green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 6×
64.4 score
G Cite
cited 3× by 3 distinct cases ·
…laims of error occurring in a state post-conviction proceeding cannot serve as a basis for federal habeas corpus relief.
Treatment trajectory · 1989 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1989
2007
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
AlBritton
laims of error occurring in a state post-conviction proceeding cannot serve as a basis for federal habeas corpus relief.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Watson-Buisson v. Dotson
laims of error occurring in a state post-conviction proceeding cannot serve as a basis for federal habeas corpus relief.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
McDonald v. Warden Tonya James
laims of error occurring in state post-conviction proceeding cannot serve as a basis for federal habeas corpus relief.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Sanford v. Clarke
claims of error occurring in a state post-conviction proceeding cannot serve as a basis for federal habeas corpus relief
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Moore v. State of Maryland
laims of error occurring in a state post-conviction proceeding cannot serve as a basis for federal habeas corpus relief.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Matthew Jamison v. Levern Cohen
laims of error occurring in a state post-conviction proceeding cannot serve as a basis for federal habeas corpus relief.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Vicarini v. Darden
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Therefore, “claims of error occurring in a state post-conviction proceeding cannot serve as a basis for federal habeas corpus relief.” Bryant v. Maryland, 848 F.2d 492, 493 (4th Cir. 1988); see Lawrence, 517 U.S. at 717 (“[E]ven 1 Vicarini must comply with the Fourth Circuit’s procedural requirements and deadlines for filing a motion for an authorization order.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Williams v. Maryland Attorney General
Bryant v. State of Md., 848 F.2d 492, 493 (4th Cir. 1988).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Merlino v. Clarke
Thus, “claims of error occurring in a state postconviction proceeding cannot serve as a basis for federal habeas corpus relief.” Bryant v. Maryland, 848 F.2d 492, 493 (4th Cir. 1988) (citations omitted).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Wilson v. Dotson
Stirling, 956 F.3d 183, 193 (4th Cir. 2020) (quoting Bryant v. Maryland, 848 F.2d 492, 493 (4th Cir. 1988)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Walker v. Maryland Parole Commission
Bryant v. Maryland, 848 F.2d 492, 493 (4th Cir. 1988); see also Greenholtz v. Inmates of the Nebraska Penal & Corr.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Berry v. Virginia Department of Corrections
Thus, “claims of error occurring in a state postconviction proceeding cannot 13 serve as a basis for federal habeas corpus relief.” Bryant v. Maryland, 848 F.2d 492, 493 (4th Cir. 1988) (citations omitted).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Martin v. Warden
Bryant v. Maryland, 848 F.2d 492, 493 (4th Cir. 1988).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Daniels v. Dotson
Bryant v. Maryland, 848 F.2d 492, 493 (4th Cir. 1988).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Sayers v. Clark
Bryant v. Maryland, 848 F.2d 492, 493 (4th Cir. 1988).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Robinson v. State of Maryland
Bryant v. State of Md, 848 F.2d 492, 493 (4th Cir. 1988). . procedural default.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Simpson v. Clarke
Att’y v. Coss, 532 U.S. 394, 402 (2001)), and any “error in state post-conviction proceedings” does not entitle a petitioner “to federal habeas relief because an “error relating to . . . [his] post-conviction proceedings represents an attack on a proceeding collateral to detention and not to the detention itself.” Lawrence, 517 F.3d at 717 (citing Bryant v. Maryland, 848 F.2d 492, 493 (4th Cir. 1988)). 22 Accordingly, “even where there is some error in state post-conviction proceedings, a petitioner is not entitled to federal habeas relief because the assignment of error relating…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Bean v. Clarke
