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 court held that the district court did not err in denying the habeas petition, affirming the denial of summary judgment on all grounds.
-
The court held that the petitioner's eighth amendment claim was procedurally barred because he failed to show good cause for not raising it at trial and actual prejudice. The court also held that the petitioner was not entitled to a lesser included offense charge under state law.
-
The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's grant of habeas corpus, holding that the state trial court's failure to instruct the jury on the 'voluntary release' element of kidnapping was harmless error.
-
The court held that the district court erred in denying a habeas corpus petition without an evidentiary hearing when the petitioner raised colorable claims of ineffective assistance of counsel regarding failure to investigate competency and failure to appeal.
-
The court held that the petitioner failed to demonstrate ineffective assistance of counsel because the attorney's advice regarding parole eligibility was not deficient and the petitioner failed to show prejudice.
-
The court held that the state court's factual finding that no deal existed between the prosecutor and a key witness was supported by the record and thus presumed correct, meaning no knowing use of perjured testimony occurred. The court also held that the defendant's waiver of Mir
-
The court held that the petitioner was denied effective assistance of counsel because his attorney failed to investigate his mental health history, which likely impacted the outcome of his guilty plea.
-
The court held that despite a potentially suggestive pre-trial identification procedure, the victim's identification was sufficiently reliable under the totality of the circumstances to satisfy due process, and thus the habeas corpus writ should not have been granted.
-
848 F.2d 606·
5th Cir.·
1988-06-30
·cited 10×
The court held that the prosecutor's argument to the jury, suggesting they allocate ten years for each prior conviction in addition to the current offense, constituted constitutional error under the Double Jeopardy Clause, and this error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt
-
The court held that the district court erred in granting a stay of execution because the petitioner's claims were successive, procedurally defaulted, and lacked substantial grounds for relief.
-
The court held that the appellant was not entitled to habeas relief because the state court's findings of competency and effective assistance of counsel were supported by the record, and an evidentiary hearing was not required.
-
The court held that the district court correctly denied the habeas corpus petition because the state court's conviction was supported by sufficient evidence and the petitioner did not demonstrate a constitutional violation or the need for a federal evidentiary hearing.
-
The court held that the jury's consideration of an unadmitted police report did not violate appellant's rights, nor did an impermissibly suggestive photographic identification, because under the totality of the circumstances, the identification was reliable.
-
818 F.2d 684·
8th Cir.·
1987-05-20
·cited 10×
The court held that the admission of the defendant's incriminating statements did not violate his constitutional rights and that a prosecutor's question on cross-examination did not render the trial fundamentally unfair.
-
The court held that the jury was properly selected, the ineffective assistance of counsel claim was insufficient, and the use of psychiatric evidence did not violate the defendant's rights.
-
The court held that physical restraint by ambulance personnel for medical purposes at an accident scene, absent police domination, does not create an inherently coercive environment requiring Miranda warnings.
-
The court held that the petitioner's claims of trial error, including the admission of testimony, denial of a change of venue, failure to strike biased jurors, and prosecutorial comments, did not rise to the level of a due process violation warranting habeas corpus relief.
-
The court held that Sandstrom error on the element of intent is subject to harmless error analysis and that the death penalty statutes were constitutional. The court affirmed the denial of the habeas corpus petition.
-
The court should require an evidentiary hearing on the change of venue and shackling issues due to insufficient factual development in the record.
-
The court held that the petitioner failed to overcome the presumption of correctness accorded to the state court's finding that his guilty plea was knowingly and voluntarily entered.
-
The dissenting judge argues that the identification procedures were unnecessarily suggestive and created a substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification, violating due process.
-
The court held that the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel was not violated by his trial attorney's actions or inactions.
-
A federal court is not required to examine the trial transcript when a habeas petition alleges insufficiency of evidence if the petitioner does not challenge the state court's factual determinations or invoke exceptions to the presumption of correctness.
-
690 F.2d 685·
9th Cir.·
1982-10-18
·cited 10×
The court held that the petitioner's guilty plea was validly entered, as the trial judge thoroughly explained the sentencing terms and the petitioner, with counsel's advice, understood them.
-
The court held that the district court's denial of habeas corpus relief must be vacated and the case remanded because the record was inadequate to determine if the constitutional error was harmless.
-
The court held that the majority opinion erred in vacating the state trial court judgment based on habeas corpus power.
