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

• Barks v. Armontrout
  872 F.2d 237· 8th Cir.· 1989-06-29 ·cited 8×·via Habeas Corpus Relief
  The court held that the state courts would not entertain the petitioner's successive post-conviction relief motion under Rule 29.15, making further attempts at state redress futile.
• Berry v. A.L. Lockhart
  873 F.2d 1168· 8th Cir.· 1989-05-09 ·cited 8×·via Habeas Corpus Relief
  The court affirmed the district court's grant of habeas relief, holding that the defendant did not knowingly and intelligently waive his right to counsel.
• Sahagian v. Murphy
  871 F.2d 714· 7th Cir.· 1989-04-11 ·cited 8×
  The court held that a defendant cannot claim a Confrontation Clause violation when his own tactical decision to refuse a continuance for a temporarily unavailable witness leads to the witness's prior testimony being admitted.
• Roulette Blair v. McCARTHY
  881 F.2d 602· 9th Cir.· 1989-03-27 ·cited 8×
  A habeas petitioner can obtain relief for a state trial court's violation of state law in accepting a guilty plea if the petitioner shows a reasonable probability that, but for the error, they would not have pleaded guilty.
• Clark v. O'Leary
  852 F.2d 999· 7th Cir.· 1988-07-25 ·cited 8×·via Federal Habeas Corpus
  The court held that the trial court's refusal to permit cross-examination regarding the alleged bias and motive of witnesses stemming from their gang affiliation violated the Sixth Amendment's confrontation clause.
• Swindle v. Leoneal Davis
  846 F.2d 706· 11th Cir.· 1988-06-08 ·cited 8×·via Habeas Corpus Relief
  Federal habeas relief is not available for newly discovered evidence that only goes to guilt or innocence, and ineffective assistance of counsel claims require showing deficient performance and prejudice.
• Stano v. Dugger
  846 F.2d 1286· 11th Cir.· 1988-05-18 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the petitioner's claim that he proceeded pro se without a knowing and intelligent waiver of counsel is not frivolous and warrants further review.
• Chappee v. Vose
  843 F.2d 25· 1st Cir.· 1988-03-28 ·cited 8×·via Habeas Corpus Review
  The court held that the preclusion of defense expert testimony was a constitutionally permissible sanction for a deliberate and prejudicial discovery violation, even if less severe sanctions were theoretically available.
• Brogdon v. Butler
  838 F.2d 776· 5th Cir.· 1988-02-29 ·cited 8×·via Habeas Corpus Relief
  The court held that a prosecutor may impeach a defendant's trial testimony with prior inconsistent statements made after Miranda warnings, even if the defendant initially remained silent on some points, because the defendant voluntarily spoke and did not rely on the right to rema
• Hartman v. W.D. Blankenship
  825 F.2d 26· 4th Cir.· 1987-08-03 ·cited 8×·via Federal Habeas Corpus
  The dissenting judge holds that the district court properly found the guilty plea involuntary due to the prosecution's broken promise regarding a sentencing recommendation.
• Pickens v. Butler
  814 F.2d 237· 5th Cir.· 1987-04-14 ·cited 8×
  The Constitution does not require a final revocation hearing if parole revocation is mandatory by law due to a felony conviction.
• United States ex rel. Edward Weismiller v. Lane
  815 F.2d 1106· 7th Cir.· 1987-03-30 ·cited 8×·via Habeas Corpus Relief
  The court held that challenges to jury instructions were procedurally barred due to a state procedural default, and direct challenges to the Illinois Guilty But Mentally Ill (GBMI) statutes were without merit.
• Brasier v. Douglas
  815 F.2d 64· 10th Cir.· 1987-03-27 ·cited 8×·via Federal Habeas Corpus
  The court held that procedural default did not preclude federal habeas review because the state court had addressed the merits of the petitioner's claims.
• Harker v. State OF Md.
  800 F.2d 437· 4th Cir.· 1986-09-16 ·cited 8×·via Habeas Corpus Review
  The court held that while the police procedures in administering hypnosis were flawed, the identification of the defendant was sufficiently reliable apart from the hypnosis, rendering the error harmless.
• Parole & Prob. Comm'n v. Fuller
  491 So. 2d 275· Fla.· 1986-07-17 ·cited 8×
  Judicial review of presumptive parole release date calculations is now available only through a writ of mandamus, not habeas corpus. Since the prisoners were released, their petitions are moot.
• Esquivel v. O.L. McCOTTER
  791 F.2d 350· 5th Cir.· 1986-06-07 ·cited 8×·via Federal Habeas Corpus
  The court held that the Batson v. Kentucky rule should not be applied retroactively to federal habeas proceedings, and vacated the district court's stay of execution.
