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
-
427 F.2d 887·
2d Cir.·
1970-06-08
·cited 10×
The court held that the district court correctly denied jurisdiction because the registrant's induction order was not a 'blatantly lawless' action or a 'clear departure from its statutory mandate'.
-
413 F.2d 383·
D.C. Cir.·
1969-04-29
·cited 10×
The court held that while an indigent patient and their counsel may be entitled to psychiatric assistance in preparing for an adversarial hearing, the record did not demonstrate a denial of such assistance in this specific case.
-
A white defendant cannot claim a violation of his constitutional rights based on the alleged systematic exclusion of Negro citizens from the grand jury that indicted him. Additionally, a harsher sentence imposed after a successful appeal is not unconstitutional if the trial jury
-
416 F.2d 1149·
9th Cir.·
1968-10-11
·cited 10×
The court held that a trial judge has discretion to allow a late response to requests for admissions, relieving a party of default, and that illegally obtained evidence does not automatically invalidate a guilty plea unless it induced the plea.
-
The court affirmed the denial of the habeas corpus petition, finding the appellant's claims unsubstantial and that requiring re-presentation to state courts would not serve justice.
-
373 F.2d 82·
5th Cir.·
1967-02-13
·cited 10×
The court denied the motion for rehearing, holding that a prior state sanity hearing met the requirements of Townsend v. Sain, and no further federal hearing was required.
-
A federal court must grant an evidentiary hearing in a habeas corpus proceeding when a factual dispute is presented and the merits of that dispute were not resolved in a state hearing.
-
Federal habeas corpus is unavailable to review alleged errors in a state criminal trial that do not violate fundamental liberties.
-
The court held that the district court correctly denied the habeas corpus petition, as the issues raised did not involve federal constitutional questions and the factual findings were supported by substantial evidence.
-
176 So. 2d 383·
Fla. 3d DCA·
1965-06-22
·cited 10×
Willie Thomas Smith was convicted of breaking and entering and grand larceny after a bench trial. He filed a petition to vacate claiming deprivation of a fair trial but alleged only legal conclusions without factual support. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's summary
-
The court held that the petitioner's confession was voluntary and admissible, affirming the denial of his federal habeas corpus petition.
-
The court held that the delay in bringing the appellant to trial was not so unreasonable as to deny him due process of law or violate his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial.
-
194 F.2d 474·
2d Cir.·
1952-02-13
·cited 10×
The court held that the relator failed to make a clear and convincing showing that the denial of bail was without reasonable foundation.
-
The judgment of the District Court dismissing the application should be affirmed.
-
146 F.2d 741·
4th Cir.·
1944-12-20
·cited 10×
A unanimous vote is not required for conviction of an offense where the death penalty is permissive but not mandatory under the Articles of War.
-
114 Fla. 89·
Fla.·
1934-02-27
·cited 10×
This case concerns whether operating a passenger automobile for compensation on public highways, even for a single trip, constitutes a violation of Florida's motor vehicle transportation laws. The court reversed a lower court's discharge of a defendant, finding that the facts pre
-
103 Fla. 425·
Fla.·
1931-11-07
·cited 10×
The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a lower court's decision to quash a writ of habeas corpus, holding that a challenge to the statute of limitations on a criminal charge is a matter for trial, not habeas corpus.
-
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 admission of prior act testimony and the refusal to instruct on a lesser included offense did not violate the petitioner's constitutional rights, thus habeas corpus relief is denied.
-
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 held that the state appellate court's written opinion, which considered the defendant's remaining contentions and found they did not merit reversal, indicated a review on the merits, thus allowing federal habeas review of the jury instruction claim.
-
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.
-
The court held that Wisconsin's presumptive intent and party-to-a-crime jury instructions did not violate the defendant's constitutional rights, and affirmed the denial of habeas corpus.
-
The exclusion of a reliable confession, which was crucial to the defense, violated the defendant's due process rights, even if it was inadmissible hearsay under state law.
-
692 F.2d 954·
3d Cir.·
1982-11-16
·cited 9×
The court held that the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel was violated because he did not knowingly and intelligently waive his right to counsel when he made an unsworn statement to the jury.
-
The court's holding is not explicitly stated as this is a concurring opinion reiterating a dissent. However, the concurring judge believes the Nebraska habitual criminal statute is unconstitutional.
-
The court held that the prosecutor's improper argument, in the context of prior improprieties and the lack of a ruling on the objection, deprived the defendant of a fair trial.