-
The court held that an attorney's failure to inform the trial court of a client's recent suicide attempt does not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel if the totality of circumstances shows competent assistance, and that the standard for competence to plead guilty is the
-
The court held that the district court erred by failing to conduct a de novo determination of the magistrate's report, as required by the Federal Magistrate's Act, before issuing a writ of habeas corpus.
-
The court held that the state court's determination of the voluntariness of the confession was supported by the record and that the appellant was not denied effective assistance of counsel.
-
The federal court held that the state court's determination that the confession was voluntary was supported by the record and should not have been overturned.
-
The district court's denial of habeas corpus relief must be vacated because it acted without reviewing the state trial transcript and failed to hold an evidentiary hearing.
-
The court held that a prior federal district court decision, affirmed on grounds of procedural exhaustion rather than merits, does not preclude reconsideration of the same issues in a subsequent habeas corpus petition. The court also found that undue delay in state appellate proc
-
The court held that the prisoner's Sixth Amendment claims regarding photographic identification, ineffective assistance of counsel, and denial of separate trial counsel were without merit.
-
The court held that the appellant was not entitled to another evidentiary hearing on the voluntariness of his statements, as the issue had been fully developed and resolved in prior state court proceedings.
-
The court held that the petitioner's statements were voluntary and admissible, and that the prosecutor's summation comment on an obvious physical feature of an exhibit was proper.
-
The court held that common representation of co-defendants is not per se error and that there was no Sixth Amendment conflict of interest violating the right to counsel.
-
The court held that the district court erred in denying the petition without making findings or holding an evidentiary hearing on factual allegations that, if proven, would entitle the petitioner to relief.
-
981 F.3d 1201·
11th Cir.·
2020-12-02
·cited 9×
Michael Nance, a death row inmate challenging Georgia's lethal injection protocol as unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment, filed suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking an injunction against the only method of execution authorized by state law and proposing firing squad as an
-
The court held that the Des Plaines confession was voluntary and that the Batson claim was barred by Teague v. Lane because Powers v. Ohio announced a new rule.
-
The court affirmed the denial of the federal habeas corpus petition, finding that Mikel's claims were either procedurally defaulted, lacked merit, or were not properly exhausted.
-
The court held that limiting cross-examination into a witness's potential deal with the state violated the Confrontation Clause and was not harmless error.
-
The court, bound by habeas corpus rules, could not find the Indiana Supreme Court's findings clearly wrong, despite doubts about the identification evidence.
-
715 F.2d 415·
8th Cir.·
1983-08-24
·cited 9×
The court held that federal habeas corpus review is barred by procedural default for claims not raised in state court, absent a showing of cause and prejudice, and that the denial of a continuance or substitution of counsel was not an abuse of discretion absent prejudice.
-
610 F.2d 1002·
1st Cir.·
1979-12-13
·cited 9×
The court held that a prosecutor's substitution of a more serious charge after a defendant exercises their right to appeal de novo, even if due to prosecutorial error, violates due process by creating a realistic likelihood of vindictiveness.
-
The court held that the state court's evidentiary hearing was not full and fair, and the federal district court erred in denying habeas relief without conducting its own evidentiary hearing on the issues of denial of counsel and coerced guilty plea.
-
960 F. Supp. 275·
M.D. Fla.·
1997-03-24
·cited 8×
The court held that a petitioner must obtain authorization from the appellate court before filing a second or successive habeas corpus application in the district court under AEDPA, and dismissed the case without prejudice to allow the petitioner to seek such authorization.
-
The court affirmed the denial of the habeas petition, holding that the petitioner knowingly and intelligently waived her right to conflict-free counsel and that the trial court's actions did not violate her due process rights.
-
The court held that the district court did not err in denying the petition for a writ of habeas corpus, affirming the denial of relief on claims of jury discrimination, prosecutorial misconduct, inconsistent verdicts, and ineffective assistance of counsel.
-
929 F.2d 1180·
7th Cir.·
1991-04-11
·cited 8×
The court held that even if the state court erred by admitting a nontestifying codefendant's confession, the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt due to the appellant's own incriminating statements.
-
The court held that the district court erred in denying an evidentiary hearing on the claim that the defendant's nolo contendere plea was unconstitutional due to inadequate translation of the mens rea element of manslaughter, as the material facts were not adequately developed in