Wainwright, Sec'y, Florida Dep't of Corr. v. Ford, 467 U.S. 1220 (1984). · Go Syfert
Search
Wainwright, Sec'y, Florida Dep't of Corr. v. Ford, 467 U.S. 1220 (1984). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
191 citation events (10 in the last 25 years) across 20 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Ford v. Wainwright (ca11, 1985-01-17)
Treatment trajectory · 1984 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1984 2005 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 20 distinct citers.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Ford v. Wainwright
11th Cir. · 1985 · confidence medium
Supra, 104 S.Ct. at 3498. 41 It is apparent that the Supreme Court considered that Goode was decided on the issue of abuse of the writ and that it was presented the issue of whether our court erred in denying the certificate of probable cause.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Ford ex rel. Ford v. Wainwright
11th Cir. · 1985 · confidence medium
Supra, 104 S.Ct. at 3498.
cited Cited "see" Hollingsworth v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2000 · signal: see · confidence high
See Smith v. State, 445 So.2d 323, 325 (Fla. 1983), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1220 , 104 S.Ct. 2671 , 81 L.Ed.2d 375 (1984); Williams v. State, 642 So.2d 67 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994). .
discussed Cited "see" Ethridge v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2000 · signal: see · confidence high
See Smith v. State, 445 So.2d 323, 325 (Fla. 1983) (issues which either were or could have been raised upon direct appeal are not cognizable through collateral attack), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1220 , 104 S.Ct. 2671 , 81 L.Ed.2d 375 (1984); Torres-Arboleda v. Dugger, 636 So.2d 1321, 1323 (Fla.1994) (proceedings under rule 3.850 are not to be used as a second appeal; nor is it proper to use a different argument to relitigate the same issue).
cited Cited "see" High v. Turpin
11th Cir. · 2000 · signal: see · confidence high
See High v. Kemp, 467 U.S. 1220 , 104 S.Ct. 2669 , reh’g denied, 468 U.S. 1224 , 105 S.Ct. 22 (1984).
cited Cited "see" High v. Turpin
11th Cir. · 2000 · signal: see · confidence high
See High v. Kemp, 467 U.S. 1220 , 104 S.Ct. 2669 , 81 L.Ed.2d 374 , reh’g denied, 468 U.S. 1224 , 105 S.Ct. 22 , 82 L.Ed.2d 917 (1984).
cited Cited "see" Leon Bullocks, Jr. v. George Herman, Warden
9th Cir. · 1992 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. McCall, 139 Ariz. 147, 164 , 677 P.2d 920, 937 (1983), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1220 (1984); State v. Smith, 125 Ariz. 412, 416 , 610 P.2d 46, 50 (1980); Ariz.R.Crim.P. 31.13(c) & 31.18.
cited Cited "see" Smith v. State
Ala. Crim. App. · 1990 · signal: see · confidence high
See Corn v. Zant, 708 F.2d 549, 565 (11th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1220 , 104 S.Ct. 2670 , 81 L.Ed.2d 375 (1984), vacated in part sub nom.
cited Cited "see" James Emery Paster v. James A. Lynaugh, Director, Texas Department of Corrections
5th Cir. · 1989 · signal: see · confidence high
See Baldwin v. Maggio, 704 F.2d 1325, 1328-29 (5th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1220 , 104 S.Ct. 2669 , 81 L.Ed.2d 374 (1984).
discussed Cited "see" Frank Andrew McCall v. Michael Dutton and W.J. Michael Cody
6th Cir. · 1988 · signal: see · confidence high
See Hawkins v. Lynaugh, 844 F.2d at 1140 (“[njeither mere ‘emotionalism and confusion,’ nor mere ‘trickery’ will alone necessarily invalidate a confession”) (citing Corn v. Zant, 708 F.2d 549, 567 (11th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1220 , 104 S.Ct. 2670 , 81 L.Ed.2d 375 (1984)).
cited Cited "see" Samuel Christopher Hawkins v. James A. Lynaugh, Director, Texas Department of Corrections