-
The court held that post-trial evidence created a real, substantial, and legitimate doubt as to the petitioner's competency to stand trial, warranting a federal evidentiary hearing.
-
The court held that the federal district court correctly dismissed the petition for writ of habeas corpus because the petitioner had not exhausted his available state remedies.
-
130 Fla. 615·
Fla.·
1938-01-14
·cited 9×
The Florida Supreme Court held that informations filed by a State Attorney from the Eighth Judicial Circuit in Volusia County (Seventh Circuit) were null and void because the Governor's executive order authorizing him to act had expired by the time the informations were filed, as
-
120 Fla. 87·
Fla.·
1935-06-14
·cited 9×
In this habeas corpus proceeding, the Florida Supreme Court held that a circuit judge must issue a writ of habeas corpus in response to a petition challenging a criminal contempt adjudication, rather than summarily denying it. The Court reversed the lower court's refusal to issue
-
114 Fla. 612·
Fla.·
1934-04-26
·cited 9×
In this habeas corpus proceeding, the Florida Supreme Court reversed the discharge of T. J. Parrish from custody, holding that although his sentencing judgment contained formal defects in adjudicating guilt, the recital that he 'stands convicted' constitutes a sufficient attempte
-
97 Fla. 668·
Fla.·
1929-04-30
·cited 9×
This case involves a petitioner seeking release via habeas corpus, arguing the statute under which he was arrested was unconstitutional. The court reversed the lower court's decision, finding the affidavit and warrant fatally defective for failing to allege a criminal offense, th
-
Louis Matthew Clements appealed the dismissal of his federal habeas corpus petition, arguing that Florida's lifetime sex offender registration and reporting requirements placed him "in custody" within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a), thereby granting federal courts jurisdictio
-
719 So. 2d 38·
Fla. 1st DCA·
1998-09-23
·cited 8×
Tony Lynn appealed the trial court's denial of his second motion for belated appeal of his 1993 conviction. The First District Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, finding that Lynn failed to timely appeal and that his post-conviction motion was time-bar
-
Daniel Eugene Remeta appealed the denial of his federal habeas corpus petition challenging his Florida death sentence for murder committed during a 1985 multi-state crime spree. Remeta raised numerous issues, including a claim that Florida violated the Interstate Agreement on Det
-
The court held that claims raised for the first time on appeal or in a reply brief are not considered, and that state law claims do not provide a basis for federal habeas relief unless they rise to constitutional dimension.
-
The court held that the district court's orders granting summary judgment and refusing to vacate it are affirmed, while its subsequent Rule 60(b) orders are vacated for want of jurisdiction, and the second habeas petition is dismissed.
-
The court held that a state prisoner's claim that his conviction violates a state supreme court interpretation of a state statute is not cognizable in federal habeas corpus. It also held that the failure to instruct on a lesser included offense in a noncapital case, and the use o
-
The court held that a federal habeas corpus petitioner's claims are procedurally barred if not fairly presented to the state courts, and that escape from custody forfeits the right to appeal, thus precluding an ineffective assistance of counsel claim based on failure to appeal.
-
The court held that the trial court's refusal to permit cross-examination regarding the alleged bias and motive of witnesses stemming from their gang affiliation violated the Sixth Amendment's confrontation clause.
-
The dissenting judge holds that the district court properly found the guilty plea involuntary due to the prosecution's broken promise regarding a sentencing recommendation.
-
The court held that procedural default did not preclude federal habeas review because the state court had addressed the merits of the petitioner's claims.
-
The court held that the Batson v. Kentucky rule should not be applied retroactively to federal habeas proceedings, and vacated the district court's stay of execution.
-
The court affirmed the denial of federal habeas corpus relief, finding no violation of due process from the admission of evidence regarding the victim's will, the alleged withholding of exculpatory evidence, or the jury charge.
-
The Sixth Circuit held that the petitioner had not exhausted his state remedies and therefore his federal habeas corpus petition could not be considered on the merits.
-
The state's rebuttal evidence was sufficient to support the trial court's finding that the grand jury foreman was not selected on racial grounds.
-
The court held that the state failed to prove Alexander would have been waived to adult court in 1961, and that his petition was not barred by laches under Habeas Rule 9(a).
-
-
The court held that the attorney's negligence did not cause demonstrable harm because the defendant's claims were considered on valid state grounds, thus no Sixth Amendment violation occurred.