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
-
707 So. 2d 381·
Fla. 5th DCA·
1998-02-20
·cited 6×
John Harm Allen sought post-conviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel and requesting a belated appeal. The court dismissed the case without prejudice, holding that because Allen's belated appeal request was filed
-
-
The court held that a federal habeas petitioner is not entitled to relief based on claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, procedural default, insufficient evidence, or improper use of evidence, as these claims were either procedurally barred, lacked merit, or were based on
-
The court held that the petitioner's Penry claims did not implicate actual innocence of the death sentence and were therefore foreclosed by precedent, requiring affirmance of the district court's dismissal.
-
The court held that the exclusion of evidence regarding the victim's prior sexual history was not a constitutional violation because the defense theory was not presented at trial and the defendant denied making the statement at issue. The court also found no ineffective assistanc
-
The court held that the petitioner failed to make a substantial showing of a denial of a federal right or a likelihood of success on the merits, thus denying his motions for a certificate of probable cause and a stay of execution.
-
The court held that a petitioner seeking federal habeas relief based on newly discovered evidence of actual innocence must demonstrate that a constitutional violation prevented them from presenting this evidence earlier, and that claims not raised in the first federal habeas peti
-
The court affirmed the district court's rejection of Tart's collateral challenges, finding his Fourth Amendment claim and preemption claim meritless, and his jury instruction claim procedurally barred.
-
A petitioner must exhaust all available state remedies, including discretionary review by the state supreme court, before seeking federal habeas corpus relief, even if the state supreme court has declared such review unnecessary for exhaustion purposes.
-
The court held that a state trial court's failure to conduct individual voir dire to determine if prospective jurors were aware of the defendant's prior conviction does not violate the Sixth Amendment, as the Constitution does not mandate a presumption of prejudice in such cases
-
The court held that the petitioner's claims were procedurally barred due to failure to object at trial, and that he failed to demonstrate cause and prejudice for the default. The court denied the application for a certificate of probable cause and a stay of execution.
-
The admission of the victim's statements, identified as 'Little Gage,' did not violate the Confrontation Clause because they qualified as excited utterances and a dying declaration, which are firmly rooted hearsay exceptions.
-
The court held that a motion for a certificate of probable cause, filed by a pro se petitioner within the time limits, can serve as the functional equivalent of a notice of appeal, thus conferring jurisdiction.
-
The court held that the 1974 convictions, obtained without a required juvenile certification hearing, were constitutionally infirm and should not have been considered in sentencing for the 1979 conviction.
-
A federal habeas claim is not barred by procedural default if the state court adjudicates the claim on the merits, even with a summary denial.
-
A plaintiff lacks standing to sue a judge for injunctive relief regarding alleged constitutional violations in a past contempt proceeding if the likelihood of facing the same judge in a future, similar proceeding is speculative.
-
The court held that the petitioner's claims regarding the habitual criminal finding, right to counsel, and Eighth Amendment challenge to his life sentence lacked merit.
-
The court denied the petition for writ of habeas corpus, finding no basis for federal relief and lifting the stay of execution.
-
The court held that the cumulative effect of trial errors, including improper expert testimony, bolstering of an informant's credibility, and judicial comments, rendered the petitioner's trial fundamentally unfair and a violation of due process.
-
The court held that a "reasonable likelihood" of prejudice, not a "strong possibility," is the standard for determining if a defendant is entitled to voir dire when events outside the trial may have biased the jury.
-
The district court did not err in dismissing the jury instruction claim as an abuse of the writ, and therefore the judgment denying relief is affirmed.
-
A guilty plea may be involuntary if based on a broken promise of a pardon by counsel, and specific allegations of such a promise warrant an evidentiary hearing. However, claims that the plea was involuntary due to lack of understanding of the charges are refuted by the record.
-
The court held that the petitioner failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a federal right, and therefore denied his application for a certificate of probable cause and stay of execution.
-
The court held that the defendant had sufficient notice that he could be convicted of second-degree murder, even though he was charged with first-degree murder, due to Missouri's statutory scheme and case law.
-
A state court judge is entitled to absolute immunity from civil damages actions for judicial acts performed within their jurisdiction, even if those acts are later found to be erroneous or in excess of jurisdiction.
-
The court granted a certificate of probable cause and a stay of execution, finding that a jury instruction issue presented a debatable question among jurists of reason.
-
The court affirmed the denial of the habeas corpus petition, but held that the district court should not have reached the merits due to procedural default.
-
The court held that motions to recall the mandate are not an adequate or appropriate means of exhausting state remedies for all claims in a federal habeas petition.
-
A stay of execution is granted pending further court orders.
-
The court held that the appellants' argument regarding a death-qualified jury was preserved on the merits by the Arkansas Supreme Court, thus bypassing the need to show cause and prejudice for federal habeas review.
-
-
-
A federal court must dismiss a habeas corpus petition if the petitioner has not exhausted all available state remedies, even if an evidentiary hearing has been held in federal court and the merits of the petition have been briefed.
-
The court granted a certificate of probable cause and a stay of execution pending further review, but affirmed the district court's denial of habeas corpus relief on all claims.
-
The court held that improperly sentencing a defendant under a mandatory statute, thereby depriving him of the discretion afforded by state law, violates due process and is cognizable in federal habeas corpus.
-
A state court's refusal to allow a defendant to present an insanity defense, due to a lack of substantial evidence, does not violate the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments, even if defense counsel concedes the defendant cannot meet the legal standard.
-
-
A state prisoner's knowing and informed bypass of state procedures, including failure to appeal, precludes federal habeas corpus relief.
-
The court held that the state trial court's evidentiary ruling excluding evidence of the victim's gonorrhea did not violate the defendant's constitutional rights and was not grounds for federal habeas corpus relief.
-
653 F.2d 1241·
8th Cir.·
1981-07-21
·cited 6×
Witnesses are absolutely immune from civil rights actions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for testimony given in judicial proceedings.
-
-
The court held that the petitioner was afforded a full and fair opportunity to litigate his Fourth Amendment claims in state court, despite a misallocation of the burden of proof, and thus federal habeas corpus relief was barred.
-
The court held that while the jury selection claim was properly dismissed for failure to exhaust state remedies, other claims should be remanded for further proceedings on the merits after state courts began addressing them.
-
The Fourth Circuit held that the defendant had an opportunity to litigate his 'no knock' entry claim in state court, foreclosing federal habeas corpus review under Stone v. Powell.
-
A federal court need not retry the constitutional validity of a prior state felony conviction in a prosecution for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, absent facial invalidity.
-
The Supreme Court's decision in Stone v. Powell, which limits federal habeas review of Fourth Amendment claims when a state has provided a full and fair opportunity to litigate, applies retroactively and bars federal habeas relief in this case.
-
547 F.2d 861·
5th Cir.·
1977-02-15
·cited 6×
A district court cannot grant relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 without a hearing unless the motion and case records conclusively show the prisoner is entitled to no relief.
-
The court held that alleged evidentiary errors and prosecutorial remarks did not rise to the level of constitutional violations or a denial of due process, and were therefore harmless.
-
The court held that the state appellate court erred in applying the harmless error doctrine to the admission of the second statement, as it could not be deemed harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. However, the court also found that the second statement was not improperly admitted
-
The court held that the appellant's pro se habeas corpus petitions were too unintelligible to decide on the merits, requiring remand for clarification and appointment of counsel.