1948-04-14 ·cited 22×
  The court held that a defendant cannot raise the issue of conflicting jurisdiction between state and federal courts, as this is a matter of comity solely for the offended sovereign to address. It also held that a hearing on a habeas corpus petition is not required when only quest
• Kirk v. Siquier
  150 F.2d 3· 9th Cir.· 1945-06-01 ·cited 22×
  A state parole board has the authority to parole a prisoner into the custody of federal authorities to serve a federal sentence, and this action triggers the commencement of the federal sentence.
• McDONALD v. Hudspeth
  129 F.2d 196· 10th Cir.· 1942-06-17 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the failure to perfect an appeal is not grounds for habeas corpus relief, and the sentence imposed was not excessive as each count charged a distinct offense.
• Deeb v. Gandy
  110 Fla. 283· Fla.· 1933-05-23 ·cited 22×·via Habeas Corpus Proceedings
  This case reviews a habeas corpus proceeding where the plaintiff in error was denied bail on a first-degree murder charge. The appellate court determined that the evidence did not clearly establish premeditated design, thus entitling the plaintiff in error to bail.
• In re Dailey
  949 F.3d 553· 11th Cir.· 2020-01-30 ·cited 21×·via Federal Habeas Corpus
  James Dailey, convicted of murder in 1987 and sentenced to death, sought permission to file a second federal habeas petition raising claims of actual innocence, Brady violations, and ineffective assistance of counsel based on newly discovered evidence. The Eleventh Circuit Court
• Branch v. State
  236 So. 3d 981· Fla.· 2018-02-15 ·cited 21×
  Eric Scott Branch, a death row inmate with an active execution warrant, appealed a circuit court's denial of his second successive motion for postconviction relief and petitioned for habeas corpus. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the denial, rejecting Branch's claims that his
• Hayward v. State
  183 So. 3d 286· Fla.· 2015-06-25 ·cited 21×
  Steven Douglas Hayward appeals the denial of his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851 postconviction motion seeking to vacate his first-degree murder conviction and death sentence. He also petitions for a writ of habeas corpus alleging ineffective assistance of appellate coun
• Abreu-Gutierrez v. James
  1 So. 3d 262· Fla. 4th DCA· 2009-01-05 ·cited 21×
  Jose Abreu-Gutierrez challenged his involuntary commitment for restoration of competency to stand trial, arguing the commitment was illegal. The appellate court held that because no evidence established his mental illness was amenable to treatment or that he could be restored to
• Rivera v. State
  954 So. 2d 1216· Fla. 3d DCA· 2007-04-18 ·cited 21×
  The court held that the defendant's claim for additional credit for time served was inconsistent with the terms of the plea agreement he accepted.
• Meryl S. McDONALD v. State
  952 So. 2d 484· Fla.· 2006-11-02 ·cited 21×
  Meryl McDonald, a death row inmate, appealed the denial of his Rule 3.850 postconviction motion and petitioned for habeas corpus relief. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the denial of both the postconviction motion and the habeas petition, finding that McDonald's trial counsel
• Trepal v. State
  846 So. 2d 405· Fla.· 2003-03-06 ·cited 21×
  George James Trepal appeals denial of postconviction relief following his conviction for the first-degree murder of Peggy Carr through thallium poisoning. The core issue involves whether false and misleading scientific testimony by FBI chemist Roger Martz, combined with other all
• Gudinas v. State
  816 So. 2d 1095· Fla.· 2002-03-28 ·cited 21×
  Thomas Gudinas, a death row inmate convicted of first-degree murder and sexual battery, sought postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 and habeas corpus relief. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's denial of all postconviction claims a
• Linroy Bottoson v. State
  813 So. 2d 31· Fla.· 2002-01-31 ·cited 21×
  Linroy Bottoson, a death row inmate with an active death warrant, appealed the trial court's denial of his successive motion for postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851 and filed a successive habeas corpus petition. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed
• Happ v. Moore
  784 So. 2d 1091· Fla.· 2001-05-03 ·cited 21×
  William Frederick Happ, a death-sentenced inmate, petitioned for habeas corpus relief based on claims of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. The Florida Supreme Court denied all five claims, holding that appellate counsel's performance fell within the acceptable range an
• Cary Michael Lambrix v. Singletary
  641 So. 2d 847· Fla.· 1994-06-16 ·cited 21×
  The court held that the petitioner's claims are procedurally barred, and thus he is not entitled to habeas corpus relief.
