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
-
951 F.2d 280·
10th Cir.·
1991-12-16
·cited 2×
The court held that applying the amended Oklahoma Prison Overcrowding Emergency Powers Act to Petitioner violated the ex post facto clause because it was retrospective and disadvantageous.
-
The court held that the district court did not err in relying on state court findings for ineffective assistance of counsel claims, as the underlying facts were supported by the record and the petitioner failed to rebut the presumption of correctness.
-
The court affirmed the denial of the habeas corpus petition, finding no constitutional error in the denial of the petition or the underlying state court judgment.
-
The court held that the state trial court's fact-finding procedure afforded the defendant a full and fair hearing, and the district court did not err in denying an evidentiary hearing on the habeas corpus petition.
-
943 F.2d 1214·
10th Cir.·
1991-08-29
·cited 2×
The court held that the petitioner's claims are controlled by the prior decision in Blango v. Thornburgh, and that the transfer did not violate the compact clause.
-
932 F.2d 739·
8th Cir.·
1991-05-08
·cited 2×
The court held that the confession was not involuntary and affirmed the dismissal of the habeas corpus petition.
-
915 F.2d 549·
9th Cir.·
1990-10-02
·cited 2×
A sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole cannot be constitutionally imposed on a defendant who pleads guilty, even if they agree to such a sentence in a plea bargain, as the statute requires jury findings for such sentences.
-
909 F.2d 1330·
9th Cir.·
1990-07-27
·cited 2×
The appeal from the civil rights action dismissal is dismissed as untimely, and the dismissal of the habeas corpus petition is affirmed.
-
The court held that the state's argument that a prior finding of no prejudice under Strickland v. Washington automatically renders a Hitchcock error harmless is incorrect, as the tactical decisions were made under the law as it existed at the time, and the subsequent change in la
-
A defendant seeking due process relief for preindictment delay must prove actual prejudice, after which the court balances the prejudice against the government's justification for the delay.
-
901 F.2d 1481·
8th Cir.·
1990-05-02
·cited 2×
The court affirmed the denial of the habeas petition, finding no constitutional violation regarding the change of venue and no ineffective assistance of counsel.
-
882 F.2d 331·
8th Cir.·
1989-08-16
·cited 2×
The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the habeas petition, finding that grounds for relief were either procedurally barred due to failure to demonstrate cause and prejudice, or without merit.
-
The court held that the petitioner's claims were procedurally barred or unsupported by the record, and thus denied his motions for a certificate of probable cause and a stay of execution.
-
The court held that a new trial requires demonstrating that a juror failed to honestly answer a material question on voir dire and that a correct answer would have provided a basis for a challenge for cause.
-
-
835 F.2d 672·
6th Cir.·
1987-12-22
·cited 2×
A claimed violation of Article IV(e) of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers (IAD) is not a fundamental defect cognizable under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, absent exceptional circumstances.
-
The court held that the state court's factual finding that the petitioner was aware of the maximum sentence was entitled to deference under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) and was not overcome by the evidence presented.
-
The court held that the juvenile court's reliance on facts and information not formally introduced into evidence at a transfer hearing did not violate the petitioner's federal due process rights, as the state court had found all relevant criteria were considered.
-
The court denied the appellant's motion for a certificate of probable cause, finding no substantial showing of the denial of a federal right, and dismissed the appeal.
-
The court held that denying an indigent defendant's statutory right to appeal solely because his family could afford trial counsel violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
-
The court held that suggestive pretrial identification procedures did not create a substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification, and the jury was adequately instructed on eyewitness identification.
-
A federal court granting a writ of habeas corpus must explain why the statutory presumption of correctness of state court findings does not apply. The district court's order granting the writ is vacated and remanded for specific findings.
-
The court held that the district court failed to defer to the state appellate court's implied factual determination that the defendant's disruptive behavior justified his exclusion from the courtroom.
-
The federal court must defer to state court findings of fact unless clearly erroneous, but may independently review conclusions of law regarding confession voluntariness.
