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 held that the denial of an appeal from a preliminary competency trial does not violate constitutional rights, as Texas law does not provide such an appeal and all similarly situated defendants are treated alike.
-
The court affirmed the denial of federal habeas relief to the state prisoner applicant.
-
The court held that the petitioner failed to allege a constitutional violation regarding delays in his state appellate process, and thus, federal intervention was not warranted.
-
The court held that the district court erred in denying habeas corpus relief without an evidentiary hearing, as the petitioner's allegations regarding misleading advice about his guilty plea were not conclusively refuted by the record.
-
The dissenting judge believes the majority erred by not granting a hearing to assess the credibility of the petitioner's assertion of non-knowing waiver of counsel.
-
The court held that the petitioner did not effectively present his claim of denial of counsel at the preliminary hearing to the state courts, and therefore has not exhausted his state remedies.
-
The court held that the district court correctly denied the petition for a writ of habeas corpus because the appellant failed to exhaust his state remedies.
-
The court held that the petitioner has failed to exhaust his state court remedies, and therefore his federal habeas corpus motion must be dismissed as premature.
-
The court held that a state prisoner's federal habeas corpus petition is premature while his direct appeal in the state court is still pending.
-
The court held that the state trial court erred in allowing the prosecutor to cross-examine the petitioner regarding the truth or falsity of his confession when determining its admissibility.
-
387 F.2d 632·
9th Cir.·
1967-12-01
·cited 6×
The court held that while general discovery depositions are not authorized in habeas corpus proceedings, evidentiary depositions may be permissible under certain circumstances, and the district court's discretion in managing such proceedings should not be overridden by mandamus.
-
The court held that the district court properly dismissed the habeas corpus petition for failure to exhaust state remedies, as the petitioner had not presented his newly asserted constitutional claims to the state courts.
-
The court affirmed the dismissal of the federal habeas corpus petition, finding no merit in the petitioner's contentions.
-
The dissenting judge would affirm the district court's decision, finding the appellee's confinement based on an invalid conviction to be unjust and lacking jurisdictional foundation.
-
28 U.S.C. § 2255 is available to federal prisoners to challenge the introduction of unlawfully obtained evidence, but claims previously litigated or deliberately bypassed on appeal may be dismissed.
-
A federal habeas corpus petition was properly denied because the petitioner, a believer in God, could not claim a violation of equal protection or due process based on the exclusion of nonbelievers from the grand jury, especially when the state court had limited the retroactivity
-
The defense of entrapment is not available under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 for collateral attack when it could have been raised on direct appeal, and thus a hearing was not required.
-
The court held that the appellant had not exhausted his state remedies before seeking federal habeas corpus relief.
-
274 F.2d 846·
10th Cir.·
1960-01-19
·cited 6×
The court held that the commitment of a mentally incompetent defendant charged with a federal offense is proper even if the insanity is permanent, and the trial court did not err in refusing to appoint a psychiatrist of the defendant's choice.
-
-
A federal court will not entertain a habeas corpus petition from a state prisoner claiming a federal constitutional violation until the prisoner has exhausted all available state court remedies, including seeking review in the U.S. Supreme Court.
-
89 Fla. 87·
Fla.·
1925-02-05
·cited 6×
E. H. Blackwelder was convicted of reckless operation of an automobile while intoxicated and sought habeas corpus relief. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's remand for resentencing because the original sentence violated a mandatory statutory requirement to impos
-
49 Fla. 130·
Fla.·
1905-01-01
·cited 6×
The Florida Supreme Court dismissed an appeal because the writ of error was not properly allowed or granted as required by statute, meaning the court lacked jurisdiction to hear the case.
-
The court held that the petitioner's claims are procedurally defaulted because the state courts relied on independent and adequate state-law procedural grounds, and the petitioner failed to establish cause for the default or demonstrate a miscarriage of justice.
