Michael R. Branan v. William E. Booth, and Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General of the State of Florida

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that federal habeas courts cannot review a state’s alleged failure to adhere to its sentencing procedures even when petitioner’s claim “is couched in terms of equal protection and due process.”
• affirming the dismissal of a state law claim as not cognizable in a federal habeas action and stating that “a habeas petition grounded on issues of state law provides no basis for habeas relief.”
• “[F]ederal courts cannot review a state’s alleged failure to adhere to its own sentencing procedures.”
• “The district court dismissed the petition with prejudice, finding the issue to be one of state law and, thus, not cognizable in a federal habeas action. We affirm.”
• “This limitation on federal habeas review is of equal force when a petition, which actually involves state law issues, is “couched in terms of equal protection and due process.”
• “In the area of state sentencing guidelines in particular, we consistently have held that federal courts can not [sic] review a state's alleged failure to adhere to its own sentencing procedures.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).