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

• Henderson v. Tollett
  459 F.2d 237· 6th Cir.· 1972-04-20 ·cited 8×·via Federal Habeas Corpus
  A guilty plea does not waive the right to challenge a grand jury indictment based on systematic racial exclusion if neither the defendant nor counsel knew of this right at the time of the plea.
• Keeny v. Swenson
  458 F.2d 680· 8th Cir.· 1972-04-20 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the petitioner's claims regarding denial of speedy trial, illegal search and seizure, unfair jury, and erroneous sentencing did not present grounds for federal habeas corpus relief.
• Utsler v. Erickson
  440 F.2d 140· 8th Cir.· 1971-04-05 ·cited 8×·via Federal Habeas Corpus
  The court held that the district court correctly denied the habeas corpus petition because the petitioner's claims did not rise to the level of constitutional violations.
• Dodd v. United States Marshal & Wash. State Bd. of Paroles & Pardons & Dir.
  439 F.2d 774· 2d Cir.· 1971-03-22 ·cited 8×
  A federal prisoner is not considered 'in custody' of a state for habeas corpus purposes unless that state has filed a detainer with the prisoner's custodian.
• Hackathorn v. J. E. (Bill) Decker
  438 F.2d 1363· 5th Cir.· 1971-02-17 ·cited 8×·via Federal Habeas Corpus
  The court held that the appellant is entitled to a post-conviction hearing on the voluntariness of his confessions and relief under Witherspoon v. Illinois due to improper jury selection.
• United States ex rel. Murray Dickerson v. Rundle
  430 F.2d 462· 3d Cir.· 1970-07-21 ·cited 8×
  The dissenting judge argues that the bring-up proceeding, authorized by a judicial officer, constituted a critical stage requiring counsel, making the subsequent confession inadmissible.
• Berald Herlin Andry v. Henderson
  429 F.2d 26· 5th Cir.· 1970-07-06 ·cited 8×·via Federal Habeas Corpus
  A defendant is denied effective assistance of counsel if counsel fails to advise him of his right to appeal or obtain his informed consent to forego that right.
• Olvera v. Beto
  429 F.2d 131· 5th Cir.· 1970-07-02 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the case should be remanded to allow Texas state courts an opportunity to interpret the application of Burgett v. Texas to the penalty stage of a bifurcated trial, citing principles of comity and federalism.
• Cleophus Young v. State OF Ala.
  427 F.2d 177· 5th Cir.· 1970-05-12 ·cited 8×·via Federal Habeas Corpus
  A federal habeas corpus petitioner who has presented a claim to the highest state court has exhausted state remedies, even if the claim was raised on direct appeal rather than in a collateral proceeding.
• Darwin Murphy v. Turner
  426 F.2d 422· 10th Cir.· 1970-05-08 ·cited 8×
  The court held that parole revocation hearings do not require the full panoply of due process rights, only general fairness, and that the Board's actions met this standard.
• Savage v. U. S. Parole Bd.
  422 F.2d 1248· 6th Cir.· 1970-03-06 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the prisoner was not entitled to unconditional release due to the delay in executing the parole violator warrant, as the delay was justified by awaiting the outcome of a new criminal charge.
• Dearinger v. Rhay
  421 F.2d 1086· 9th Cir.· 1970-01-28 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the applicant lacked standing to challenge the legality of his companion's arrest, as any illegality did not violate the applicant's rights.
• VIA v. Perini
  415 F.2d 1052· 6th Cir.· 1969-09-18 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the appellant's claims were not properly before the court or had not exhausted state remedies, and thus the petition for a writ of habeas corpus was correctly denied.
• Bratcher v. McNAMARA
  415 F.2d 760· 9th Cir.· 1969-08-12 ·cited 8×
  A military enlistee seeking discharge as a conscientious objector must exhaust available administrative remedies before seeking federal court relief.
• United States ex rel. Albert LaMOLINARE v. Duggan
  415 F.2d 730· 3d Cir.· 1969-07-25 ·cited 8×·via Federal Habeas Corpus
  The dissenting judge would have remanded the case for an evidentiary hearing to determine if the right to challenge the search and seizure was waived and, if not, whether the search was valid.
• United States ex rel. Charles Kenny v. Hon. Harold W. Follette
  410 F.2d 1276· 2d Cir.· 1969-03-25 ·cited 8×·via Federal Habeas Corpus
  The court held that the petitioner deliberately abandoned his right to challenge the validity of his prior conviction by failing to utilize available state procedures, despite being informed of his right to do so.
• Drews v. State OF Minn.