Thus, “claims of error occurring in a state postconviction proceeding cannot serve as a basis for federal habeas corpus relief.” Bryant v. Maryland, 848 F.2d 492, 493 (4th Cir. 1988) (citations omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Dyson v. Webber
See Wilson v. Corcoran, 562 U.S. 1, 1 (2010) (“Federal courts may not issue writs of habeas corpus to state prisoners whose confinement does not violate federal law.”); see also Mackall v. Angelone, 131 F.3d 442 , 447- 48 (4th Cir. 1997) (noting that post-conviction relief is not part of the criminal proceeding itself and is not constitutionally required); Bryant v. Maryland, 848 F.2d 492, 493 (4th Cir. 1988) (applying rule that claims of error occurring in state post-conviction proceeding cannot serve as basis for habeas relief).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Muhammad v. Clarke
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Second, Muhammad, at best, is alleging errors in a post-conviction collateral proceeding, and “claims of error occurring in a state post-conviction proceeding cannot serve as a basis for federal habeas corpus relief.” Bryant v. Maryland, 848 F.2d 492, 493 (4th Cir. 1988); see Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551, 557 (1987) (holding there is no constitutional right to state post-conviction review).’ “[E]ven where there is some error in state post-conviction proceedings, a petitioner is not entitled to federal habeas relief because the assignment of error relating to those post-convicti…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Davis v. Maryland Parole Commission
Bryant v. Maryland, 848 F.2d 492, 493 (4th Cir. 1988); see also Greenholtz v. Inmates of the Nebraska Penal & Correctional Complex, 442 U.S. 1, 7-8 (1979) (holding that there is no constitutionally guaranteed liberty interest in parole).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Webb v. Kanode
Bryant v. Maryland, 848 F.2d 492, 493 (4th Cir. 1988); Lawrence v. Branker, 517 F.3d 700, 717 (4th Cir. 2008) (“even where there is some error in state post-conviction proceedings, a petitioner is not entitled to federal habeas relief because the assignment of error relating to those post-conviction proceedings represents an attack on a proceeding collateral to detention and not to the detention itself.”).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Nivens v. Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services
Bryant v. Maryland, 848 F.2d 492, 493 (4th Cir. 1988); see also Greenholtz v. Inmates of the Nebraska Penal & Correctional Complex, 442 U.S. 1, 7-8 (1979) (holding that there is no constitutionally guaranteed liberty interest in parole).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Abeokuto v. Warden
See Wilson v. Corcoran, 562 U.S. 1, 1 (2010) (“Federal courts may not issue writs of habeas corpus to state prisoners whose confinement does not violate federal law.”); see also Mackall v. Angelone, 131 F.3d 442, 447-48 (4th Cir. 1997) (noting that post-conviction relief is not part of the criminal proceeding itself and is not constitutionally required); Bryant v. Maryland, 848 F.2d 492, 493 (4th Cir. 1988) (applying rule that claims of error occurring in state post-conviction proceeding cannot serve as basis for habeas relief). that reasonable jurists “would find it debatable whether th…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Guarino v. Clarke
Further, “{cjlaims of error occurring in a state post-conviction proceeding cannot serve as a basis for federal habeas corpus relief,” Bryant v. Maryland, 848 F.2d 492, 493 (4th Cir. 1988) (citations omitted), because the habeas petitioner’s detention results from the underlying state conviction, not the state collateral proceeding.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Lemon v. Bishop
Bryant v. State of Md., 848 F.2d 492, 493 (4th Cir. 1988).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Goodall v. Unknown
The Fourth Circuit, however, has held that “‘claims of error occurring in a state post-conviction proceeding cannot serve as a basis for federal habeas corpus relief.”” Sigmon v. Stirling, 956 F.3d 183, 193 (4th Cir. 2020) (quoting Bryant v. Maryland, 848 F.2d 492, 493 (4th Cir. 1988)): see also Bell-Bey v. Roper, 499 F.3d 752, 756 (8th Cir. 2007) (“Because the Constitution does not guarantee the existence of state post-conviction proceedings, an infirmity in a state post-conviction proceeding does not raise a constitutional issue cognizable in a federal habeas application.”) (alte…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Pegues v. Kendall
