634 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 415 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · browse and sort
-
M.D. Fla.·
2022-07-18
·cited 1×
The court held that the petitioner's habeas corpus petition was untimely filed and not subject to statutory or equitable tolling, nor did it present a valid claim of actual innocence to overcome the time bar.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2019-09-16
·cited 1×
The court held that the petitioner's claims were untimely or failed on the merits, and thus denied his petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
-
936 F.3d 1252·
11th Cir.·
2019-08-30
·cited 1×
Mark Allen Jenkins, sentenced to death for the 1989 murder of Tammy Ruth Hogeland, appealed his conviction and death sentence on grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel during the penalty phase and intellectual disability under Atkins v. Virginia. The Eleventh Circuit affirm
-
988 F.2d 86·
9th Cir.·
1993-03-18
·cited 1×
The court held that the state trial court's admission of hearsay evidence, requirement to elect defenses, and sentence enhancement did not violate due process and affirmed the denial of the habeas petition.
-
578 F. Supp. 558·
S.D. Fla.·
1988-02-04
·cited 1×
The court held that a remand for a new sentencing proceeding does not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause when there was no explicit life recommendation from the jury.
-
The court held that the district court erred in summarily denying the petitioner's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel based on the failure to call a key alibi witness, requiring further proceedings.
-
11th Cir.·
2026-10-27
The Due Process Clause does not require a district court to provide notice and an opportunity to respond before sua sponte dismissing habeas subclaims for failure to satisfy Rule 2(c)'s fact-pleading requirement, where the Habeas Rules, accompanying forms, and case law give the p
-
11th Cir.·
2026-10-26
A motion challenging a restitution sentence is not a challenge "with respect to the pertinent judgment" under AEDPA's tolling provision in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2). The "pertinent judgment" for purposes of AEDPA refers to the judgment pursuant to which the prisoner is in custody, n
-
The state appellate court did not unreasonably apply Faretta v. California when it determined that Curry never clearly and unequivocally invoked her right to self-representation, as Curry's statements were equivocal and she vacillated between requesting self-representation and re
-
The court held that the petitioner's amended petition for writ of habeas corpus should be dismissed as duplicative of prior filings.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2026-01-23
The court held that it lacks jurisdiction to consider a second or successive habeas petition when the petitioner has not obtained authorization from the Eleventh Circuit.
-
The court affirmed the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, overruling the petitioner's objections and denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
-
The Court held that the petitioner's claims for ineffective assistance of counsel and double jeopardy were successive and dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, and the due process claim based on destroyed evidence was untimely.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2026-01-12
The court held that the petitioner's federal habeas corpus petition was untimely filed and that his double jeopardy claim was waived by his negotiated plea and lacked factual support.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-12-29
The court denied the petition for writ of habeas corpus, finding that the petitioner's claims were either not cognizable, waived by his guilty plea, or failed to meet the stringent standards for relief under AEDPA.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-12-19
A district court lacks jurisdiction to consider a second or successive habeas corpus petition if the petitioner has not obtained authorization from the appropriate court of appeals.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-12-17
The court held that Grounds One through Three are procedurally barred due to failure to exhaust state remedies and failure to "federalize" the claims. Ground Four, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel, was not granted as the applicant failed to show the state court's decisi
-
The court held that the habeas corpus application was time-barred because the applicant failed to demonstrate entitlement to equitable tolling and did not properly toll the limitations period through state post-conviction proceedings.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-12-16
The court held that the petitioner failed to demonstrate that the state court unreasonably denied his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel regarding an insanity defense.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2025-12-09
The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the petition for a writ of habeas corpus because the petitioner's state conviction appeal was still pending and he was not 'in custody' pursuant to a state court judgment at the time of filing.
-
The court held that the petitioner's claims were not cognizable on federal habeas review, either because they involved Fourth Amendment claims that had a full and fair opportunity for litigation in state court, or because they rested on alleged misapplications of state law.
