252 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 657 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort
-
Thomas Knight petitioned for habeas corpus claiming ineffective assistance of appellate counsel in his capital case. The Florida Supreme Court adopted a four-step test for evaluating ineffective assistance of counsel claims and rejected each of Knight's four specific allegations
-
The court held that the petitioner's trial counsel's failure to conduct any pretrial investigation beyond interviewing the defendant constituted ineffective assistance of counsel, violating the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments.
-
The Eleventh Circuit reversed the district court's grant of habeas corpus on the death sentence, finding that reliance on a non-statutory aggravating factor (future dangerousness) was not constitutional error under Supreme Court precedent. The court also affirmed the denial of ha
-
The court held that the informant's actions were attributable to the state and that the informant deliberately elicited incriminating statements, violating the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel.
-
The court's precedent on general deterrence evidence in capital penalty phases is contradictory and creates an unfair advantage for the prosecution.
-
The court held that the exclusion of veniremen unequivocally opposed to the death penalty did not violate the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments, and that Georgia's capital sentencing review procedures were constitutionally adequate.
-
50 F.4th 1025·
11th Cir.·
2022-10-04
·cited 111×
Willie James Pye, convicted of murder, kidnapping, rape, and robbery, challenged his death sentence on federal habeas review, arguing that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance during sentencing by failing to investigate and present mitigating evidence of his difficul
-
Damion Hayes, convicted of attempted first-degree murder and armed trespassing, sought habeas corpus relief contending that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by withdrawing an insanity defense on the first day of trial without adequately explaining the difference
-
708 F.2d 549·
11th Cir.·
1983-06-15
·cited 80×
The court held that the trial judge's remark about automatic appeal did not rise to the level of constitutional error, and the jury instructions on intent and malice did not impermissibly shift the burden of proof. Therefore, the petitioner did not suffer a due process violation.
-
The court affirmed the denial of the habeas corpus petition, finding that the appellant's claims were either procedurally barred or without merit.
-
The Fifth Circuit should apply the same standard of review in Witherspoon cases as in other habeas corpus matters, giving deference to state court factual findings unless clearly erroneous, and remanding for evidentiary hearings when the record is unclear.
-
-
The court held that the trial court's oral jury charge on mitigating circumstances during the sentencing phase was constitutionally deficient, warranting habeas relief, but found the jury charge on intent to be harmless error and the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel to
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions and that the petitioner did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel or make involuntary statements.
-
The court affirmed the district court's judgment, finding that the petitioner's representation was perfunctory and thus ineffective.
-
Raheem was convicted of two homicides and sentenced to death by a Georgia judge; he challenged his conviction and sentence on federal habeas review, arguing that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to fully investigate and present mitigating evidence of h
-
The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying an evidentiary hearing on the ineffective assistance of counsel claim, and that counsel's performance was not deficient under the Sixth Amendment.
-
477 F.2d 1073·
3d Cir.·
1972-12-20
·cited 69×
The court reinstated prior panel opinions, excluding portions on judicial immunity in § 1983 injunctive relief suits, and declined to rule on the issue.
-
The court held that the denial of the writ of habeas corpus was proper because the confessions were voluntary, the search was not illegal, and the eyewitness's perjury did not violate due process.
-
683 F.2d 348·
11th Cir.·
1982-08-16
·cited 67×
The court held that while sufficiency of evidence and evidentiary/prosecutorial misconduct claims were properly denied, the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel regarding pretrial preparation warranted further inquiry.
-
The court held that the trial court's refusal to grant a change of venue denied the petitioner due process of law.
-
The court affirmed the denial of federal habeas corpus relief, finding that the death penalty was not disproportionate, the state did not knowingly use perjured testimony, and evidentiary hearings were not required for the claims raised.
-
-
The court held that the district court correctly denied the petition for a writ of habeas corpus, affirming the admissibility of the confessions.
-
The court held that the admission of the victim's identification of Graham violated his due process rights due to impermissibly suggestive identification procedures that created a substantial likelihood of misidentification.
