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
-
The Sixth Circuit held that the district court erred in granting the writ of habeas corpus based on a Magistrate's improper evidentiary hearing and that a Magistrate lacks authority to grant bail pending adjudication.
-
The petitioner is not a fugitive and therefore not extraditable because he satisfied the judgment against him through service of his sentence in Ohio as agreed by Arizona.
-
The federal district court and its magistrate failed to comply with the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) by relying on an informal investigatory hearing rather than a formal, adversarial evidentiary hearing.
-
The court held that the petitioner's guilty pleas were voluntary and that the trial court did not err in failing to sua sponte order a competency hearing.
-
The court held that the state trial judge's refusal to credit the petitioner's testimony regarding his indigency was not constitutional error, and thus federal habeas relief was properly denied.
-
The court held that the district court failed to properly apply the presumption of correctness required by 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) when overturning state court convictions based on the same record. The case is remanded for reconsideration.
-
The district court erred by not considering the petitioner's testimony regarding his confession and must reconsider the habeas petition with this testimony.
-
The court held that the district court erred in granting habeas corpus relief without an evidentiary hearing, as factual issues regarding the applicability of a hearsay exception required further development.
-
The court held that the district court did not err in denying the habeas corpus petition, as the confession was voluntary under the totality of the circumstances.
-
The court held that due process requires withdrawal of a guilty plea if it was not knowingly entered or if the state breached the plea bargain, and that the district court must consider these issues, potentially with an evidentiary hearing.
-
The court held that the petitioner failed to meet his burden of proving his confession was involuntary, as the totality of the circumstances, including the absence of coercive police tactics and the petitioner's apparent alertness, outweighed expert conjecture about drug effects.
-
The court held that the district court properly denied the petition for a writ of habeas corpus, affirming the judgment for the respondent.
-
The court held that the district court did not err in applying the presumption of correctness to the state court's finding that the confession was voluntary, and that petitioner failed to present convincing evidence to overcome this presumption.
-
527 F.2d 899·
8th Cir.·
1976-01-21
·cited 4×
The court held that the petitioner's guilty plea was not rendered unintelligent by ineffective assistance of counsel, as counsel's investigation and advice were constitutionally adequate.
-
The court held that the pleas of guilty were knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily made, despite the circumstances surrounding the plea bargain.
-
The court held that a second federal habeas corpus petition raising issues already decided on the merits in a prior petition can be denied, and that conclusory allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel are insufficient to require an evidentiary hearing.
-
The district court did not err in denying the habeas corpus petition without an evidentiary hearing, nor was the statute allowing magistrate review unconstitutional.
-
461 F.2d 1097·
10th Cir.·
1972-06-22
·cited 4×
The court held that the federal district court erred in dismissing the claim regarding the jury instruction on failure to testify for failure to exhaust state remedies, but that the instruction and any alleged prosecutorial comment were not constitutional violations or were harml
-
The court held that a guilty plea entered voluntarily and understandingly waives all prior non-jurisdictional defects, and affirmed the denial of habeas corpus relief.
-
The court held that the relator's constitutional rights under the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments were violated when police obtained consent to search his apartment after he had requested counsel at a preliminary hearing.
-
2023 WL 7110349·
N.D. Fla.·
2024-08-19
·cited 3×
A district court lacks jurisdiction to consider a second or successive § 2254 petition unless the petitioner has first obtained authorization from the appropriate appellate court.
-
The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the denial of federal habeas corpus relief, holding that the state court's determination that the petitioner failed to demonstrate prejudice from his attorneys' alleged ineffective assistance was not an unreasonable application of Supreme Court prece
-
The court held that a defendant is deprived of his constitutional right to an impartial jury and effective counsel when jurors who convicted a co-defendant in the same crime are empaneled without sufficient inquiry into their bias, and counsel fails to challenge them for cause.
-
The court held that a fugitive cannot challenge their trial and conviction based on an alleged violation of an extradition treaty unless governmental action was involved in their removal from the asylum state.
-
The court held that the imposition of the death penalty was not unconstitutional under Enmund v. Florida, as the Petitioner was present, armed, and fully participated in the robbery and murders.