-
The court held that the state's denial of wiretapping was insufficient and a further inquiry was warranted due to new evidence and incomplete prior denials.
-
-
The court denied the petition for a writ of habeas corpus and the application for a stay of execution, finding no constitutional violations in the petitioner's conviction or sentence.
-
The Sixth Circuit held that the district court erred by failing to apply the presumption of correctness required by 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) to the state court's factual findings regarding eyewitness identification reliability.
-
The court held that a federal court may grant a stay of execution and conduct an evidentiary hearing if the state court's factual findings are not fairly supported by the record, even if the state court denied a hearing.
-
651 F.2d 528·
8th Cir.·
1981-03-25
·cited 2×
The court held that the prosecution's calling of a witness who refused to testify did not violate due process, nor did the admission of her prior statements violate the Sixth Amendment confrontation clause, as the defendant forfeited that right.
-
620 F.2d 683·
8th Cir.·
1980-05-08
·cited 2×
The dissenting judge would hold that the second trial was barred by the double jeopardy clause because the mistrial was not justified by manifest necessity and the defendant's right to proceed was denied.
-
The court held that the state court record did not fairly support the decision regarding the admissibility of the confession, requiring a federal evidentiary hearing.
-
The court, in dissent, argues that the denial of rehearing en banc was improper because the lower court's reasoning regarding the non-disclosure of witness inducements and exculpatory statements violated due process principles.
-
The court held that the district court did not err in denying the habeas corpus petition, as the appellant was not a parolee and the state board's conditions were lawful.
-
The court held that a district court can properly reaffirm a dismissal of a habeas corpus petition without an evidentiary hearing, even if a magistrate recommended dismissal, and can rely on a state court's detailed opinion when the state proceedings were full and fair.
-
A certificate of probable cause should not issue because the conviction did not rest on suppressed evidence or tainted testimony.
-
The court held that the petitioner failed to present convincing evidence to rebut the presumption of correctness of the state court's factual determination that his guilty plea was voluntarily and knowingly entered with competent counsel.
-
The court held that not all material facts were adequately developed at the state court hearing, requiring an evidentiary hearing in the district court.
-
The dissent argues that if a guilty plea was induced by counsel's misrepresentation of the law regarding diminished responsibility, an evidentiary hearing is mandated.
-
478 F.2d 291·
10th Cir.·
1973-04-30
·cited 2×
The court held that the revocation of the inmate's suspended sentence without a hearing was constitutional under the statutes in effect at the time, as the relevant case law regarding probation revocation was not applicable and the rules for parole revocation were not retroactive
-
The court held that the appellant failed to carry his burden of proving his statements were involuntary or that he was denied his constitutional right to counsel at the preliminary examination.
-
The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the habeas petition without an evidentiary hearing, as factual uncertainties regarding consent to search require further development.
-
The court held that while the district court erred in denying the appellant access to state court records, this error was harmless because the records did not support his claims.
-
The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a habeas corpus hearing, as the state court's decision that the guilty pleas were voluntary and knowing was fairly supported by the record.
-
The court held that the petitioner's confessions were voluntary and that the state proceedings adequately determined their voluntariness, thus denying the petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
-
The failure of retained counsel to perfect an appeal within the statutory time, absent a showing of indigency at the time the appeal was due, does not constitute grounds for discharge on habeas corpus.
-
The court held that while the state courts provided sufficient hearings on the coerced confession and deprivation of counsel claims, a further federal evidentiary hearing was necessary on the discriminatory jury selection issue and the retroactivity of Witherspoon v. Illinois.
-
The court held that the federal habeas court properly considered the voluntariness of the confession de novo and that the appellant's claims of coercion were not persuasive.
-
The dissenting judge would have granted the writ, arguing the District Court erred in deferring to state court findings on indigency without an evidentiary hearing.
-
The court held that the petitioner's guilty pleas were intelligent and voluntary, and the district court did not err in denying the habeas corpus petition without an evidentiary hearing.