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

• Demouchette v. Collins
  972 F.2d 651· 5th Cir.· 1992-09-09 ·cited 2×·via Federal Habeas Corpus
  The court denied the motion for a certificate of probable cause and the motion for a stay of execution.
• McINTYRE v. Trickey
  975 F.2d 437· 8th Cir.· 1992-09-04 ·cited 2×
  The Eighth Circuit held that prosecuting McIntyre for stealing a car after he had already been prosecuted for tampering with the same car violated the Double Jeopardy Clause, as the conduct constituting the tampering offense was used to prove essential elements of the stealing ch
• McCANN v. Armontrout
  973 F.2d 655· 8th Cir.· 1992-08-25 ·cited 2×·via Habeas Corpus Relief
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying petitioner's request for an evidentiary hearing or in denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus, as the issues could be resolved on the state court record and petitioner failed to demonstrate ineffective assista
• Pacelli v. Robert deVITO
  972 F.2d 871· 7th Cir.· 1992-08-25 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the defendants did not violate the Constitution by continuing to detain the plaintiff because there was no evidence they knew of the writ of habeas corpus or intended to violate his rights, and state law violations are not actionable under § 1983.
• Valerio Ernest Miranda v. Cooper
  967 F.2d 392· 10th Cir.· 1992-06-17 ·cited 2×·via Federal Habeas Corpus
  The court held that Miranda failed to exhaust available state remedies by not fairly presenting his federal constitutional claims to the state courts, and his claims lack merit.
• Celedonio Santana v. Chandler
  961 F.2d 514· 5th Cir.· 1992-05-12 ·cited 2×·via Habeas Corpus Relief
  The court denied the motion for appointment of counsel, finding that the issues, while complex, were sufficiently addressed by existing circuit precedent and legal scholarship to not require additional attorney assistance.
• McLEAN v. Moran
  963 F.2d 1306· 9th Cir.· 1992-05-11 ·cited 2×·via Habeas Corpus Relief
  The court held that the application of Nev.Rev.Stat. § 484.381(1) as a mandatory conclusive presumption violated the petitioner's due process right to have the state prove every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.
• Bland v. Singletary
  601 So. 2d 1222· Fla. 1st DCA· 1992-05-11 ·cited 2×
  Larry Bland petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus challenging the sufficiency of the burglary information under which he was convicted, arguing it failed to allege the essential element of intent to commit an offense. The Florida appellate court denied the petition, holding that
• Nollie Lee Martin v. Singletary
  599 So. 2d 119· Fla.· 1992-05-05 ·cited 2×
  Nollie Martin, a death row inmate, petitioned for habeas corpus relief and appealed the denial of his postconviction motion, seeking to stay his execution based on the U.S. Supreme Court's grant of certiorari in a related case. The Florida Supreme Court denied all relief, finding
• Thomas v. Whalen
  962 F.2d 358· 4th Cir.· 1992-05-01 ·cited 2×
  The court affirmed the result because Pennsylvania law presumes state sentences are consecutive to prior sentences from different sovereigns unless expressly made concurrent.
• Griffin v. Delo
  961 F.2d 793· 8th Cir.· 1992-04-14 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the petitioner should have an opportunity to present new claims of constitutional error due to potential ineffective assistance of counsel.
• Splunge v. Dick Clark and Indiana Attorney General
  960 F.2d 705· 7th Cir.· 1992-04-06 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the prosecutor's peremptory challenge of a black potential juror, Ms. Brodie, was unconstitutional because the stated reason was a pretext for racial discrimination.
• Coogan v. McCAUGHTRY
  958 F.2d 793· 7th Cir.· 1992-04-01 ·cited 2×·via Habeas Corpus Relief
  The court held that the petitioner failed to demonstrate ineffective assistance of counsel or that newly discovered evidence warranted a new trial, thus denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
• Mikel W. Houston v. A.L. Lockhart
  958 F.2d 826· 8th Cir.· 1992-03-11 ·cited 2×·via Habeas Corpus Relief
  The court held that counsel's failure to secure a stipulation for polygraph results was not ineffective assistance because Arkansas law requires written stipulations and an objection would have been futile.
• Whipple v. Duckworth
  957 F.2d 418· 7th Cir.· 1992-03-03 ·cited 2×·via Habeas Corpus Review
  The court held that the trial court's failure to instruct the jury on self-defense and defense of others did not violate the defendant's constitutional rights because the defendant did not present evidence of an imminent threat as required by Indiana law.
• Emile Pierre Duhamel v. Collins
  955 F.2d 962· 5th Cir.· 1992-03-02 ·cited 2×·via Federal Habeas Corpus
  The court held that the district court erred in finding ineffective assistance of counsel and in commuting the death sentence, as the petitioner failed to prove prejudice from alleged attorney errors and the court lacked authority to commute the sentence.