Specifically, the magistrate judge noted that, pursuant to controlling Fourth Circuit precedent, “alleged infirmities in a state post-conviction action are not matters that may be addressed in federal habeas actions.” (ECF No. 32 at 23 (citing Bryant v. Maryland, 848 F.2d 492, 493 (4th Cir. 1988)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Hosley v. Clarke
Bryant v. Maryland, 848 F.2d 492, 493 (4th Cir. 1988) (holding that errors and irregularities in connection with state post-conviction proceedings are not cognizable on federal habeas review).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
BROWN v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
See also Word v. Lord, 648 F.3d 129, 132 (2d Cir. 2011) (holding that “alleged errors in a postconviction proceeding are not grounds for § 2254 review because federal law does not require states to provide a post-conviction mechanism for seeking relief.”); Lawrence v. Branker, 517 F.3d 700, 717 (4th Cir. 2008) (“[E]ven where there is some error in state post-conviction proceedings, a petitioner is not entitled to federal habeas relief because the assignment of error relating to those post-conviction proceedings represents an attack on a proceeding collateral to detention and not to dete…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
MORGAN v. OVERMYER
See also Word v. Lord, 648 F.3d 129, 132 (2d Cir. 2011) (holding that “alleged errors in a postconviction proceeding are not grounds for § 2254 review because federal law does not require states to provide a post-conviction mechanism for seeking relief.”); Lawrence v. Branker, 517 F.3d 700, 717 (4th Cir. 2008) (“[E]ven where there is some error in state post-conviction 20 proceedings, a petitioner is not entitled to federal habeas relief because the assignment of error relating to those post-conviction proceedings represents an attack on a proceeding collateral to detention and not to d…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Simpson v. Clarke
Simpson alone caused the default of his claims. habeas corpus.” (/d. at 40.) In order to obtain federal habeas relief, at a minimum, a petitioner must demonstrate that he is “in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (a). “[C]laims of error occurring in a state post-conviction proceeding cannot serve as a basis for federal habeas corpus relief.” Bryant v. Maryland, 848 F.2d 492, 493 (4th Cir. 1988) (citing cases).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Thomas v. South Carolina Dept. of Corrections
See 29 U.S.C. § 2254 (i); Bryant v. Maryland, 848 F.2d 492, 493 (4th Cir. 1988).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Felton v. Clarke
Indeed, “[c]laims of error occurring in a state post-conviction proceeding cannot serve as a basis for federal habeas corpus relief.” Bryant v. Maryland, 848 F.2d 492, 493 (4th Cir. 1988).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Bullock v. Clark
Thus, “claims of error occurring in a state post- conviction proceeding cannot serve as a basis for federal habeas corpus relief.” Bryant v. Maryland, 848 F.2d 492, 493 (4th Cir. 1988) (citations omitted) (emphasis omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Hunter v. Director of the Dept. of Corrections
Thus, “claims of error occurring in a state post- conviction proceeding cannot serve as a basis for federal habeas corpus relief.” Bryant v. Maryland, 848 F.2d 492, 493 (4th Cir. 1988) (citations omitted) (emphasis omitted).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Brad Sigmon v. Bryan Stirling
In this Circuit, “claims of error occurring in a state post-conviction proceeding cannot serve as a basis for federal habeas corpus relief.” Bryant v. Maryland, 848 F.2d 492, 493 (4th Cir. 1988).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Brad Sigmon v. Bryan Stirling
In this Circuit, “claims of error occurring in a state post-conviction proceeding cannot serve as a basis for federal habeas corpus relief.” Bryant v. Maryland, 848 F.2d 492, 493 (4th Cir. 1988).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Olds v. Commonwealth of Virginia