5th Cir. · 1988 · signal: see · confidence high
See Corn v. Zant, 708 F.2d 549, 567 (11th Cir.1983), ce rt. denied, 467 U.S. 1220 , 104 S.Ct. 2670 , 81 L.Ed.2d 375 (1984). 32 .
cited Cited "see" David Earl Wilson v. Robert H. Butler, Sr., Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary at Angola, Louisiana
5th Cir. · 1987 · signal: see · confidence high
See Baldwin v. Maggio, 704 F.2d 1325, 1328-29 (5th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1220 , 104 S.Ct. 2669 , 81 L.Ed.2d 374 (1984). .
cited Cited "see" United States v. Richard Dalton Pinion
9th Cir. · 1986 · signal: see · confidence high
See Corn v. Zant, 708 F.2d 549, 567 (11th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1220 , 104 S.Ct. 2670 , 81 L.Ed.2d 375 (1984), vacated in part on other grounds, 772 F.2d 681 (11th Cir.1985).
cited Cited "see" Keith v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1986 · signal: see · confidence high
See, Smith v. Smith, 445 So.2d 323 (Fla. 1983), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1220 , 104 S.Ct. 2671 , 81 L.Ed.2d 375 (1984).
discussed Cited "see" Wilburn Dobbs, Cross-Appellee v. Ralph Kemp, Cross-Appellant
11th Cir. · 1986 · signal: see · confidence high
See Com v. Zant, 708 F.2d 549, 560 (11th Cir.1983) (“Absent any showing of harm by petitioner, it is settled that failure to transcribe counsel’s arguments is not a constitutional violation requiring vacation of a death sentence.”), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1220 , 104 S.Ct. 2670 , 81 L.Ed.2d 375 (1984). 17 CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the district court’s judgment is reversed with respect to the instructions on mitigating circumstances, affirmed in all other respects, and remanded to the district court for consideration of the sentencing phase claims with respect to which it res…
examined Cited "see, e.g." Amaya-Ruiz v. Stewart (3×)
D. Ariz. · 2001 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Ford v. Strickland, 734 F.2d 538 (11th Cir.1984), motion to vacate denied, 467 U.S. 1220 , 104 S.Ct. 3498 , 82 L.Ed.2d 911 (1984); Shaw v. Delo, 762 F.Supp. 853, 855 (E.D.Mo.1991); Martin v. Dugger, 686 F.Supp. 1523 (S.D.Fla.1988).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." United States v. John O. Green A/K/A John O. Hornung
5th Cir. · 1989 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Baldwin v. Maggio, 704 F.2d 1325, 1329 (5th Cir.1983), reh’g denied, 709 F.2d 712 , cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1220 , 104 S.Ct. 2669 , 81 L.Ed.2d 374 (1984); Williams v. Blackburn, 649 F.2d 1019, 1021 (5th Cir.1981); Clayton v. Estelle, 541 F.2d 486, 488 (5th Cir.1976), cert. denied, 431 U.S. 918 , 97 S.Ct. 2184 , 53 L.Ed.2d 230 (1977).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Francis v. Franklin (2×)
SCOTUS · 1985 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Corn v. Zant, 708 F. 2d 549, 559 (CA11 1983), cert. denied, 467 U. S. 1220 (1984).
cited Cited "see, e.g." State v. Washington
Fla. · 1984 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Wainwright v. Ford, — U.S. —, 104 S.Ct. 3498 , 81 L.Ed.2d — (1984); Wainwright v. Ad ams, — U.S. —, 104 S.Ct. 2183 , 80 L.Ed.2d 809 (1984).
cited Cited "see, e.g." State v. Washington
Fla. · 1984 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Wainwright v. Ford, ___ U.S. ___, 104 S.Ct. 3498 , 81 L.Ed.2d ___ (1984); Wainwright v. Adams, *392 ___ U.S. ___, 104 S.Ct. 2183 , 80 L.Ed.2d 809 (1984).
Louie L. Wainwright, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections
v.
Alvin B. Ford. No. A-980
A-980.
Supreme Court of the United States.
May 31, 1984.
467 U.S. 1220
Powell, Brennan, Marshall, Rehnquist, State'S, White, Blackmun, Stevens.
Cited by 20 opinions  |  Published
Reporter's Syllabus — editorial summary, not part of the Court's opinion

