4,117 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 4,089 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort
-
The Florida Supreme Court denied a habeas corpus petition, holding that time spent on parole must be excluded when calculating the completion of a sentence. This ensures that parole violations do not count towards serving the sentence.
-
The District Court properly denied the writ of habeas corpus because the petitioner has an available post-conviction remedy in the state courts.
-
Andrew Perez petitioned for habeas corpus challenging the Division of Corrections' failure to credit him with 112 days spent in jail awaiting his first trial. The Florida Supreme Court held that despite statutory requirements for specific designation of jail time credit, the tria
-
The court held that advising a guilty plea to avoid a mandatory life sentence, even with knowledge of prior insanity commitments, does not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel.
-
-
The court held that the denial of the writ of habeas corpus was proper, as the appellant remained subject to military law and court-martial jurisdiction.
-
John Henry Gafford sought habeas corpus relief from his state prison sentence, but the Florida Supreme Court denied the petition because he failed to exhaust his remedies under Criminal Procedure Rule #1 before seeking collateral relief.
-
323 F.2d 997·
8th Cir.·
1963-11-01
·cited 2×
The court held that the petitioner had not exhausted his available state remedies, and thus the federal court was not required to grant a hearing on his habeas corpus petition.
-
The court held that the search warrant and affidavit were valid, and the search was not unlawful, thus denying the petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
-
The court held that the appellant's application for a writ of habeas corpus was properly denied without a hearing because he had not first applied to his committing court for a determination of competency.
-
Eugene Tyndall petitioned for habeas corpus after his probation was revoked and he was sentenced to imprisonment for manslaughter. The Florida Supreme Court addressed whether the trial judge properly revoked probation without holding a hearing after Tyndall allegedly denied the v
-
The Florida Supreme Court granted a writ of habeas corpus to Gary Thomas Morgan, finding his imprisonment illegal due to non-compliance with a statutory notice requirement. The court ordered his release pending further proceedings on the escape charge.
-
-
The court held that the district court was not required to issue a writ of habeas corpus or grant a hearing on the question of release from federal custody, as the situation had not yet reached a point where such relief was warranted.
-
Habeas corpus is not a substitute for appeal and cannot determine guilt or sufficiency of evidence.
-
A state court conviction based on a guilty plea, even without counsel, may stand if the defendant knowingly and intentionally waived the offer of counsel and the proceedings were not fundamentally unfair.
-
The court denied the petition for a writ of habeas corpus, finding no merit in the petitioner's claims and noting his noncompliance with procedural rules.
-
The court held that habeas corpus is not a substitute for appeal and cannot be used to challenge a conviction where the sentencing court had jurisdiction and the sentence was not void.
-
The court held that habeas corpus is not available for non-physical restraints or economic duress.
-
A state prisoner seeking federal habeas corpus relief based on a state conviction used for increased punishment must first exhaust available state remedies to challenge that conviction and its classification as a felony under the sentencing state's law.
-
This case involves a habeas corpus petition filed by a sixteen-year-old who was sentenced for robbery. The petitioner claims he did not receive statutory notice required for minors before trial. The Florida Supreme Court referred the case to a circuit judge to determine if the no
-
The court held that the requested relief, compelling a non-party to produce documents, was not available in the current proceeding, which was not a pending action for habeas corpus.
-
The court held that the denial of the habeas corpus petition without a hearing was an error, given the unchallenged allegations of mental incompetence and lack of clear advice regarding counsel.
-
A father appealed the dismissal of his habeas corpus petition seeking return of his minor child from the mother in Florida, based on a temporary custody order from a Georgia court. The Florida appellate court affirmed the dismissal, holding that habeas corpus is not the proper re
-
277 F.2d 702·
2d Cir.·
1960-04-20
·cited 2×
The court held that the Connecticut Public Defender system is constitutional, but remanded the case for further proceedings to determine if the relator was denied due process due to the timing of counsel assignment and the effectiveness of his representation.