-
Leslie Jones, under a death sentence, appeals the trial court's denial of his Rule 3.850 motion for postconviction relief and motion to disqualify the trial judge. The Florida Supreme Court affirms both denials, holding that the trial judge's comments and compensation decisions d
-
The court held that the defendant failed to demonstrate ineffective assistance of counsel and that the jury selection process was constitutional. Therefore, the district court's denial of habeas corpus relief is affirmed.
-
The court affirmed the denial of habeas corpus relief, holding that the petitioner was not denied credit for time spent in a mental hospital and that his other claims lacked merit or were moot.
-
The dissenting judge believes the petitioner failed to prove denial of effective assistance of counsel, and that state court findings of fact should be presumed correct.
-
The court held that the petitioner's claims regarding a Giglio violation, arbitrary application of the death penalty, and jury unconstitutionality were without merit or procedurally barred.
-
-
The court held that a state court's finding of an intelligent waiver of counsel, based solely on a docket sheet reciting advice of counsel, is insufficient to overcome a petitioner's testimony of indigence and lack of awareness of the right to appointed counsel.
-
The court held that the prosecution's failure to disclose oral reports of a polygraph examination of a key witness constituted a Brady violation because the reports were material to impeaching the witness's credibility. The court affirmed the district court's grant of habeas corp
-
The court held that the trial court properly excluded jurors opposed to the death penalty, the exclusion did not violate the cross-section requirement, and the petitioner received effective assistance of counsel.
-
The court held that the undisclosed police report, useful only for impeachment, did not meet the stricter materiality standard required for a new trial, and thus did not violate due process.
-
92 F.4th 1338·
11th Cir.·
2024-02-15
·cited 48×
Thanquarius Calhoun was convicted of felony murder and other crimes after leading police on a high-speed chase that resulted in the death of his passenger, Marion Shore, when officers used a PIT maneuver to stop his vehicle. On federal habeas review, the Eleventh Circuit held tha
-
The court held that the statement made to Assistant State's Attorney Gainer was inadmissible as it was a mere relay of a coerced confession, and the state forfeited its harmless error argument. Statements made to Officer Dubois after Miranda warnings were admissible as they were
-
The court held that jury misconduct involving an unauthorized dictionary definition of malice and an out-of-court experiment created a reasonable possibility of prejudice, warranting habeas relief for murder and attempted murder convictions, but not for felony false imprisonment.
-
The court held that the Florida Supreme Court's finding on direct appeal satisfied the Enmund requirement, and that Tafero's other claims, including ineffective assistance of counsel and disparate sentencing, were without merit.
-
The Eleventh Circuit held that the Supreme Court's decision in Hurst v. Florida does not apply retroactively to cases that became final before Hurst was decided, and therefore Knight cannot obtain federal habeas relief on that basis. The court also found that the Florida Supreme
-
The court's opinion, which the author concurs with, applies de novo appellate review to the ultimate issue of confession voluntariness. However, the author argues this approach is incorrect.
-
The court affirmed the denial of habeas corpus relief, finding no constitutional violations in the conviction or sentencing, including issues of hypnotically-enhanced testimony, juror exclusion, ineffective assistance of counsel, and Fourth Amendment claims.
-
The court held that the defendant did not receive effective assistance of counsel, and therefore his guilty plea was not voluntary, knowing, and intelligent.
-
The court held that a state court's determination of whether a defendant knowingly and intelligently waived Miranda rights is a factual finding entitled to the presumption of correctness under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).
-
The court held that Barrera's confession was voluntary and did not violate his Sixth Amendment right to counsel, as he knowingly and intelligently waived his rights despite the interrogation tactics used.
-
The court held that a guilty plea induced by threats against a third party is not an absolute bar to challenging the plea's voluntariness, and a remand for an evidentiary hearing is necessary if the state did not have probable cause for the threats.
-
The court held that the material facts were not adequately developed at the state habeas hearing, entitling the petitioner to an evidentiary hearing in federal court.
-
The court held that even though constitutional errors occurred during the trial, they were harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because the evidence of guilt was overwhelming.
-
The court held that the withheld exculpatory evidence, while not affecting the murder conviction, might have influenced the jury's decision to impose the death penalty, thus violating due process.
-
The court held that the appellant did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel at any stage of the proceedings and that the district court did not err in denying an evidentiary hearing.