• Driggers v. Carson
  486 So. 2d 25· Fla. 1st DCA· 1986-03-25 ·cited 8×
  Edward Driggers petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus challenging a $1,000,000 bail set by the trial court in a first-degree murder case. The court denied the petition, holding that although the trial judge had discretion to grant bail under State v. Arthur, the judge's decision
• Hoots v. Allsbrook
  785 F.2d 1214· 4th Cir.· 1986-03-05 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the majority misapplied the Strickland test by failing to consider the cumulative effect of counsel's errors, which created a reasonable probability of a different outcome.
• Lyman B. Thompson v. Blackburn
  776 F.2d 118· 5th Cir.· 1985-11-12 ·cited 8×·via Habeas Corpus Relief
  The court held that a defendant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on his claim that a sentence denying parole constitutes ex post facto punishment if the relevant statutory amendment became effective after the commission of the crime.
• United States ex rel. William J. Miller v. Kenneth McGINNIS & Attorney Gen. of the State of Ill.
  774 F.2d 819· 7th Cir.· 1985-10-04 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the trial court's failure to inform the defendant of the mandatory supervised release term violated his due process rights, but also found that the totality of errors, including failure to inform of other rights and the defendant's age and confusion, rendered
• United States v. DeROBERTIS
  771 F.2d 1057· 7th Cir.· 1985-08-27 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the trial court's failure to investigate a timely objection to joint representation based on conflicting defenses violated the Sixth Amendment, and that an actual conflict of interest adversely affected counsel's representation, warranting habeas corpus relief
• Fretwell v. Honorable R.T. "Tim" Dobeck
  473 So. 2d 302· Fla. 4th DCA· 1985-08-07 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the trial judge should substantially reduce the defendant's bond, citing the lack of strong evidence and the defendant's community ties.
• Payret v. Honorable Don T. Adams
  471 So. 2d 218· Fla. 4th DCA· 1985-06-26 ·cited 8×
  A pretrial detainee sought habeas corpus relief based on a local administrative order provision requiring personal recognizance release if formal charges were not filed within 21 days. The court held that this administrative provision conflicted with Florida Criminal Procedure Ru
• United States v. Lehman
  756 F.2d 725· 9th Cir.· 1985-03-28 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the government's refusal to disclose footprint photograph reports did not constitute a Brady violation because the evidence was not material to the outcome of the trial.
• Bailey v. Procunier
  744 F.2d 1166· 5th Cir.· 1984-10-29 ·cited 8×·via Federal Habeas Corpus
  The court affirmed the denial of federal habeas corpus relief, finding no violation of due process from the admission of evidence regarding the victim's will, the alleged withholding of exculpatory evidence, or the jury charge.
• Bibby v. Tard
  741 F.2d 26· 3d Cir.· 1984-08-03 ·cited 8×
  The court held that a federal district court must conduct an evidentiary hearing on a habeas corpus petition if the petitioner alleges the sentencing judge relied on materially false information regarding prior convictions, and the state courts did not provide a full and fair hea
• United States ex rel. John Clauser v. McCEVERS
  731 F.2d 423· 7th Cir.· 1984-04-06 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the trial court's termination of the first trial due to a defective indictment based on false testimony was occasioned by manifest necessity, and therefore, the subsequent reindictment and conviction did not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause.
• Castillo-Magallon v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv.
  729 F.2d 1227· 9th Cir.· 1984-04-04 ·cited 8×·via Habeas Corpus Review
  The court held that it lacks jurisdiction to hear a direct appeal from a Board of Immigration Appeals decision dismissing an appeal from an Immigration Judge's order of exclusion.
• Cannon v. W.C. Berry
  727 F.2d 1020· 11th Cir.· 1984-03-19 ·cited 8×·via Habeas Corpus Relief
  The failure to file a brief on a nonfrivolous direct appeal constitutes ineffective assistance of counsel, and a habeas petitioner need not show actual prejudice in such cases.
• Parker v. Rose
  728 F.2d 392· 6th Cir.· 1984-03-02 ·cited 8×·via Federal Habeas Corpus
  The Sixth Circuit held that the petitioner had not exhausted his state remedies and therefore his federal habeas corpus petition could not be considered on the merits.
• Cole v. Hunter
  726 F.2d 434· 8th Cir.· 1984-02-07 ·cited 8×
  The court affirmed the denial of the habeas corpus petition, finding no violation of the Sixth Amendment right to confrontation and declining to reach the merits of the Fifth Amendment claim due to failure to exhaust state remedies.
• Carrillo v. Perkins
  723 F.2d 1165· 5th Cir.· 1984-01-30 ·cited 8×·via Habeas Corpus Review
  A restriction on cross-examination of a prosecution witness regarding potential bias, even if it violates the Sixth Amendment's confrontation clause, can be harmless error if other evidence of guilt is overwhelming.