On application to vacate stay.

The application of the State to vacate the order of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, dated May 30, 1984, staying the execution of sentence of death presented to Justice POWELL and by him referred to the Court, is denied.

Justice BRENNAN and Justice MARSHALL join in the order of the Court.

THE CHIEF JUSTICE, Justice REHNQUIST and Justice O'CONNOR would grant the State's application to vacate the stay of execution of sentence of death.

Justice POWELL, with whom Justice WHITE and Justice BLACKMUN join, and with whom Justice STEVENS joins in Part I, concurring.

Lead Opinion

Application of the State of Florida to vacate the order of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, dated May 30, 1984, staying the execution of sentence of death, presented to Justice Powell, and

by him referred to the Court, denied.

Justice Brennan and Justice Marshall join in the order of the Court. The Chief Justice, Justice Rehnquist, and Justice O’Connor would[*1221] grant the State’s application to vacate the stay of execution of sentence of death.

Concurrence

Justice Powell, with whom Justice White and Justice Blackmun join, and with whom Justice Stevens joins in Part I,

concurring.

On May 30, 1984, the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, reversing the judgment of the District Court, granted respondent Ford a stay of execution of the sentence of death set for no later than noon on Friday, June 1, 1984. Ford v. Strickland, 734 F. 2d 538. The Court of Appeals granted the stay on two separate grounds. First, it stated that Ford’s claim that he is entitled under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to a procedural due process hearing to determine whether he is currently insane (the “competency claim”) raises substantial issues that warrant review. Second, the Court of Appeals held that Ford’s claim that Florida administers the death penalty in a discriminatory manner on the basis of race and other impermissible factors (the “discrimination claim”) should be held pending en banc consideration by the Eleventh Circuit of Spencer v. Zant, 715 F. 2d 1562, vacated for rehearing en banc, 715 F. 2d 1583 (1983).

I

The Court of Appeals found that Ford’s claim of entitlement to a due process hearing on competency to be executed did not constitute an abuse of the writ of habeas corpus, and held that the District Court had erred in holding to the contrary. On the merits, the Court of Appeals stated that this claim “raises substantial procedural and substantive Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment grounds” that warrant review of Ford’s federal habeas petition. The Court of Appeals reviewed the relevant record. In view of its findings, I cannot say in this case that the court abused its discretion in staying Ford’s execution on this issue.* I concur, therefore, in the order of the Court denying the State’s application to vacate the stay.

II

The Court of Appeals also held that a stay of execution should be granted so that Ford’s discrimination claim could be held pend[*1222] ing en banc hearing and decision by that court in Spencer v. Zant, supra. The District Court had found that Ford had abused the writ by failing to raise this claim in his first federal habeas petition. The Court of Appeals provides no convincing explanation for ignoring that factual determination. Moreover, the Florida Supreme Court held that Ford’s discrimination claim was procedurally barred for failure to present it in a motion for postconviction relief as required by Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Ford v. Waimvright, 451 So. 2d 471 (1984). Neither the Court of Appeals nor the District Court found cause and prejudice to excuse this procedural bar. See Engle v. Isaac, 456 U. S. 107 (1982). Finally, we have held in two prior cases that the statistical evidence relied upon by Ford to support his claim of discrimination was not sufficient to raise a substantial ground upon which relief might be granted. See Sullivan v. Waimvright, 464 U. S. 109 (1983); Waimvright v. Adams, 466 U. S. 964 (1984). I am of the opinion that the Court of Appeals abused its discretion in also granting a stay of execution on Ford’s discrimination claim pending its decision in Spencer v. Zant, supra.

Justice Stevens, having joined in Part I above, is of the view that it is unnecessary to consider the discrimination claim presented in Part II.

This Court has never determined whether the Constitution prohibits execution of a criminal defendant who currently is insane, and I imply no view as to the merits of this issue.