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 prisoner's constitutional rights to counsel and due process were not violated by the trial court's denial of a continuance or the forced proceeding to trial pro se, and that the evidence was sufficient for conviction.
-
The doctrine of collateral estoppel does not preclude the State from using evidence previously suppressed on Fourth Amendment grounds in a subsequent, unrelated criminal action if the suppressed evidence was not essential to the defendant's conviction in the prior proceeding.
-
-
-
The court held that the habeas petition must be dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust state remedies, as new evidence was presented that had not been considered by state courts.
-
827 F.2d 90·
7th Cir.·
1987-08-14
·cited 4×
The court held that a state is not constitutionally required to provide legal materials for discretionary appeals, but reversed the denial of damages for denial of access at Marion, remanding for further proceedings.
-
The court held that the applicant failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a federal right, thus denying the certificate of probable cause and dismissing the appeal.
-
The court held that while the convictions were valid, the death sentences were unconstitutional because an aggravating circumstance duplicated an element of the underlying capital crime. The court also held that the ruling in Collins v. Lockhart should apply retroactively.
-
A federal court is not foreclosed from sua sponte applying the principle of Stone v. Powell when the petitioner has had a full and fair hearing on their Fourth Amendment claim in state court.
-
The dissenting judge believes the majority opinion incorrectly reversed the district court's judgment.
-
Convicting a defendant of two counts of attempted armed robbery is not a violation of the federal double jeopardy clause when the evidence shows threats and demands made to two separate victims, even if the property sought belonged to a partnership.
-
A federal court may deny habeas relief based on a petitioner's "deliberate bypass" of state procedures, even if no procedural default occurred under state law, when the petitioner strategically sought an unentitled benefit.
-
The court held that the appellant did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel and that the omission of a jury instruction regarding the state's burden to disprove self-defense did not rise to the level of plain error or prejudice sufficient for federal habeas relief.
-
The court held that the district court erred in applying the Supreme Court's decision in Edwards v. Arizona retroactively to conduct that occurred before Edwards was decided. The case is remanded for reconsideration under the appropriate pre-Edwards legal standard.
-
The court held that a federal habeas petitioner is entitled to an evidentiary hearing if they did not receive a full and fair evidentiary hearing in state court, especially when facts regarding a potential Brady violation are in dispute.
-
The court held that the appellant failed to demonstrate cause for his procedural default because his 1979 counsel's investigation into his claimed innocence met the constitutional standard for effective assistance.
-
The court held that the state trial judge's refusal to credit the petitioner's testimony regarding his indigency was not constitutional error, and thus federal habeas relief was properly denied.
-
The court held that the cumulative effect of trial errors, including the injection of an unnecessary 'lawful seizure' element and the admission of unreliable hearsay, rendered the trial fundamentally unfair and a denial of due process.
-
The court held that a federal habeas petitioner must present constitutional claims to state courts in a constitutional framework, not just state law grounds, to satisfy the exhaustion requirement.
-
The Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule does not apply to state probation revocation hearings when the state has provided an opportunity for full and fair litigation of the Fourth Amendment claim.
-
A petitioner's failure to object at trial does not preclude federal habeas review if the state appellate court considered the merits, but the failure to object remains a factor in the federal court's analysis.
-
-
The pendency of a federal habeas corpus proceeding in the demanding state does not justify granting relief in a federal habeas proceeding in the asylum state to bar extradition.
-
The court held that a prosecutor's racially prejudicial remarks in closing argument, which appealed to stereotypes and created a probability of jury impairment, violated the petitioner's due process rights.
-
The court held that the defendant's Fifth Amendment rights were not violated by the admission of testimony from a psychiatrist who examined him at the request of his own lawyer.
-
The court held that a federal prisoner cannot relitigate issues already fully and fairly adjudicated at trial and on direct appeal, absent specific exceptions like newly discovered evidence or incompetent counsel.
-
The court affirmed the dismissal of the habeas corpus petition, finding that federal inquiry into the Fourth Amendment claim was limited by Stone v. Powell, as the issue was fully litigated in state courts.
-
The court held that the federal district court should retain jurisdiction but stay its hand pending the outcome of the appellant's current state court action, with a provision for the federal court to proceed if the state courts do not rule within ninety days.
-
The court held that a federal habeas corpus petitioner's claims of an involuntary guilty plea, ineffective assistance of counsel, and improper sentencing were without merit.
-
The court held that the petitioner deliberately bypassed the jury selection procedures, barring him from raising the issue in a habeas petition.
-
The court held that the prosecutor's jury argument was not an unconstitutional comment on the defendant's failure to testify and that the overall trial was not fundamentally unfair.
-
The court held that the district court's finding that the petitioner knowingly and intelligently waived his right to appeal was not clearly erroneous and affirmed that finding.
-
The court held that an application to recall the remittitur, when used appropriately to raise a federal claim, can satisfy the exhaustion requirement for federal habeas corpus petitions.
-
The court held that the petitioner was adequately advised of his right to appellate counsel and that his claim regarding lack of counsel at sentencing was not exhausted in state courts.
-
An appeal from the denial of a state prisoner's habeas petition cannot be taken without a certificate of probable cause.
-
The court held that the written plea form and accompanying questions were sufficient to establish a voluntary and knowing plea, even without a full transcript of oral advisement.
-
Federal habeas corpus relief may be granted without requiring exhaustion of state remedies if circumstances render the state corrective process ineffective.
-
The order denying a petition for habeas corpus without prejudice to reapply after exhausting state remedies is affirmed.
-
Federal habeas corpus is not available to challenge the validity of a state conviction after the sentence has been completely served unless the petitioner proves they are under some form of restraint by virtue of the conviction.
-
The court held that a federal habeas corpus petition may be dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust state remedies on all claims, even if some claims have been exhausted.
-
The court held that a state prisoner must exhaust available state remedies, including perfecting an appeal to the state supreme court, before seeking federal habeas corpus relief.
-
The court held that the petitioner is not required to show prejudice to have his appeal reinstated and that the case must be remanded for a hearing on whether his appeal was improperly frustrated due to indigency or ineffective assistance of counsel.
-
443 F.2d 832·
10th Cir.·
1971-06-07
·cited 4×
The court held that the rule established in Boykin v. Alabama should not be applied retroactively to arraignments that occurred prior to its decision.
-
A Michigan state prisoner must exhaust state court remedies, including a delayed appeal to the Michigan Supreme Court, before filing a federal habeas corpus action.
-
The court held that the district court erred in denying federal habeas corpus relief without a hearing, as the record did not support a finding of deliberate bypass of state appellate remedies or an adequate state hearing.
-
The court held that the petitioner has not exhausted state remedies, as the Texas appellate courts have not yet ruled on his allegations of error.
-
The court held that the search of the automobile was lawful, even though the affidavit for the search warrant was deficient, because probable cause existed independently of the warrant.
-
The court held that the petitioner had not exhausted state remedies because he had a direct appeal pending in the Kansas Supreme Court regarding his resentencing.
-
The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the habeas petition without a proper harmless error analysis and potentially without determining exhaustion of state remedies.
-
The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the complaint as a substitute for habeas corpus, but affirmed the dismissal because the complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.