-
M.D. Fla.·
2019-10-16
The court held that the petitioner's claim of improper prosecutorial comments was not cognizable in federal habeas corpus because it alleged violations of state law, not federal law, and was conclusory. The court also found substantial evidence of guilt, precluding relief even if
-
M.D. Fla.·
2019-10-10
The court found that the petitioner had exhausted his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel by challenging the state trial court's ruling on the merits during his state appeal, thus allowing federal review.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2019-10-09
The court found that the petitioner's claims were adjudicated on the merits in state court and must be evaluated under the deferential standard of 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).
-
M.D. Fla.·
2019-10-07
# Summary
Combs sought federal habeas corpus relief challenging his convictions for sexual battery and burglary with assault or battery, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel and other constitutional violations. The court denied his petition, finding that several grounds we
-
M.D. Fla.·
2019-09-23
Terry Ragland was convicted of second-degree murder and attempted armed robbery in the 2010 murder of a robbery victim. The federal district court denied Ragland's habeas petition challenging his conviction on grounds of ineffective assistance of trial counsel, finding that each
-
M.D. Fla.·
2019-09-06
The court held that the applicant's claims in ground one were procedurally barred due to failure to exhaust state remedies, and the claims in ground two, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel, were denied as the state court's adjudication was not contrary to or an unreasonab
-
M.D. Fla.·
2019-09-03
The court held that most of the applicant's claims were procedurally barred from federal review due to failure to properly present them in state court. The remaining claim of ineffective assistance of counsel was denied as the state court's decision was not contrary to or an unre
-
M.D. Fla.·
2019-08-28
The court held that Petitioner failed to establish prejudice under Strickland for ineffective assistance of counsel regarding his probationary status testimony, and his second claim was procedurally barred and not substantial.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2019-08-26
A Florida prisoner convicted of attempted first-degree murder and aggravated battery sought federal habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, raising eight grounds including claims of prosecutorial misconduct, ineffective assistance of counsel, and insufficient evidence. The District
-
M.D. Fla.·
2019-08-26
The court held that the plaintiff's claims were conclusory and failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, and that challenges to the fact or duration of confinement must be brought via habeas corpus.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2019-08-22
A Florida prisoner filed a federal habeas corpus petition challenging his convictions for theft and aggravated battery, raising five grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel, including claims that his attorneys waived his right to speedy trial without consent, withdrew a mist
-
M.D. Fla.·
2019-08-16
The court held that the petitioner's claims were either unexhausted, procedurally barred, or without merit under AEDPA review.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2019-08-15
The court held that the petitioner's claims were not cognizable on federal habeas review or were waived by his voluntary plea, and that the state court's factual findings were entitled to deference.
-
1992 WL 157280·
S.D. Fla.·
2013-12-27
The court found that the complaint sufficiently alleged false or misleading statements, materiality, and scienter to survive a motion to dismiss for the securities fraud claims.
-
1989 WL 158495·
S.D. Fla.·
2013-02-04
-
776 F. Supp. 2d 1293·
N.D. Fla.·
2011-03-07
The district court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, denying the petition for writ of habeas corpus.
-
704 F. Supp. 2d 1244·
M.D. Fla.·
2010-03-29
The court held that the state trial court abused its discretion by denying the petitioner's request for a continuance, thereby violating his Sixth Amendment right to counsel of choice.
-
622 F. Supp. 2d 1242·
M.D. Fla.·
2008-04-23
The court held that the state court's denial of the petitioner's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel was not contrary to federal law and was based on reasonable factual determinations, thus denying the petition for writ of habeas corpus.
-
557 F. Supp. 2d 1322·
M.D. Fla.·
2008-03-31
The court held that the petitioner's claim regarding jury instructions was procedurally defaulted and that his claim regarding the admissibility of his confession was not an unreasonable application of federal law.
-
386 F. Supp. 2d 1231·
M.D. Fla.·
2005-09-06
The court found that the state court's adjudication of the ineffective assistance of counsel claim was not contrary to federal law, an unreasonable application of federal law, or based on an unreasonable determination of facts.
-
373 F. Supp. 2d 1323·
M.D. Fla.·
2005-06-20
The court held that most of the petitioner's claims were procedurally barred, failed to meet the standards for federal habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), or were based on state law issues not cognizable in federal habeas corpus.
-
156 F. Supp. 2d 1301·
M.D. Fla.·
2001-08-14
The court held that the admission of John Barrett's statements to his wife, Paula Barrett, violated the Petitioner's Sixth Amendment right of confrontation because the statements were not made by a co-conspirator during and in furtherance of the conspiracy.
-
142 F. Supp. 2d 1369·
S.D. Fla.·
2001-01-03
The court held that the trial court did not err in denying the motion to substitute counsel or the motion for continuance, and that the petitioner's other claims lacked merit.
-
74 F. Supp. 2d 1226·
S.D. Fla.·
1999-09-08
The court held that the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) applies to the habeas petition, the petition is timely, and the state court's adjudication of the Brady violation claim was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of federal law.
-
46 F. Supp. 2d 1238·
N.D. Fla.·
1999-01-26
The court held that a pro se prisoner's petition for writ of habeas corpus is not deemed filed until it is received by the clerk of court, and mailing it on the last day of the limitation period does not constitute timely filing. Furthermore, the court found that the petitioner h
-
809 F. Supp. 860·
M.D. Fla.·
1995-07-11
The court held that the petitioner's appellate counsel's Anders brief violated the petitioner's Sixth Amendment rights by failing to advocate for arguable grounds for appeal, entitling him to a new appeal.