• Delbert Wilkins v. Iowa
  957 F.2d 537· 8th Cir.· 1992-02-21 ·cited 2×·via Habeas Corpus Relief
  The court held that trial counsel's strategic decision to focus on justification rather than diminished capacity was reasonable, and the evidence was sufficient to support a first-degree murder conviction.
• Gross v. Heikien
  957 F.2d 531· 8th Cir.· 1992-02-20 ·cited 2×·via Federal Habeas Corpus
  The court held that a state court's decision on constitutional claims has collateral estoppel effect in a subsequent federal § 1983 action, even if the state proceedings were required by comity considerations for federal habeas corpus.
• Denham v. Deeds
  954 F.2d 1501· 9th Cir.· 1992-01-27 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying the petition for a writ of habeas corpus, affirming the conviction.
• Brown v. Vasquez
  952 F.2d 1164· 9th Cir.· 1991-12-31 ·cited 2×·via Habeas Corpus Proceedings
  A district court has jurisdiction to stay the execution of a state prisoner to appoint counsel to assist in preparing a federal habeas corpus petition.
• Bennett v. Armontrout
  949 F.2d 1017· 8th Cir.· 1991-11-26 ·cited 2×·via Federal Habeas Corpus
  The court held that the appellant's federal habeas claims are procedurally barred because he failed to demonstrate cause and prejudice for his default in state court.
• Fassler v. U.S. Parole Comm'n
  964 F.2d 877· 9th Cir.· 1991-11-14 ·cited 2×
  The Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 (SRA) does not repeal or preempt the requirement that a prisoner serve one-third of their sentence before being eligible for parole under 18 U.S.C. § 4205(a).
• Couch v. Jabe
  951 F.2d 94· 6th Cir.· 1991-11-01 ·cited 2×·via Federal Habeas Corpus
  The court held that the case should be remanded to determine if the presumption of procedural default under Ylst v. Nunnemaker is rebutted, and to allow consolidation of all claims.
• Wright v. U.S. Parole Comm'n
  948 F.2d 433· 8th Cir.· 1991-10-24 ·cited 2×·via Habeas Corpus Review
  The court should have reviewed the Parole Commission's decision for abuse of discretion, and Wright's due process rights were violated.
• Morgan v. Bernie Aispuro
  946 F.2d 1462· 9th Cir.· 1991-10-15 ·cited 2×·via Habeas Corpus Review
  The use of a security courtroom, absent actual prejudice, is not inherently prejudicial and does not violate a defendant's right to a fair trial.
• Graham v. Hoke
  946 F.2d 982· 2d Cir.· 1991-10-03 ·cited 2×·via Habeas Corpus Review
  The Court of Appeals held that the Cruz rule regarding the admission of codefendant confessions in joint trials should be applied retroactively, but that the admission of the codefendant's confession in this case was harmless error given the strength of the other evidence.
• Fitzgerald v. Thompson
  943 F.2d 463· 4th Cir.· 1991-08-26 ·cited 2×·via Habeas Corpus Relief
  The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the habeas corpus petition, finding no error in the conviction or sentencing.
• Bennie Cunningham v. Peters
  941 F.2d 535· 7th Cir.· 1991-08-21 ·cited 2×·via Habeas Corpus Review
  The court should have allowed the jury to hear a third-party confession that was reliable, despite hearsay rules, to assist in separating the guilty from the innocent.
• Junior Brown v. Collins
  937 F.2d 175· 5th Cir.· 1991-08-02 ·cited 2×·via Federal Habeas Corpus
  A technical violation of state law requiring evidence to conform to the jury charge's specific theory of culpability does not rise to the level of a constitutional violation cognizable in federal habeas corpus, especially when the evidence is sufficient to prove the substantive e
• Swift v. State
  582 So. 2d 146· Fla. 3d DCA· 1991-07-09 ·cited 2×
  The court affirmed the trial court's denial of habeas corpus relief because the appellant's motion for post-conviction relief challenging ineffective assistance of counsel was filed more than three years after the statutory deadline under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850.
• Boudreaux v. Dugger
  579 So. 2d 918· Fla. 1st DCA· 1991-06-03 ·cited 2×
• Sherley v. Seabold
  929 F.2d 272· 6th Cir.· 1991-05-24 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the admission of hearsay testimony violated the petitioner's Sixth Amendment confrontation clause rights because the prosecution failed to demonstrate the witness's unavailability with a good-faith effort and the hearsay lacked sufficient indicia of reliabilit
• R.L. v. State
  578 So. 2d 862· Fla. 5th DCA· 1991-05-02 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a juvenile detained beyond statutory limits, even if transferred to home detention, is entitled to release.
• Bagby v. Kuhlman
  932 F.2d 131· 2d Cir.· 1991-04-30 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a witness's invocation of the Fifth Amendment privilege does not violate the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause if the defendant had a prior ample opportunity to cross-examine the witness and the witness's subsequent recantation is deemed untrustworthy.
