235 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 1,235 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort
-
The court ultimately concurs with the majority's decision, despite prior reservations.
-
The court affirmed the denial of habeas corpus relief, finding that the petitioner failed to make a substantial threshold showing of present insanity and that his claims of ineffective counsel lacked merit under the Strickland standard.
-
785 F.2d 1480·
11th Cir.·
1986-03-21
·cited 11×
The court held that Georgia's statutory scheme for releasing persons committed after acquittal by reason of insanity is constitutional, as it satisfies due process requirements.
-
The court held that the involuntary surgical removal of a bullet from a suspect's body, under the circumstances presented, would violate the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches. It also held that such a claim is cognizable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, not habea
-
532 F. Supp. 881·
S.D. Fla.·
1982-02-24
·cited 11×
The court held that judicial review of exclusion proceedings is limited to habeas corpus after a final order of exclusion is entered, and that plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge procedures prior to such an order.
-
A mere technical violation of Rule 11, such as failing to fully advise a defendant of the maximum possible special parole term, does not warrant collateral relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 absent a showing of manifest injustice or exceptional circumstances.
-
The dissenting judge would affirm the district court's denial of the petition for habeas corpus, finding that the petitioner's counsel deliberately waived objections as a matter of trial strategy.
-
The court held that claims of illegal arrest and improper lineup were insufficient for habeas relief, but the denial of the inadequate counsel claim was vacated for further review.
-
Florida inmates challenged Department of Corrections rules prohibiting preparation of legal documents by those in disciplinary confinement. The court held that the rules unconstitutionally restrict access to federal courts for habeas corpus petitions and civil rights actions, vio
-
The court held that the district court's denial of the habeas corpus petition was proper, as the alleged errors did not rise to the level of constitutional violations or were harmless.
-
-
The court held that a federal court may not grant habeas corpus relief before a state retrial when the prior conviction was reversed for trial error, as double jeopardy does not bar such a retrial. The court also found that the petitioner had adequately exhausted her federal due
-
The Court of Appeals held that the Cage v. Louisiana decision announced a "new rule" of constitutional law and therefore could not be applied retroactively to Skelton's case on federal habeas review, as it did not fall within the exceptions to the Teague doctrine.
-
The dissent argues that the new Minnesota parole regulations constitute a law for ex post facto purposes because they are binding on the agency and lack discretion, unlike federal guidelines. The dissent would find the regulations violate the ex post facto clause.
-
A voluntary and intelligent guilty plea waives the right to collaterally attack convictions on double jeopardy grounds, unless the violation is apparent on the face of the indictment or record.
-
The court held that the trial judge's decision to shackle the defendant was not an abuse of discretion that denied due process, considering the specific security risks and the defendant's history.
-
The court vacated the district court's ruling, declined to vacate the stay of execution, and remanded the case for further consideration of the habeas petition and the state's assertion of writ abuse.
-
850 F.2d 590·
9th Cir.·
1988-06-29
·cited 10×
The court held that a misunderstanding among counsel regarding who would file a notice of appeal does not constitute excusable neglect under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(5).
-
An issue is not considered fairly presented to the state's highest court for exhaustion purposes unless the applicant has raised it within the application for further appellate review.
-
The court held that the prisoner was not entitled to a stay of execution because his section 1983 claim, based on the premise that a Louisiana statute unconstitutionally limited his federal right to seek Supreme Court review, lacked merit. The federal statute does not grant the a
-
811 F.2d 100·
2d Cir.·
1987-01-30
·cited 10×
The court held that the petitioner's second habeas petition was an abuse of the writ and that he failed to allege sufficient facts for his ineffective assistance of counsel claim.
-
A prisoner waives rights under the Interstate Agreement on Detainers (IAD) anti-shuttling provision by requesting transfer to another facility, and failure to raise issues in state court constitutes a procedural default that federal habeas review cannot excuse without a showing o
-
791 F.2d 1351·
9th Cir.·
1986-06-13
·cited 10×
The court held that the Attorney General's statutory authority under the Immigration and Nationality Act to impose conditions on appearance and delivery bonds is limited to those conditions that ensure the alien's appearance at future proceedings, not conditions barring employmen
-
A successive federal habeas petition cannot be dismissed as an abuse of the writ under Rule 9(b) unless the petitioner has been given a reasonable opportunity to explain why new grounds were not raised in prior petitions.
