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
-
392 F.2d 197·
3d Cir.·
1968-04-01
·cited 4×
The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to appoint counsel for the indigent state prisoner in his habeas corpus proceeding.
-
369 F.2d 195·
D.C. Cir.·
1966-09-07
·cited 4×
The dissenting judge believes the trial court correctly applied the law and the record, and that the appellate court should affirm the lower court's decision.
-
The court held that the appeal presented no substantial question for review and was therefore dismissed.
-
156 So. 2d 415·
Fla. 3d DCA·
1963-09-17
·cited 4×
The Third District Court of Appeal of Florida adopted a rule waiving filing fees for notices of appeal from orders on motions for relief under Criminal Procedure Rule No. 1. This rule applies regardless of the appellant's financial status and aligns with fee waivers for habeas co
-
177 F.2d 494·
7th Cir.·
1949-10-26
·cited 4×
The court held that the district court erred by failing to make specific findings of fact and conclusions of law when denying petitions for writs of habeas corpus, especially given the contradictory testimony.
-
A district court lacks jurisdiction to grant a motion to amend a federal habeas petition after a final judgment has been entered and an appeal is pending, as such a motion is properly characterized as a second or successive petition requiring prior authorization from the court of
-
The court held that the case should be dismissed because the claims are barred by the statute of limitations and the plaintiff failed to fully disclose his litigation history.
-
The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the denial of federal habeas corpus relief, holding that the state court's determination that the petitioner failed to demonstrate prejudice from his attorneys' alleged ineffective assistance was not an unreasonable application of Supreme Court prece
-
Wilfredo Zelaya, a Honduran citizen convicted of illegal reentry after deportation under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(2), filed a pro se habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his conviction on the ground that his deportation order was unlawful. The Eleventh Circuit affirm
-
The court held that attorney negligence or miscalculation does not constitute extraordinary circumstances for equitable tolling of the one-year federal habeas limitations period, and petitioners are responsible for timely filing.
-
The court did not definitively rule on whether a new indictment can cure a prior constitutionally defective indictment, leaving the question open for future cases.
-
The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the third federal habeas petition as successive and abusive, with the exception of the claim regarding appellate review, which was improperly characterized by the district court.
-
A federal habeas corpus petition must be dismissed if the petitioner has failed to exhaust available state remedies, and remand is futile if the state asserts exhaustion as a defense.
-
The court held that the record must clearly show service of the magistrate's report to bar appellate review for failure to object.
-
Federal courts need not consider Fourth Amendment claims on habeas corpus if the state provided an opportunity for full and fair litigation of the claim.
-
The court held that a Fourth Amendment claim on federal habeas corpus requires remand if the record is unclear as to whether the state provided a full and fair opportunity to litigate the claim.
-
The court held that while McBride's pro se brief satisfied the jurisdictional requirements for federal habeas corpus review, the district court's dismissal is affirmed on grounds of comity.
-
412 F.2d 230·
9th Cir.·
1969-05-27
·cited 3×
-
146 Fla. 10·
Fla.·
1941-01-31
·cited 3×
The Florida Supreme Court quashed a rule nisi in prohibition, holding that a circuit court has the power to find a party in contempt, even if that finding is erroneous and subject to review by habeas corpus. The court found that prohibition was not the proper remedy to challenge
-
132 Fla. 892·
Fla.·
1938-06-22
·cited 3×
This case concerns a father's right to custody of his children after being declared sane and restored to liberty. The court found that a prior ruling on the fitness of a guardian for the children did not definitively settle the father's right to custody.
-
110 Fla. 373·
Fla.·
1933-06-01
·cited 3×
Perry Acree sought habeas corpus discharge from a murder conviction, arguing the grand jury that indicted him was improperly recalled after the court term had adjourned. The Florida Supreme Court rejected this challenge, holding that the court's recess (not adjournment sine die)
-
The court denied the motion to stay execution, finding no substantial likelihood of success on the merits for the petitioner's claims regarding the denial of his Rule 60(b) motion and his post-judgment motion to amend.