• Marx v. United States
  930 F.2d 1246· 7th Cir.· 1991-04-26 ·cited 2×·via Habeas Corpus Relief
  The dissenting judge would vacate the guilty plea due to deficiencies in the plea-taking procedure and the government's failure to fulfill its commitment regarding the return of cows.
• Harris v. Allen
  929 F.2d 560· 10th Cir.· 1991-04-01 ·cited 2×·via Habeas Corpus Relief
  A civil forfeiture proceeding is a collateral consequence of a guilty plea and does not need to be included in a plea agreement for the plea to be considered knowing and voluntary.
• Vahlsing v. Commercial Union Ins. Co., Inc.
  928 F.2d 486· 1st Cir.· 1991-03-22 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the jury's verdict for the defendant on all counts was supported by sufficient evidence and proper jury instructions, affirming the district court's judgment.
• James v. Whitley
  926 F.2d 1433· 5th Cir.· 1991-03-12 ·cited 2×·via Federal Habeas Corpus
  The court held that the state did not violate the petitioner's constitutional rights by withholding exculpatory evidence, as the evidence was either disclosed or not material, and the jury instructions regarding sentencing were not unconstitutional.
• Bedford v. Attorney Gen. OF the State OF Ala. & Charlie E. Jones
  924 F.2d 203· 11th Cir.· 1991-02-19 ·cited 2×·via Federal Habeas Corpus
  The court held that the defendant's claim was not procedurally barred because the state court's dismissal was not a clear and express statement of reliance on a procedural default, and the state failed to show particularized prejudice from the delay.
• Stephenson v. Rice
  574 So. 2d 286· Fla. 2d DCA· 1991-02-13 ·cited 2×
  Petitioner Stephenson sought habeas corpus relief, arguing he was unlawfully held without probable cause. The Florida appellate court granted the writ, finding that hearsay testimony from witnesses regarding victims' statements was insufficient to establish probable cause at a pr
• Disinger v. State
  574 So. 2d 268· Fla. 5th DCA· 1991-02-07 ·cited 2×
  Robert Disinger, a criminal defendant convicted of sexual battery and indecent assault, petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus claiming his appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise a Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause violation on direct appeal. The court granted
• Lahay v. Armontrout
  923 F.2d 578· 8th Cir.· 1991-01-09 ·cited 2×·via Federal Habeas Corpus
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the habeas petition without an evidentiary hearing, as circumstances cast doubt on the reliability of state court findings.
• Gutierrez v. Moriarty
  922 F.2d 1464· 10th Cir.· 1991-01-07 ·cited 2×·via Federal Habeas Corpus
  The majority's conclusion that the New Mexico procedural bar rule is not adequate for speedy trial claims is incorrect because it misinterprets state case law and presumes state courts are not faithful to their rules.
• Geronima Mayo v. Schiltgen
  921 F.2d 177· 8th Cir.· 1990-12-12 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court erred by affirming the agency's exclusion order on grounds not relied upon by the agency, and that the appellant deserves a hearing on her claim that her marriage was void under Philippine law.
• R.B. Smith v. A.L. Lockhart
  921 F.2d 154· 8th Cir.· 1990-12-07 ·cited 2×·via Federal Habeas Corpus
  The court affirmed the dismissal of the habeas corpus petition, finding the guilty plea was voluntary and counsel was not ineffective.
• Young v. Puckett
  917 F.2d 869· 5th Cir.· 1990-11-06 ·cited 2×·via Habeas Corpus Review
  A habeas petition is not successive under Rule 9(b) if changed circumstances or new legal grounds, not previously considered on the merits, alter the case's landscape.
• Hernandez v. W.L. Garrison
  916 F.2d 291· 5th Cir.· 1990-11-05 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying the habeas corpus petition, as the appellant's claims were either moot, not cognizable in habeas, or based on a misinterpretation of statutory amendments.
• Reddy v. Coombe
  916 F.2d 47· 2d Cir.· 1990-10-05 ·cited 2×·via Habeas Corpus Review
  The admission of a non-testifying codefendant's incriminating statements at a joint trial violates the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause, even if the statements interlock, if they are not substantially the same and consistent on the major elements of the crime.
• Judd v. Baer
  911 F.2d 571· 11th Cir.· 1990-09-07 ·cited 2×·via Habeas Corpus Relief
  The failure of the National Appeals Board (NAB) to render a decision within sixty days, as mandated by 18 U.S.C. § 4215(b), does not create an entitlement to habeas relief for the prisoner or parolee awaiting the decision.
• Manning v. Alexander
  912 F.2d 878· 6th Cir.· 1990-08-31 ·cited 2×·via Federal Habeas Corpus
  The Sixth Circuit held that Manning adequately presented his ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claim to the Supreme Court of Ohio, thus exhausting his state remedies.