-
N.D. Fla.·
2025-12-08
The court held that the petitioner's habeas corpus petition was filed after the expiration of the one-year limitations period and is therefore untimely.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-12-08
The court held that the petitioner's federal habeas corpus petition was time-barred under AEDPA because it was filed more than one year after his convictions became final, and no exceptions applied.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-12-04
The court held that clarifying an ambiguous oral sentence pronouncement does not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause, especially when the clarification aligns with the parties' original plea agreement.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-12-02
The court held that the state court's denial of the petitioner's ineffective assistance of counsel claims was not contrary to, nor an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law, nor based on an unreasonable determination of the facts.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-12-01
The court held that the state court's denial of habeas relief was not contrary to federal law or an unreasonable determination of facts, and thus denied the petition.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-11-25
The court denied the petitioner's motion for clarification of service requirements, stating it would not serve the additional respondents named.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-11-21
The court held that the petitioner's habeas corpus petition was untimely and procedurally barred, and that his claims were not cognizable on federal habeas review.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-11-19
The court held that the habeas application challenging the 2023 judgment is time-barred and the applicant is no longer in custody, and the challenge to the 2025 judgment is premature because it is still pending state appeal.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-11-18
The court held that the petitioner's habeas corpus petition was untimely filed and therefore dismissed with prejudice.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-11-17
The court held that the petitioner's federal habeas corpus petition was timely filed because the one-year limitations period was tolled by his state post-conviction proceedings.
-
N.D. Fla.·
2025-11-17
The court recommended that the petition for writ of habeas corpus be transferred to the Middle District of Florida.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-11-17
The court recommended that the petition for writ of habeas corpus be transferred to the Middle District of Florida.
-
The court held that the petitioner's claims were waived by his nolo contendere plea or lacked merit and factual support, thus denying his petition for writ of habeas corpus.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-11-14
The court held that the petitioner's habeas corpus petition was untimely filed and dismissed it with prejudice.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-11-14
The court held that the petitioner's habeas corpus petition was time-barred under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) because it was filed after the one-year limitation period expired. The court also denied a certificate of appealability.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2025-11-10
The court held that the petitioner's federal habeas petition was untimely under AEDPA and that he failed to satisfy any exceptions to the limitations period.
-
The court held that the petitioner's federal habeas claim was unexhausted and procedurally defaulted because he failed to present it to the state courts and it appeared to be based on state law.
-
The federal habeas petition was dismissed as untimely because it was filed outside the one-year statute of limitations, and the petitioner's state post-conviction motion did not toll the period as it was filed after the deadline expired.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-11-04
The court held that the petitioner's habeas corpus petition was untimely filed under the one-year limitations period imposed by AEDPA, and equitable tolling was not warranted.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-11-04
The court held that the petitioner's federal habeas corpus petition was timely filed due to the tolling of the one-year limitations period by state post-conviction proceedings.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-11-04
The court held that the petition for a writ of habeas corpus was untimely filed, as it was filed more than six years after the one-year limitations period expired.
-
N.D. Fla.·
2025-11-03
The court held that the petitioner's claims in his habeas petition were conclusory, failed to establish a violation of his constitutional rights, and did not provide a basis for federal habeas relief.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-11-03
The court held that the petitioner's habeas corpus petition was untimely filed and dismissed it with prejudice.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-10-31
The federal habeas petition is dismissed as time-barred because it was filed outside the one-year limitations period prescribed by the AEDPA. A certificate of appealability is denied as reasonable jurists would not debate the procedural issue of untimeliness.
-
The court held that the petitioner's habeas corpus petition was time-barred under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA).
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-10-14
The court held that the petitioner failed to show that the state appellate court's denial of his ineffective assistance of counsel claim was objectively unreasonable.
-
The federal habeas corpus petition is dismissed as time-barred because the petitioner failed to file within the one-year limitations period prescribed by AEDPA. An amended judgment entered nunc pro tunc does not reset the limitations clock.
-
N.D. Fla.·
2025-10-02
A § 2254 habeas petition filed more than one year after a conviction becomes final, without a properly filed state post-conviction motion pending during the limitations period, is untimely and must be dismissed under Habeas Rule 4.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-10-02
The court held that the petitioner's habeas corpus petition was time-barred under AEDPA because his state postconviction motion was not properly filed and therefore did not toll the limitations period, and he failed to establish actual innocence.