-
Thomas Dale Ferguson, an Alabama death row inmate, challenged his death sentence by arguing that he was intellectually disabled under *Atkins v. Virginia* and that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance in violation of the Sixth Amendment. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed
-
Allen Ward Cox, a death row inmate, appealed the circuit court's denial of his successive motion for postconviction relief challenging Florida's lethal injection protocol and related statutes. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the denial, rejecting Cox's constitutional challenge
-
The court granted the motion to stay execution, pending the Supreme Court's decision in Baze v. Rees, due to the significant possibility of success on the merits of the lethal injection challenge.
-
The court granted a temporary stay of execution because the petitioner's claim, though questionable, was not "frivolous and entirely without merit" given the differing opinions in a relevant Supreme Court case.
-
The court held that the use of a one-way mirror to shield a child witness from the defendant violated the defendant's Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause rights because no case-specific finding of necessity was made, and this error was not harmless.
-
The court held that a prosecutor's questioning of a defendant about her post-arrest silence, despite a timely objection and the court's instruction to answer, violated the Fifth Amendment and was not harmless error, requiring reversal of her conviction.
-
The court held that the petitioner's claims are barred by the abuse of the writ doctrine because they were not raised in his prior federal habeas petitions and no sufficient legal cause was shown for the failure to do so.
-
The court should not grant a writ of habeas corpus based on a defense strategy not presented to the trial court.
-
The court held that the district court did not err in denying the habeas corpus petition, affirming the denial of relief.
-
The court denied the motion for a certificate of probable cause and the motion for a stay of execution.
-
The court held that Miranda failed to exhaust available state remedies by not fairly presenting his federal constitutional claims to the state courts, and his claims lack merit.
-
The court held that the district court erred in finding ineffective assistance of counsel and in commuting the death sentence, as the petitioner failed to prove prejudice from alleged attorney errors and the court lacked authority to commute the sentence.
-
The court held that a state court's decision on constitutional claims has collateral estoppel effect in a subsequent federal § 1983 action, even if the state proceedings were required by comity considerations for federal habeas corpus.
-
952 F.2d 1164·
9th Cir.·
1991-12-31
·cited 2×
A district court has jurisdiction to stay the execution of a state prisoner to appoint counsel to assist in preparing a federal habeas corpus petition.
-
The court held that the appellant's federal habeas claims are procedurally barred because he failed to demonstrate cause and prejudice for his default in state court.
-
The court held that the case should be remanded to determine if the presumption of procedural default under Ylst v. Nunnemaker is rebutted, and to allow consolidation of all claims.
-
A technical violation of state law requiring evidence to conform to the jury charge's specific theory of culpability does not rise to the level of a constitutional violation cognizable in federal habeas corpus, especially when the evidence is sufficient to prove the substantive e
-
The court held that the state did not violate the petitioner's constitutional rights by withholding exculpatory evidence, as the evidence was either disclosed or not material, and the jury instructions regarding sentencing were not unconstitutional.
-
The court held that the defendant's claim was not procedurally barred because the state court's dismissal was not a clear and express statement of reliance on a procedural default, and the state failed to show particularized prejudice from the delay.
-
The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the habeas petition without an evidentiary hearing, as circumstances cast doubt on the reliability of state court findings.
-
The majority's conclusion that the New Mexico procedural bar rule is not adequate for speedy trial claims is incorrect because it misinterprets state case law and presumes state courts are not faithful to their rules.
-
The court affirmed the dismissal of the habeas corpus petition, finding the guilty plea was voluntary and counsel was not ineffective.
-
The Sixth Circuit held that Manning adequately presented his ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claim to the Supreme Court of Ohio, thus exhausting his state remedies.
-
The court held that it never had jurisdiction over the original habeas petition because the 'next friend' did not establish standing, rendering a Rule 60(b) motion unnecessary and unavailable.
-
The court held that one claim was exhausted and meritorious, while the remaining six ineffective assistance of counsel claims were unexhausted. The court affirmed dismissal of unexhausted claims and dismissal of the exhausted claim on its merits.
-
The court affirmed the denial of the habeas petition, finding no constitutional violation regarding the change of venue and no ineffective assistance of counsel.
-
The court held that while New York law likely warranted a justification charge based on the evidence of an accidental shooting during a struggle, the omission of such a charge did not violate due process because it would not have affected the jury's verdict.
-
A federal habeas corpus petitioner who escapes from state prison and commits crimes in another state, thereby preventing the state courts from having a full and fair opportunity to consider his claims, has not exhausted state remedies.