“Claims of error occurring in a state post-conviction proceeding cannot serve as a basis for federal habeas corpus relief.” Bryant v. Maryland, 848 F.2d 492, 493 (4th Cir. 1988) (citations omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Green v. Rodriguez
Ed. 2d 190 (1996); Bryant v. State of Maryland, 848 F.2d 492, 493 (4th Cir. 1988); Hopkinson v. Shillinger, 866 F.2d 1185, 1218-19 (10th Cir.), on reh'g, 888 F.2d 1286 (10th Cir. 1989); Spradley v. Dugger, 825 F.2d 1566, 1568 (11th Cir. 1987); Hassine v. Zimmerman, 160 F.3d 941, 954-55 (3d Cir. 1998).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Godfrey v. Clarke
See Wright v. Angelone, 151 F.3d 151, 159 (4th Cir. 1998) (“[A] challenge to Virginia’s state habeas proceedings, cannot provide a basis for federal habeas relief.”); Bryant v. Maryland, 848 F.2d 492, 493 (4th Cir. 1988); see also; Williams-Bey v. Trickey, 894 F.2d 314, 317 (8th Cir. 1990) (“[A]n infirmity in a state post-conviction proceeding does not raise a constitutional issue cognizable in a federal habeas petition.”); Vail v. Procunier, 747 F.2d 277, 278 (Sth Cir. 1984) (“Infirmities in state habeas corpus proceedings do not constitute grounds for federal habeas relief.”).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
McLaughlin-Cox v. Maryland Parole Commission
On August 15, 2003, the U.S. District Court issued an opinion and order holding that appellant’s action was “barred by the Eleventh Amendment and will be dismissed.” Continuing, the court explained that “[e]ven if this matter were to proceed, the plaintiff has failed to present any facts that would entitle him to relief,” in part 1 because “a Maryland inmate has no legitimate liberty interest in parole release,” citing Bryant v. Maryland, 848 F.2d 492, 493 (4th Cir.1988) (“the Maryland parole statute does not create a legitimate expectation of parole release”).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Baggett v. Keller
See, e.g., Estelle, 502 U.S. at 67-68 , 112 S.Ct. 475 ; Sharpe, 593 F.3d at 383 ; Spencer v. Murray, 5 F.3d 758, 762 (4th Cir.1993); Bryant v. Maryland, 848 F.2d 492, 493 (4th Cir.1988).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Long v. Ozmint
See Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551 , 107 S.Ct. 1990 , 95 L.Ed.2d 539 (1987); and Bryant v. Maryland, 848 F.2d 492, 493 (4th Cir.1988) (collecting cases holding that errors in a state post-conviction proceeding “cannot serve as a basis for federal habeas corpus relief’).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Lawrence v. Branker
Bryant v. Maryland, 848 F.2d 492, 493 (4th Cir.1988) (“[C]laims of error occurring in a state post-conviction proceeding cannot serve as a basis for federal habeas corpus relief.”); see also Bell-Bey v. Roper, 499 F.3d 752, 756 (8th Cir.2007) (“Because the Constitution does not guarantee the existence of state post-conviction proceedings, an infirmity in a state post-conviction proceeding does not raise a constitutional issue cognizable in a federal habeas application.”) (internal citations, quotation marks, and alteration omitted); United States v. Dago, 441 F.3d 1238, 1248 (10th Cir.…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Crowe v. Head
Habeas corpus in the federal courts does not serve as an additional appeal from state court convictions”); Franzen v. Brinkman, 877 F.2d 26, 26 (9th Cir.), cert. denied sub nom., Franzen v. Deeds, 493 U.S. 1012 , 110 S.Ct. 574 , 107 L.Ed.2d 569 (1989); Hopkinson v. Shillinger, 866 F.2d 1185, 1219-20 (10th Cir.1989), cert. denied, 497 U.S. 1010 , 110 S.Ct. 3256 , 111 L.Ed.2d 765 (1990); Bryant v. Md., 848 F.2d 492, 493 (4th Cir.1988); Kirby v. Dutton, 794 F.2d 245, 247-48 (6th Cir.1986); Abu Jamal v. Horn, 2001 WL 1609690 (E.D.Pa.2001).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Orbe v. True
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
See Wright v. Angelone, 151 F.3d 151, 159 (4th Cir.1998); Bryant v. Maryland, 848 F.2d 492, 498 (4th Cir.1988).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Jones v. Duncan