• Guice v. Fortenberry
  722 F.2d 276· 5th Cir.· 1984-01-09 ·cited 8×·via Federal Habeas Corpus
  The state's rebuttal evidence was sufficient to support the trial court's finding that the grand jury foreman was not selected on racial grounds.
• Alexander v. State OF Md.
  719 F.2d 1241· 4th Cir.· 1983-10-20 ·cited 8×·via Federal Habeas Corpus
  The court held that the state failed to prove Alexander would have been waived to adult court in 1961, and that his petition was not barred by laches under Habeas Rule 9(a).
• Howze v. Marshall
  716 F.2d 396· 6th Cir.· 1983-09-09 ·cited 8×
  Placing the burden on a defendant to prove insanity by a preponderance of the evidence does not violate due process, provided the state proves all elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.
• Birt v. Montgomery
  709 F.2d 690· 11th Cir.· 1983-07-11 ·cited 8×·via Federal Habeas Corpus
• Mahan Hollin v. Sowders
  710 F.2d 264· 6th Cir.· 1983-06-24 ·cited 8×·via Federal Habeas Corpus
  The court held that the attorney's negligence did not cause demonstrable harm because the defendant's claims were considered on valid state grounds, thus no Sixth Amendment violation occurred.
• Levis Leon Aldridge v. Louie L. Wainwright
  433 So. 2d 988· Fla.· 1983-06-14 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the petitioner's claims regarding the application of legal principles, jury instructions, and the death sentencing scheme were without merit and did not warrant habeas corpus relief.
• L.P.S. v. Lamm
  708 F.2d 537· 10th Cir.· 1983-06-02 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reinstate the civil rights action because the parties' stipulation clearly granted the trial court discretion to make that decision.
• Hartley v. Neely
  701 F.2d 780· 9th Cir.· 1983-03-14 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the exhaustion requirement for habeas corpus may be satisfied before a final state court judgment when the claim involves double jeopardy, and that a defendant who sought a mistrial is barred from a double jeopardy claim unless the mistrial was provoked by the
• Jones v. Jago
  701 F.2d 45· 6th Cir.· 1983-02-22 ·cited 8×·via Habeas Corpus Relief
  The court held that a federal court may entertain constitutional claims in a habeas corpus petition when the state appellate court addresses the merits of the claim, even if a procedural default occurred at trial.
• Morse v. State OF Tex.
  691 F.2d 770· 5th Cir.· 1982-11-15 ·cited 8×·via Habeas Corpus Relief
  A voluntary guilty plea, intelligently made in light of the then-applicable law, does not become vulnerable because later judicial decisions indicate that the plea rested on a faulty premise, such as the potential use of an uncounseled conviction for enhancement.
• Siegel v. State OF NEW York & Edward J. Kuriansky
  691 F.2d 620· 2d Cir.· 1982-10-22 ·cited 8×·via Federal Habeas Corpus
• Dougherty v. White
  689 F.2d 142· 8th Cir.· 1982-09-20 ·cited 8×·via Federal Habeas Corpus
  The court held that a federal court's order extending probation to require restitution for offenses of which the defendant was not convicted is illegal and void.
• Ford v. Superintendent, Ky. State Penitentiary
  687 F.2d 870· 6th Cir.· 1982-09-09 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the magistrate abused discretion by refusing to hear crucial live testimony from a witness whose credibility was central to the petitioner's claim of constitutional violation.
• Early Lee Harris v. Gil Ingram
  683 F.2d 97· 4th Cir.· 1982-07-13 ·cited 8×·via Federal Habeas Corpus
  A federal district court lacks jurisdiction to hear a state habeas corpus petition when the petitioner is not in the custody of that state, even if the prior state conviction affects a current federal sentence.
• Sinclair v. State OF La.
  679 F.2d 513· 5th Cir.· 1982-07-02 ·cited 8×·via Federal Habeas Corpus
  The court held that a federal habeas petition can be dismissed as successive and an abuse of the writ if it raises the same claims previously decided on the merits and fails to allege new grounds for relief.
• Harrison v. Owen
  682 F.2d 138· 7th Cir.· 1982-06-29 ·cited 8×·via Habeas Corpus Review
  The admission of Harrison's oral incriminating statements to police was harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt because his subsequent confession to a friend was nearly identical and admitted into evidence.
• Pierce v. Mims
  418 So. 2d 273· Fla. 2d DCA· 1982-06-25 ·cited 8×
  The court held that hearsay testimony is inadmissible at a preliminary hearing to establish probable cause, and its admission warrants a writ of habeas corpus.
• Tweety v. Mitchell
  682 F.2d 461· 4th Cir.· 1982-06-10 ·cited 8×·via Habeas Corpus Review
  The dissenting judge would grant the writ of habeas corpus, finding that a jury instruction violated constitutional rights and that the procedural bar of a contemporaneous objection rule was improperly applied.