-
Christin Bilotti was convicted of second-degree murder in Florida and sought federal habeas relief, claiming her trial counsel was ineffective for failing to preserve a religion-based Batson challenge to a juror strike and for failing to object to jury instructions on the element
-
The court affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiff's Section 1983 claims, finding he lacked standing for injunctive relief and that defendants were immune or had no duty to appoint counsel, but modified the dismissal of pendent state law claims to be without prejudice.
-
A prisoner's escape from custody constitutes a procedural waiver of the right to seek post-conviction relief, and this waiver bars federal habeas corpus review under the 'cause and prejudice' standard.
-
The court held that the prosecution's misleading conduct in failing to produce a key informant, despite promises, deprived the defendant of due process, entitling him to a writ of habeas corpus.
-
The court held that alleged violations of Title III concerning the territorial jurisdiction of the authorizing district attorney and judge are not cognizable on federal habeas corpus review because they do not implicate the core concerns of the statute.
-
The court held that the information was constitutionally defective for failing to adequately apprise the defendant of the charges, and that procedural default did not bar federal habeas review.
-
The court held that jury instructions imposing an equal burden of proof on the defendant for self-defense as the state has for proving murder constitutes a due process violation.
-
187 So. 3d 255·
Fla. 1st DCA·
2016-02-10
·cited 4×
-
A new constitutional right recognized by the Supreme Court, even if retroactively applicable, only revives claims based on that specific right and does not revive previously time-barred claims.
-
The court held that an attorney appointed under 21 U.S.C. § 848(q) is not entitled to compensation for state clemency proceedings if the request is not part of a non-frivolous federal habeas corpus proceeding or if state law provides compensation for such services.
-
A defendant must make a factual showing sufficient to give the trial court reasonable ground to doubt his sanity at the time of the offense to be entitled to a court-appointed psychiatrist under Ake v. Oklahoma.
-
A prior federal habeas corpus decision can have preclusive effect in a subsequent 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action.
-
The court held that a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel based on incorrect parole eligibility advice is not so novel as to overcome a procedural bar, as the underlying legal principles were available.
-
The court held that the Arizona Supreme Court erred by affirming a death sentence without adequately considering mitigating evidence or conducting a proper reweighing of factors after invalidating one aggravating circumstance.
-
A state prisoner's failure to seek direct review in the state's highest court is excused if prior state court rulings created confusion or uncertainty about the necessity of such review, thus not barring federal habeas relief.
-
The admission of a child victim's out-of-court statements through adult witnesses did not violate the Confrontation Clause because the statements were either within a firmly rooted hearsay exception or possessed particularized guarantees of trustworthiness.
-
The court held that the limitation of cross-examination designed to show a witness's motive for fabrication violated the defendant's Sixth Amendment right of confrontation, and this violation was not harmless error.
-
A state court must be given fair warning of the federal nature of a petitioner's claim before it can be considered exhausted, and procedural defaults in state court bar federal habeas review unless cause and prejudice are shown.
-
923 F.2d 758·
9th Cir.·
1991-01-22
·cited 4×
The court held that Bagley's civil rights claims accrued when he first learned of the injury, not upon the completion of his habeas corpus proceedings, and that his § 1985(2) claim failed for lack of class-based animus.
-
The court held that a petitioner is excused from exhausting state remedies if the state's highest court has already addressed and resolved the precise legal issue adversely to the petitioner.
-
The court held that the appellant's Batson claim is procedurally barred due to failure to raise it on direct appeal, and his ineffective assistance of counsel claim is unpersuasive.
-
The court held that the petitioner failed to provide a sufficient legal reason for not raising his current claims in his second federal habeas petition, thus barring their consideration.
-
The court held that state remedies were futile and therefore exhausted, allowing federal habeas corpus review.
-
The court held that the evidence did not warrant an instruction on the lesser included offense of sexual abuse in the first degree.
-
The court held that a district court should obtain the state court record before dismissing a habeas petition for failure to exhaust state remedies, especially when the petitioner demonstrates a good faith effort to acquire the records but is unable to do so.
-
Errors in a state post-conviction review process are not grounds for federal habeas corpus relief.