We look only to the trial and direct appeal.”), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 1056 , 113 S.Ct. 1958 , 123 L.Ed.2d 661 (1993); Smith v. Lockhart, 882 F.2d 331, 334-35 (8th Cir.1989), ce rt. denied, 493 U.S. 1028 , 110 S.Ct. 739 , 107 L.Ed.2d 757 (1990); Franzen v. Brinkman, 877 F.2d 26, 26 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1012 , 110 S.Ct. 574 , 107 L.Ed.2d 569 (1989); Conner v. Director of Div. of Adult Corrections, 870 F.2d 1384, 1386-87 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 953 , 110 S.Ct. 363 , 107 L.Ed.2d 350 (1989); Williams v. Lockhart, 849 F.2d 1134, 1139 (8th Cir.1988); Bryant v. Maryland, 84…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Mathison v. Warden, NH State Prison
See, e.g., Conner v. Director of Div. of Adult Corrections, 870 F.2d 1384, 1386-87 (8th Cir. 1989); Bryant v. State of Maryland, 848 F.2d 492, 493 (4th Cir. 1988); Spradlev v. Dugger, 825 F.2d 1566, 1568 (11th Cir. 1987); Kirbv v. Dutton, 794 F.2d 245, 247-48 (6th Cir. 1986); Vail v. Procunier, 747 F.2d 277, 277-78 (5th Cir. 1984).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Kenneth Kenley v. Michael Bowersox
See, e.g., Trevino v. Johnson, 168 F.3d 173, 180 (5th Cir.) (citing Jolly and denying COA on petitioner’s claim that he was denied due process when state post-conviction court adopted state’s proposed findings and conclusions three hours after they were filed with court, noting that claim provided no grounds for federal habeas relief), cert. denied, 527 U.S. 1056 , 120 S.Ct. 22 , 144 L.Ed.2d 825 (1999); Gerlaugh v. Stewart, 129 F.3d 1027, 1045 (9th Cir.1997) (noting established law that “errors concerning' [the state post-conviction] process are not cognizable in federal habe-as proceedi…
Billie Austin BRYANT, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
STATE OF MARYLAND, Defendant-Appellee
v.
STATE OF MARYLAND, Defendant-Appellee
86-7695.
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
Jun 8, 1988.
June M. Perrone (Nancy L. Cook, American University Washington College of Law, Appellate Advocacy Law Clinic, Washington, D.C., on brief), for plaintiff-appellant., Jillyn K. Schulze, Asst. Atty. Gen. (J. Joseph Curran, Jr., Atty. Gen., Baltimore, Md., on brief), for defendant-appellee.
Winter, Murnaghan, Wilkinson.
Cited by 102 opinions | Published
Billie Austin Bryant has sought relief by way of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The district court dismissed the petition as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d).
Bryant’s petition states four grounds for relief. One alleges an infirmity in his state court conviction for bank robbery. Another alleges an improper denial of a parole hearing. Two others allege infirmities in Bryant’s state postconviction proceedings. As to the last two, the State of Maryland advances, in support of the district judge’s decision, a rule that claims of error occurring in a state post-conviction proceeding cannot serve as a basis for federal habeas corpus relief. See Kirby v. Dutton, 794 F.2d 245, 247-48 (6th Cir. 1986); Vail v. Procunier, 747 F.2d 277 (5th Cir.1984); Mitchell v. Wyrick, 727 F.2d 773, 744 (8th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 823, 105 S.Ct. 100, 83 L.Ed.2d 45 (1984); Williams v. Missouri, 640 F.2d 140, 143 (8th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 990, 101 S.Ct. 2328, 68 L.Ed.2d 849 (1981); Cornell v. Maryland, 396 F.Supp. 1092, 1094 n. 3 (D.Md.1975); Stokley v. Maryland, 301 F.Supp. 653, 657 (D.Md.1969).
It appears that Dickerson v. Walsh, 750 F.2d 150 (1st Cir.1984), may hold to the contrary. Whether that case is actually distinguishable here need not detain us, for, even if it is not, we prefer to follow the Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Circuits, as well as the United States District Court for the District of Maryland.
Bryant’s penultimate claim is for a due process violation flowing from the amendment of his indictment immediately before trial. The district court properly dismissed that claim as frivolous. Bryant’s last claim is that he was wrongly denied a parole hearing or a response to his letter to the Attorney General of Maryland requesting a parole hearing. The district court held that, since the Maryland parole statute does not create a legitimate expectation of parole release, Bryant had no right protect ed by the due process clause. That ruling is correct.
It also appears that Bryant is presently serving a sentence elsewhere, so that, at the very most, the attempt to raise the points here by post-conviction proceeding is premature.
AFFIRMED.