  407 F.2d 1307· 8th Cir.· 1969-03-10 ·cited 8×·via Federal Habeas Corpus
  The court held that while the federal district court erred in finding procedural waiver under state law, there is no federal constitutional right to pretrial disclosure of prosecution witnesses, thus affirming the denial of habeas corpus.
• Pope v. Harper
  407 F.2d 1303· 9th Cir.· 1969-02-25 ·cited 8×·via Federal Habeas Corpus
  The court held that the state court's prior determination that prosecutorial comment on the defendant's failure to testify was harmless error was incorrect, and that the federal district court properly granted habeas corpus relief.
• Robinson v. United States
  394 F.2d 823· 6th Cir.· 1968-05-23 ·cited 8×·via Habeas Corpus Relief
  The court held that the Petitioner's conviction remains valid under the Federal Kidnaping Act, as he does not fall into the categories of defendants whose convictions can be contested following the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Jackson.
• Cotner v. Henry
  394 F.2d 873· 7th Cir.· 1968-04-17 ·cited 8×·via Federal Habeas Corpus
  The dissenting judge would affirm the district court's decision, disagreeing with the majority's grant of relief.
• Kerr v. Dutton
  393 F.2d 79· 5th Cir.· 1968-03-22 ·cited 8×·via Habeas Corpus Relief
  The denial of appointed counsel at a preliminary hearing in Georgia does not violate constitutional rights because the hearing is not a critical stage.
• Rodger Wyley v. Warden, Maryland Penitentiary
  372 F.2d 742· 4th Cir.· 1967-01-10 ·cited 8×·via Federal Habeas Corpus
  The court held that Maryland's constitutional provision allowing juries to be judges of law as well as fact, despite its perceived unwisdom, does not violate the federal constitution's due process or equal protection clauses.
• Helms v. Olin Blackwell
  367 F.2d 149· 5th Cir.· 1966-10-10 ·cited 8×
  The court held that a district court has the authority to treat a habeas corpus motion as a motion to vacate and correct a sentence under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 and to resentence the defendant.
• State of Fla. ex rel. Joseph J. Springer v. Montie Smith
  189 So. 2d 846· Fla. 4th DCA· 1966-09-02 ·cited 8×
  A city ordinance adopting by reference all present and future state misdemeanors is valid, and challenges to the sufficiency of charges should be brought via a motion to quash, not a petition for writ of habeas corpus.
• United States ex rel. Codarre v. Gilligan
  363 F.2d 961· 2d Cir.· 1966-06-28 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the petitioner was not denied due process regarding his guilty plea to murder.
• Cade v. Balkcom
  361 F.2d 212· 5th Cir.· 1966-05-17 ·cited 8×·via Federal Habeas Corpus
  Federal habeas corpus relief is not available for claims that do not violate fundamental liberties or for ineffective assistance of counsel unless egregious misconduct is proven, and state remedies must be exhausted.
• United States ex rel. Erskine Gates v. Pate
  355 F.2d 879· 7th Cir.· 1966-01-20 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the relator's constitutional rights were not violated and he received a fair trial, affirming the denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
• Elgin Campbell v. United States
  355 F.2d 394· 7th Cir.· 1966-01-06 ·cited 8×·via Habeas Corpus (28 U.S.C. § 2255)
  A petitioner's waiver of a direct appeal forecloses collateral attack on issues that could have been raised on direct appeal, even if those issues involve constitutional rights.
• Bland v. State OF Ala.
  356 F.2d 8· 5th Cir.· 1965-12-27 ·cited 8×
• Ponciano Murillo-Aguilera v. Rosenberg
  351 F.2d 289· 9th Cir.· 1965-09-20 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the special inquiry officer did not abuse his discretion in denying the appellant's application for permission to reapply for admission into the United States.
• Jacobs v. Crouse
  349 F.2d 857· 10th Cir.· 1965-08-26 ·cited 8×
  The court held that state authorities did not waive their right to enforce a state sentence by releasing a prisoner to federal custody.
• Henderson v. Heinze
  349 F.2d 67· 9th Cir.· 1965-07-14 ·cited 8×·via Federal Habeas Corpus
  The court held that a petitioner claiming a Fourth Amendment violation in a federal habeas proceeding waives the attorney-client privilege regarding communications about the deliberate by-passing of state remedies.
• Stirone v. Markley
  345 F.2d 473· 7th Cir.· 1965-04-08 ·cited 8×
  The court held that a district court lacks jurisdiction to entertain a habeas corpus petition if the petitioner has already pursued and been denied relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, unless the § 2255 remedy is shown to be inadequate or ineffective.