-
The Eighth Circuit held that the Grigsby rule, which concerns the impartiality of death-qualified juries on guilt, applies retroactively to cases like Woodard's and that his claim was not procedurally barred in state courts. Therefore, Woodard is entitled to a new trial before an
-
The court held that the Andersons are entitled to an evidentiary hearing to determine the sentencing judge's understanding of his sentencing discretion.
-
718 F.2d 952·
9th Cir.·
1983-10-19
·cited 10×
An interlocutory order denying a motion for appointment of counsel in a habeas corpus proceeding is not an appealable final decision under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
-
717 F.2d 422·
7th Cir.·
1983-09-21
·cited 10×
The court affirmed the denial of the habeas corpus petition, finding no constitutional error in the petitioner's conviction. Claims regarding illegal arrest evidence, prosecutorial misconduct, jury instructions, and the presumptive intent instruction were all rejected.
-
681 F.2d 736·
11th Cir.·
1982-07-29
·cited 10×
The court concurred in the result because the petitioner is serving a life sentence without parole, rendering prior convictions irrelevant to collateral consequences.
-
665 F.2d 900·
9th Cir.·
1981-12-28
·cited 10×
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.
-
637 F.2d 525·
8th Cir.·
1980-11-06
·cited 10×
The court affirmed a landlord's non-liability for a tenant's injuries resulting from a defective condition on the leased premises, adhering to the common law rule of caveat lessee in the absence of statutory modification.
-
The court held that Ohio's contemporaneous objection rule could not be used to deny the retroactive benefit of the Robinson decision, as doing so violated due process.
-
The court held that petitioners failed to demonstrate the futility of pursuing available state remedies for their claims regarding the lack of admonishment about mandatory parole periods.
-
A guilty plea is not voluntary in a constitutional sense if the defendant did not receive real notice of the true nature of the charge against him.
-
A federal court need not hold an evidentiary hearing if a full and fair state hearing was held and the federal judge can adjudicate the case without repeating the process.
-
The court held that the jury instruction on agency, while potentially confusing, did not rise to the level of constitutional error required for federal habeas relief.
-
A guilty plea is not rendered involuntary by the failure to advise a defendant of potential parole eligibility, as this is not a direct consequence of the plea.
-
The court held that a state court's denial of a new trial motion due to the petitioner's fugitive status is a valid procedural default that can be recognized in federal habeas proceedings.
-
Federal courts cannot grant habeas corpus relief on Fourth Amendment claims if the state provided a full and fair opportunity to litigate the claim.
-
Federal courts should not grant habeas corpus relief for Fourth Amendment claims if the state provided an opportunity for full and fair litigation of those claims.
-
The court held that a state court's interpretation of state statutes regarding in-custody interrogations does not present a federal question for habeas corpus review unless it infringes upon a federally protected right.
-
The court held that the trial judge's jury instruction on causation, while potentially lacking detail, did not rise to the level of constitutional error requiring federal habeas relief.
-
The court held that the appellee failed to exhaust his state court remedies before seeking federal habeas corpus relief.
-
493 F.2d 397·
5th Cir.·
1974-05-02
·cited 10×
The court held that the determination of whether counsel is required for a parolee at a revocation hearing must be made by the state parole authority on a case-by-case basis, exercising sound discretion according to Supreme Court guidelines.
-
A state prisoner has no absolute federal constitutional right to bail pending appeal, and federal courts do not review state court discretion in denying bail.
-
The court held that a federal court should not grant a writ of habeas corpus when the petitioner has not exhausted state remedies, even if state appellate procedures are slow, absent a showing that state processes are ineffective to protect rights.
-
The court held that the appellant failed to demonstrate a basis for ordering an evidentiary hearing on his alleged deprivation of federal constitutional rights regarding the right to appeal from a guilty plea.
-
The court held that the applications were essentially habeas corpus petitions requiring exhaustion of state remedies.
-
28 U.S.C. § 2255 is available to a prisoner in state custody attacking a future federal sentence, and a motion raising the same core claim, even with more detail, is considered a second or successive motion.
-
The court held that an evidentiary hearing is necessary to determine whether jury misconduct occurred, as a juror's affidavit alleging consideration of outside evidence raises factual questions requiring resolution.