-
883 F. Supp. 1535·
M.D. Fla.·
1995-04-26
The court held that the petitioner's claims regarding sufficiency of evidence for multiple attempted murder counts and sentencing errors were either procedurally defaulted, without merit, or not cognizable in federal habeas corpus review.
-
870 F. Supp. 328·
S.D. Fla.·
1994-11-07
The court held that a recent appellate decision did not overrule prior precedent, and therefore did not constitute an extraordinary circumstance justifying relief from a final judgment under Rule 60(b)(6).
-
996 F.2d 1481·
2d Cir.·
1993-07-01
The exclusion of evidence regarding the victim's prior violent acts, of which the defendant had no knowledge, does not violate the constitutional right to present a defense when the evidence has limited probative value and the state has legitimate interests in excluding it.
-
996 F.2d 1442·
2d Cir.·
1993-06-29
The court held that the habeas petition was barred by procedural default because the argument was not adequately preserved at the trial level.
-
996 F.2d 1069·
10th Cir.·
1993-06-25
The court held that a pro se litigant's allegations of interference with his right to self-representation, which impacted his ability to present a defense, constitute a challenge to the fact or duration of his confinement, properly brought under habeas corpus statutes, not solely
-
991 F.2d 1033·
2d Cir.·
1993-04-20
The court held that even if a defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel was violated by the use of statements elicited by a state agent, the statements are admissible for impeachment purposes if voluntarily made and knowingly and intelligently waived.
-
991 F.2d 86·
3d Cir.·
1993-04-19
The court held that a federal court should dismiss a habeas petition without prejudice when a petitioner raises a colorable claim for waiver of procedural default under state law, allowing the petitioner to assert this claim in state court first.
-
990 F.2d 338·
7th Cir.·
1993-04-06
The court affirmed the district court's denial of the habeas petition, finding the petitioner procedurally defaulted his claims and failed to exhaust state remedies.
-
985 F.2d 789·
5th Cir.·
1993-03-11
The court held that the petitioner failed to exhaust his state remedies, and therefore, the federal court should not have reached the merits of his habeas corpus petition.
-
986 F.2d 1236·
8th Cir.·
1993-03-01
The court held that a federal habeas petition containing both exhausted and unexhausted claims must be dismissed without prejudice, even if some claims would be futile to raise in state court.
-
986 F.2d 7·
1st Cir.·
1993-02-18
The court held that a certificate of probable cause should be granted and the dismissal of the habeas petition vacated, remanding for consideration of whether state remedies were exhausted through post-conviction motions.
-
982 F.2d 1246·
8th Cir.·
1993-01-08
The court held that an ineffective assistance of counsel claim cannot be based on speculation about hypothetical actions or agreements regarding inadmissible evidence.
-
979 F.2d 176·
10th Cir.·
1992-11-02
The court held that the appellant's third federal habeas corpus petition was properly dismissed as a successive petition because he failed to demonstrate cause and prejudice or a fundamental miscarriage of justice.
-
975 F.2d 1382·
8th Cir.·
1992-09-25
The court held that the prisoner's claim was barred by collateral estoppel because the issue was actually litigated and decided in state post-conviction proceedings.
-
974 F.2d 1030·
8th Cir.·
1992-09-11
The Court granted the state's motion to dismiss the federal appeal as moot because the state court had granted the petitioner the relief she sought.
-
974 F.2d 116·
9th Cir.·
1992-09-02
A prisoner's section 1983 action challenging disciplinary procedures, even if it involves loss of good time credits, does not require exhaustion of state remedies if the effect on the duration of confinement is speculative and incidental.
-
972 F.2d 1467·
7th Cir.·
1992-08-28
The court held that the jury instruction claim based on the state's burden of proof was not federally cognizable, but the claim that the instructions misled the jury on murder versus manslaughter was potentially a federal due process issue. The court also found the ex parte commu
-
973 F.2d 680·
8th Cir.·
1992-08-28
The court held that the appellant's claims were procedurally barred and affirmed the district court's dismissal.
-
971 F.2d 414·
9th Cir.·
1992-08-03
A magistrate judge exceeded their authority by issuing a stay and administratively closing a case without party consent, and the appellate court can review this action by treating the appeal as a petition for writ of mandamus.
-
970 F.2d 448·
8th Cir.·
1992-07-16
A voluntary and intelligent guilty plea waives non-jurisdictional defects, including speedy trial claims, and a defendant must fairly present federal claims to state courts before raising them in federal habeas corpus. Ineffective assistance of counsel claims require showing coun
-
969 F.2d 207·
6th Cir.·
1992-07-09
The court held that the district court abused its discretion by denying attorney fees without a hearing, given contradictory factual assertions and the prior vacating of the dismissal of the habeas petition.
-
969 F.2d 1381·
2d Cir.·
1992-06-18
The court held that retrial after a mistrial due to jury deadlock was permissible under the Double Jeopardy Clause, and the sentence imposed was not unconstitutionally harsh or the result of ineffective assistance of counsel.
-
966 F.2d 460·
9th Cir.·
1992-04-20
-
960 F.2d 663·
7th Cir.·
1992-04-03
A prisoner challenging the procedures used to consider his parole application, rather than the legality of his confinement, does not need to exhaust state remedies before filing a federal suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.