-
The court held that the Double Jeopardy Clause is not violated when a defendant is punished for two distinct offenses, as determined by the statutes upon which the defendant was indicted and the Blockburger test, not by jury instructions that may have introduced other statutory p
-
The court held that the material facts concerning the voluntariness of the confession were not adequately developed and remanded for a full evidentiary hearing.
-
2025 WL 708612·
S.D. Fla.·
2025-06-10
·cited 2×
The court denied Petitioner's claims 11, 14, and 16 on the merits, finding no violation of federal law or unreasonable determination of facts by the state court.
-
The court held that the state court's adjudication of Petitioner's claim regarding the pocketknife as a deadly weapon was not contrary to federal law and was based on a reasonable determination of the facts.
-
The court held that equitable tolling is appropriate for the petitioner's habeas corpus petition due to counsel's misadvice, allowing consideration of the merits, and that the analysis of ineffective assistance of counsel is ongoing.
-
988 F.2d 1364·
5th Cir.·
1993-04-07
·cited 2×
The admission of a videotaped interview of a child complainant, without the child testifying in court and being subject to cross-examination, violates the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause, and such an error is not harmless when the videotape likely contributed to the convic
-
The court held that the defendant's Penry claim was not procedurally barred, but that it lacked factual support. The court also held that an evidentiary hearing was not required for the ineffective assistance of counsel claim. Therefore, the request for a certificate of probable
-
A district court has discretion to hold an evidentiary hearing in a habeas corpus case, even if not strictly required, and this discretion was erroneously believed to be absent by the lower court.
-
The court held that a state court's determination of whether a defendant was 'in custody' for Miranda purposes is a factual finding entitled to a presumption of correctness under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).
-
The court should not grant a writ of habeas corpus based on a defense strategy not presented to the trial court.
-
977 F.2d 1259·
8th Cir.·
1992-10-19
·cited 2×
The court affirmed the dismissal of the habeas petition, holding that the appellant procedurally defaulted his Double Jeopardy claim by abandoning the sufficiency of evidence issue in state post-conviction proceedings.
-
The court held that the district court erred in disregarding state court findings of fact and making its own credibility determinations, and that the confession was not obtained contrary to the Constitution.
-
The court held that the district court correctly granted a writ of habeas corpus because the burglary of jurors during deliberations created circumstances justifying a presumption of implied bias, violating the defendant's right to a fair and impartial jury.
-
The court held that the petitioner did not suffer a per se denial of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel because his attorney's alleged incapacity due to illness did not fall under the narrow circumstances where prejudice is presumed.
-
The court held that the district court erred in failing to conduct an evidentiary hearing on the petitioner's ineffective assistance of counsel claim, but otherwise affirmed the denial of the petition.
-
The court held that the district court did not err in denying petitioner's request for an evidentiary hearing or in denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus, as the issues could be resolved on the state court record and petitioner failed to demonstrate ineffective assista
-
The court held that the exclusion of the victim's statement did not deprive the defendant of constitutional rights, and the defendant waived his claim regarding impeachment with a prior conviction by not testifying.
-
The court held that the evidence was insufficient to support Richard Gilley's conviction for marijuana possession because the state failed to establish an affirmative link between him and the contraband.
-
The court held that the petitioner's trial counsel's failure to investigate crucial physical evidence, specifically a quilt with gunshot residue, constituted ineffective assistance of counsel under the Strickland standard. This failure prejudiced the outcome of the trial.
-
The court held that the petitioner's Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury and right to a fair trial were not violated by a juror's nondisclosure of a past trauma or by prosecutorial remarks.
-
The court held that the petitioner's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and Brady violations lacked merit, and that procedural default barred one claim.
-
The court held that the state trial court's refusal to fund a psychiatric expert for an indigent defendant, when her mental condition was a significant factor in her defense, violated her due process rights.
-
The court held that the district court correctly denied the habeas corpus petition because the petitioner's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and due process violations were without merit or procedurally barred.
-
960 F.2d 738·
8th Cir.·
1992-04-01
·cited 2×
The court held that the defendant's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and judicial bias were without merit, and affirmed the denial of his habeas corpus petition.
-
The court held that brief, isolated, and substantially correct comments about parole by jurors, even if violating state law, do not necessarily rise to the level of a federal constitutional violation warranting habeas relief.