• United States ex rel. Marlon Thomas v. O'Leary
  856 F.2d 1011· 7th Cir.· 1988-09-16 ·cited 21×
  The court held that the failure of Thomas's attorneys to file a brief on the State's appeal from the suppression ruling constituted a complete denial of counsel at a critical stage, violating the Sixth Amendment, and that this violation could not be considered harmless error.
• Bruni v. Lewis
  847 F.2d 561· 9th Cir.· 1988-05-24 ·cited 21×·via Federal Habeas Corpus
  A defendant's statement, "Not without my attorney. Well, ask your questions, and I will answer those I see fit," constitutes an unequivocal selective waiver of the right to counsel, allowing subsequent interrogation on topics the defendant chooses to answer.
• Smith v. Dugger
  840 F.2d 787· 11th Cir.· 1988-03-09 ·cited 21×·via Federal Habeas Corpus
  The court affirmed the denial of federal habeas corpus relief, finding no violation of the defendant's constitutional rights.
• Booker v. Dugger
  825 F.2d 281· 11th Cir.· 1987-08-05 ·cited 21×·via Federal Habeas Corpus
  The court held that the appellant failed to provide clear and convincing evidence of fraud on the court and did not adequately explain the failure to raise the fraud claim in a prior petition, thus affirming the dismissal of his independent action and denial of his habeas corpus
• Mills v. State
  507 So. 2d 602· Fla.· 1987-05-05 ·cited 21×
  John Mills, a death row inmate convicted of first-degree murder, challenged his death sentence through a Rule 3.850 motion and habeas corpus petition, claiming prosecutorial misconduct, ineffective assistance of counsel, and other trial errors. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed
• Knaubert v. Goldsmith
  791 F.2d 722· 9th Cir.· 1986-06-09 ·cited 21×
  The court held that the district court did not err in dismissing the habeas corpus petition or denying the motion for appointment of counsel, as the petitioner's claims were either procedurally barred, fairly adjudicated in state court, or did not warrant federal intervention.
• Proffitt v. Louie L. Wainwright
  756 F.2d 1500· 11th Cir.· 1985-03-26 ·cited 21×·via Habeas Corpus Review
  The court held that the prior panel's opinion did not implicitly require resentencing by a jury, and the petitioner's claim regarding jury instructions on mitigating circumstances is barred by procedural default.
• Henry v. Louie L. Wainwright
  743 F.2d 761· 11th Cir.· 1984-09-19 ·cited 21×
  The court denied the application for a certificate of probable cause and a stay of execution.
• Johns v. Dep't OF Just. OF the United States
  653 F.2d 884· 5th Cir.· 1981-08-04 ·cited 21×
• Germany v. Estelle
  639 F.2d 1301· 5th Cir.· 1981-03-19 ·cited 21×·via Habeas Corpus Relief
  The admission of Germany's incriminating statement was harmless error, and the state court's factual findings regarding the compulsory process claim are presumed correct under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).
• United States v. Warren
  610 F.2d 680· 9th Cir.· 1980-01-03 ·cited 21×
  A district court exceeds its jurisdiction under Fed.R.Crim.P. 35 by ordering a transfer of an inmate from state to federal custody or by crediting time spent in state custody, as these are matters of comity and executive discretion.
• Thompson v. Procunier
  539 F.2d 26· 9th Cir.· 1976-07-21 ·cited 21×·via Federal Habeas Corpus
  Where a state court denies a habeas corpus petition presenting a federal constitutional question without stating a reason, the federal court will assume the state court passed on the merits and resolved the issue against the petitioner.
• Estis L. Gibbs v. Olin G. Blackwell
  354 F.2d 469· 5th Cir.· 1965-12-06 ·cited 21×·via Habeas Corpus Review
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the habeas corpus petition without a full hearing, as serious constitutional questions regarding the adequacy of counsel and the application of parole revocation statutes were raised.