Thomas v. Wainwright

6 Citing cases

  1. Thomas v. Wainwright

    788 F.2d 684 (11th Cir. 1986)

    On April 7, the petition was denied with an opinion. Thomas v. Wainwright, 486 So.2d 574 (Fla. 1986). Thereafter, the United States Supreme Court denied a requested stay and denied a petition for writ of certiorari. Thomas v. Wainwright, ___ U.S. ___, 106 S.Ct. 1623, 90 L.Ed.2d 173 (1986).

  2. Patton v. State

    878 So. 2d 368 (Fla. 2004)   Cited 59 times
    Holding that conclusory allegations are insufficient for appellate purposes

    See Parker v. Dugger, 550 So.2d 459, 460 (Fla. 1989) ("[H]abeas corpus petitions are not to be used for additional appeals on questions which could have been . . . raised . . . in a rule 3.850 motion. . . ."); Thomas v. Wainwright, 486 So.2d 574, 575 (Fla. 1986) ("Habeas corpus is not available for the purpose of reviewing arguments that could have been raised but were not raised by timely objection at trial and argument on appeal."). Thus, because this issue was adjudicated on its merits, it is procedurally barred.

  3. Martin v. Wainwright

    497 So. 2d 872 (Fla. 1986)   Cited 7 times
    In Martin v. Wainwright, 497 So.2d 872 (Fla. 1986), the Florida Supreme Court noted that Martin's claim should have been raised on appeal and that "[h]abeas is not a substitute for appeal."

    Habeas is not a substitute for appeal. Thomas v. State, 486 So.2d 574 (Fla. 1986); Kennedy v. Wainwright, 483 So.2d 424 (Fla. 1986).Lucas v. State, 490 So.2d 943 (Fla. 1986), and Harvard v. State, 486 So.2d 537 (Fla. 1986), upon which Martin rely, are factually distinguishable from the instant case.

  4. Thomas v. Wainwright

    495 So. 2d 172 (Fla. 1986)   Cited 5 times

    Petitioner's challenge to the jury qualification procedure is a matter that should have been raised by objection at trial and argument on appeal and is therefore not cognizable on a petition for habeas corpus. Thomas v. Wainwright, 486 So.2d 574 (Fla.), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 106 S.Ct. 1623, 90 L.Ed. 173 (1986); Kennedy v. Wainwright, 483 So.2d 424 (Fla. 1986). The same principle applies to his argument regarding the use of a peremptory challenge.

  5. Funchess v. Wainwright

    486 So. 2d 592 (Fla. 1986)   Cited 2 times

    The allegation regarding the constitutionality of a death-qualified jury is procedurally barred because counsel failed to object to the death-qualification process at trial. Thomas v. Wainwright, 486 So.2d 574 (Fla. 1986). Further, even if we were to conclude that the trial court erred by impaneling a death-qualified jury the error would not be fundamental and counsel's failure to object would be fatal.

  6. Thomas v. State

    486 So. 2d 577 (Fla. 1986)   Cited 2 times

    We denied the petition. Thomas v. Wainwright, 486 So.2d 574 (Fla. 1986). All of the claims in appellant's current motion are matters that should have been raised at trial and on appeal, that could have been raised on appeal but were not, that were presented on appeal and decided adversely to appellant's position, that were raised and rejected in one of appellant's previous collateral challenges, or that were inexcusably omitted from his previous rule 3.850 motion.