DEL VALLE
v.
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that Petitioner's constitutional right to remain silent was not scrupulously honored, warranting a new trial, but claims of ineffective assistance of counsel were denied.
Petitioner sought a writ of habeas corpus, challenging his conviction. The Magistrate Judge recommended granting the petition in part and denying it i…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Michigan V. Mosley cases and more on FLexlaw
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Becerra’s Report and Recommendation (“Report”) (DE 67) on Luis Gustavo Del Valle’s (“Petitioner’s” or “Mr. Del Valle’s”) Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (the “Petition”).1 (DE 1.) No objections were filed to the Report, and the time to file objections has passed. See 11th Cir. R. 3-1; 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The Report recommends the Court grant in part and deny in part the Petition. (DE 67 at 1, 51.) Upon a careful review of the Report, the Petition, and the record, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that: 1. Judge Becerra’s Report (DE 67) is AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED.
2. Mr. Del Valle’s Petition (DE1) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. The Petition is granted as to the request for a new trial because Mr. Del Valle’s constitutional right to remain silent was not scrupulously honored. See Michigan v. Mosley, 423 U.S. 96, 103–05 (1975); United States v. Muhammad, 196 F. App’x 882, 885–86 (11th Cir. 2006). Accordingly, Respondents are
3. The Clerk is ordered to CLOSE this case.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers in Miami, Florida, this 6th day of May, 2022.