-
277 F.2d 304·
2d Cir.·
1960-04-13
·cited 2×
The court held that the district judge properly conducted an independent review of the evidence and satisfied federal requirements for determining the voluntariness of the confession.
-
274 F.2d 409·
8th Cir.·
1960-02-05
·cited 2×
A federal court should not grant a writ of habeas corpus to a state prisoner alleging perjured testimony if the prisoner presents no new evidence beyond what was before the state jury.
-
A federal court cannot grant a writ of habeas corpus to compel a state to bring a prisoner to trial on a pending indictment when the prisoner is lawfully serving a sentence for another crime and does not allege unlawful restraint.
-
The Florida District Court of Appeal granted a writ of habeas corpus, vacating a conviction and sentence because the statute under which the petitioner was convicted had been declared unconstitutional by the Florida Supreme Court.
-
262 F.2d 519·
5th Cir.·
1959-01-16
·cited 2×
The court affirmed the district court's denial of the habeas corpus petition because the petitioner failed to exhaust state remedies.
-
262 F.2d 335·
5th Cir.·
1959-01-05
·cited 2×
The court held that the Texas District Court had inherent power to set a new execution date after previous stays expired, and that the admission of evidence from an allegedly illegal arrest or an involuntary confession does not violate the federal constitution in this context.
-
A judgment of guilt must conform to the offense to which a plea of guilty was entered; one cannot plead guilty to one offense and be adjudged guilty of another.
-
A federal District Court cannot issue a writ of certiorari to a state court, as such power is reserved for the Supreme Court and is limited to federal questions or inferior federal courts.
-
The court held that the prisoner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus was properly dismissed for failure to exhaust state remedies and due to pending state proceedings.
-
The court held that the defendant's prior appeal had already decided the statutory construction issue, and the current attempt to vacate the conviction under § 2255 was procedurally flawed and moot.
-
A federal prisoner seeking to challenge his sentence must first apply to the sentencing court under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 before seeking habeas corpus in another district.
-
The court held that the submitted document could not be entertained as an appeal due to untimeliness and lack of a certificate of probable cause, nor as a habeas corpus petition because the petitioner had not exhausted state remedies and presented an untenable legal argument.
-
The court held that the allegations of the petition, supported by the affidavit, must be taken as true, establishing an existing controversy regarding Garcia's citizenship.
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the deportation order under the Internal Security Act of 1950, and the judiciary cannot question the wisdom of Congress's deportation policies.
-
228 F.2d 657·
5th Cir.·
1956-01-06
·cited 2×
The court held that the recital in a judgment that a defendant appeared by counsel is not conclusive and can be overcome by evidence showing the defendant was denied counsel, thus violating due process.
-
220 F.2d 857·
9th Cir.·
1955-03-29
·cited 2×
The court held that the district court's dismissal was proper because the sole defendant served could not provide relief and an indispensable party was absent.
-
Charlie Copeland petitioned for habeas corpus challenging the legality of his death sentence for rape, arguing that a 1953 amendment to the Child Molester Act should have limited his sentence to 25 years rather than death. The Florida Supreme Court denied the petition, holding th
-
The court held that the federal district court lacked jurisdiction because the petitioner had not exhausted his state remedies, specifically by failing to petition the California state courts for a writ of habeas corpus.
-
The court held that the petitioner's guilty pleas admitted the facts charged, and the counts in the indictment charged separate and distinct offenses, thus the sentences were not void.
-
The court held that the Attorney General did not abuse his discretion in denying bail to the appellant, and the government acted within its sound discretion.
-
The court held that a common law writ of error coram nobis is the appropriate remedy to challenge the validity of a federal conviction, not a writ of habeas corpus in this instance.
-
-
The court held that a petitioner cannot challenge an erroneous fine via habeas corpus after it has been partially collected, nor can they challenge their absence from a sentence modification proceeding that was favorable to them. Furthermore, the issue of jury composition was wai
-
A petition for a writ of habeas corpus was properly denied because the remedy under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 was not shown to be inadequate or ineffective.
-