• Achillies G. Cyronne-DeVIRGIN v. State OF Mo. & Dr. Donald B. Peterson
  341 F.2d 568· 8th Cir.· 1965-02-15 ·cited 8×
  The court held that a federal habeas corpus petition should be denied for failure to exhaust state remedies when a newly enacted state statute provides a mechanism for judicial review of the petitioner's current mental condition and potential release.
• State of Fla. ex rel. John Thomas Callahan, Jr. v. Michell
  170 So. 2d 290· Fla.· 1964-12-21 ·cited 8×·via Habeas Corpus Proceedings
  The Florida Supreme Court denied a petition for certiorari challenging a District Court of Appeal decision in a habeas corpus case, holding that Section 79.11, F.S.A. (an 1879 statute requiring judicial consent for appeals) is obsolete and has been entirely superseded by the 1956
• Harris v. Maxwell
  337 F.2d 710· 6th Cir.· 1964-09-18 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court correctly dismissed the habeas corpus petition for failure to exhaust state remedies, as appellant had not presented his federal claims to the Ohio Supreme Court.
• Warren v. Richardson
  333 F.2d 781· 9th Cir.· 1964-06-16 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the defendant's absence from a hearing where his sentence was affirmed, under 18 U.S.C. § 4208(b), constituted an error requiring remand for a proper hearing, but not grounds to vacate the conviction.
• Gailes v. Yeager
  324 F.2d 630· 3d Cir.· 1963-10-17 ·cited 8×
  The court held that a writ of habeas corpus cannot be used to challenge a sentence that has not yet begun to run.
• Sharp v. The State OF Ohio
  314 F.2d 799· 6th Cir.· 1963-03-18 ·cited 8×
  The court held that a petitioner alleging lack of counsel and understanding of a guilty plea is entitled to a hearing.
• McGUIRE v. Cochran
  135 So. 2d 226· Fla.· 1961-11-28 ·cited 8×
  The Florida Supreme Court discharged a writ of habeas corpus, holding that the petitioner's claims of an illegal sentence should be raised through a direct appeal, not habeas corpus, as the time for appeal had not yet expired. The court emphasized that habeas corpus is not a subs
• Duncan v. State OF Me.
  295 F.2d 528· 1st Cir.· 1961-11-02 ·cited 8×·via Writ Of Habeas Corpus Ad Subjiciendum
  A district court lacks jurisdiction to entertain a habeas corpus petition from a prisoner held outside its territorial jurisdiction, even if the prisoner was originally held within the district under a state court judgment and is now held by federal authorities under a contract.
• Eckman v. Byington
  290 F.2d 1· 9th Cir.· 1961-04-26 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the petitioner's appeal was not taken in good faith and denied leave to appeal in forma pauperis.
• Armstrong v. Bannan
  272 F.2d 577· 6th Cir.· 1959-12-10 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the applicant's claims did not present a sufficient case to warrant the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus, thus denying a certificate of probable cause for appeal.
• Bailey v. Henslee
  264 F.2d 744· 8th Cir.· 1959-04-03 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the appellant waived his constitutional right to compulsory process by failing to raise the issue on direct appeal and that habeas corpus cannot serve as a substitute for an appeal.
• Parker v. Ellis
  258 F.2d 937· 5th Cir.· 1958-08-29 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the state was not constitutionally obligated to provide counsel for a non-capital offense, and the trial was not fundamentally unfair.
• Frost v. Yankwich
  254 F.2d 633· 9th Cir.· 1958-04-09 ·cited 8×
  The court held that a writ of mandamus is not appropriate to challenge a removal order when the lower court did not act in excess of its jurisdiction, and that habeas corpus is not a means to test the right to remove, which is final.
• Arsenault v. Gavin
  248 F.2d 777· 1st Cir.· 1957-10-30 ·cited 8×·via Federal Habeas Corpus
  The court held that federal habeas corpus relief is unavailable because the petitioner failed to exhaust state remedies by not presenting his federal constitutional claims to the state courts.
• United States ex rel. Billie Frield Swaggerty v. Honorable Win G. Knoch
  245 F.2d 229· 7th Cir.· 1957-06-03 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying the appellant's petitions without a hearing, as the claims raised were substantially the same as those previously litigated and decided.
• United States ex rel. Francesco Brancato v. Lehmann
  239 F.2d 663· 6th Cir.· 1956-11-21 ·cited 8×
• Haines v. Latham Castle
  226 F.2d 591· 7th Cir.· 1955-10-20 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court correctly dismissed the suit because it presented no substantial federal constitutional question, and affirmed the dismissal.