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 appellant had not exhausted his state remedies because his claims were not fairly presented to the state courts.
-
The court denied the petition for rehearing, finding the record insufficient to support a claim based on Penry v. Lynaugh, despite the Supreme Court's decision potentially impacting prior circuit precedent.
-
The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the habeas petition, finding that grounds for relief were either procedurally barred due to failure to demonstrate cause and prejudice, or without merit.
-
The court held that the petitioner's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel was not exhausted because the state appellate division likely affirmed on procedural grounds, not the merits of the underlying speedy trial claim.
-
Denying a criminal defendant the right to consult with counsel during a court recess violates the Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel.
-
The court affirmed the denial of the petition, finding no merit in the claims of improper sentencing guidelines, ex post facto violation, or ineffective assistance of appellate counsel.
-
The court held that claims of error in state post-conviction proceedings cannot serve as a basis for federal habeas corpus relief, and a parole statute not creating a legitimate expectation of release does not implicate due process.
-
The court held that the petitioner's claim regarding jury instructions was procedurally barred because it was not raised on direct appeal, and even if considered on the merits, it would fail.
-
The court held that the Virginia Supreme Court's shift in procedural rules regarding habeas corpus review, as established in Slayton v. Parrigan, does not bar the petitioner from seeking federal habeas corpus relief in this case. However, the case is remanded for a harmless error
-
A state court sentence originally requiring only a fine, even if the individual refuses to pay and faces potential incarceration, does not meet the 'in custody' requirement for federal habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
-
The court held that challenging an Indiana sentence in Missouri courts does not satisfy the exhaustion of state remedies requirement for federal habeas corpus petitions.
-
The court denied the application for a certificate of probable cause and a stay of execution, finding no substantial showing of the denial of a federal right.
-
The Court held that the photographic lineup was not impermissibly suggestive and the identification was reliable under the totality of the circumstances, thus denying the petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
-
The court should not affirm the judgment because the majority improperly considered a prior conviction as evidence of guilt, which was not presented to or relied upon by state courts.
-
806 F.2d 68·
3d Cir.·
1986-11-26
·cited 2×
The court held that the Attorney General, not the district court, has the exclusive discretionary authority to grant bail to an alien not illegally detained, pending a motion to reopen deportation proceedings, subject to judicial review.
-
The court denied the appellant's motion for a certificate of probable cause, finding no substantial showing of the denial of a federal right, and dismissed the appeal.
-
The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the habeas corpus petition without an evidentiary hearing, as the allegations could state a claim under the Eighth Amendment for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs.
-
793 F.2d 85·
3d Cir.·
1986-06-13
·cited 2×
The court held that the defendant did not raise a substantial question on appeal, thus bail pending appeal was not warranted.
-
The Court of Appeals held that the appellant's failure to include sworn allegations in his pro se motion to withdraw his guilty plea did not constitute a procedural default under Wainwright v. Sykes, as the state had no substantial interest in denying him the opportunity to reple
-
The court held that under Texas law, a state district court had valid jurisdiction to indict and convict a former juvenile after he reached adulthood, even if the offense was committed as a juvenile and juvenile proceedings were initiated, thus the enhanced sentence was valid.
-
A state prisoner is barred from federal habeas review of a constitutional claim if the claim was procedurally defaulted in state court, absent a showing of cause and prejudice for the default.
-
734 F.2d 274·
6th Cir.·
1984-05-09
·cited 2×
The court held that Rule 9(a) of habeas corpus proceedings requires a showing of actual prejudice to bar consideration of claims, and that the state failed to show prejudice regarding the petitioner's claims of unknowing waiver of counsel and guilty plea.
-
The court affirmed the denial of federal habeas corpus relief, holding that the petitioner's guilty plea was voluntary and knowing, and that jurisdictional and coercion claims were waived or unsupported.
-
The court granted the application for a certificate of probable cause and stay of execution, remanding the case for an evidentiary hearing on claims of ineffective assistance of counsel.
-
The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the habeas petition for failure to exhaust state remedies without indicating judicial notice of relevant briefs and erred in dismissing for abuse of the writ without affording the petitioner an opportunity to respond.
-
The court held that a petitioner's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel due to failure to object to jury instructions does not constitute sufficient 'cause' to overcome a procedural default under Wainwright v. Sykes.
-
The federal court dismissed the petition for a writ of habeas corpus because the petitioner failed to exhaust his state remedies, as his state appeal was still pending.
-
Federal habeas corpus relief is not available for excessive police violence if it did not causally contribute to the conviction.
-
The state appellate court's decision to grant a petition for rehearing on an issue not previously raised or argued denied the petitioner a full and fair opportunity to litigate that claim.
-
The court held that the admission of potentially misleading fingerprint probability testimony, while erroneous, did not rise to the level of a due process violation requiring federal habeas corpus relief, especially given the other evidence presented.
-
The concurring judge agrees with the majority's outcome because the issue is state procedure without federal constitutional implications or demonstrated prejudice.
-
The court held that the denial of habeas corpus relief on the grounds of using pardoned convictions and grand jury issues was appropriate, but remanded for consideration of the claim that prior convictions used for enhancement were uncounseled.
-
A guilty plea does not forfeit the right to federal habeas corpus review of pre-plea constitutional violations if state law permits such an appeal.
-
The court held that the exhaustion requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b) does not apply when there is no available state corrective process for parole denials.
-
The court held that a second federal habeas corpus petition raising issues not previously presented to state courts must first exhaust those state remedies, even if the appellant claims they are ineffective.
-
-
The court held that the petitioner's claims regarding grand jury selection, denial of appeal, and ineffective assistance of counsel were waived due to an unjustified and prejudicial delay in raising them. The court also held that the show-up identification procedure, while not fa
-
The court held that a state's evidentiary rule prohibiting inquiry into a rape victim's prior sexual acts does not violate the Sixth Amendment right to confrontation when the inquiry would raise collateral issues and confuse the jury.
-
Federal courts will not grant habeas corpus relief on Fourth Amendment claims if the state provided a full and fair opportunity to litigate those claims.
-
The court held that a violation of a state speedy trial rule does not, by itself, constitute a denial of the federal constitutional right to a speedy trial, which is cognizable in federal habeas corpus.
-
The court held that a spouse's voluntary consent validates a warrantless search under federal constitutional standards, regardless of stricter state law in the jurisdiction where the search occurred.
-
The court held that the federal district court erred in dismissing the habeas petition for failure to exhaust state remedies, as the California Supreme Court had denied the petition on the merits.
-
The court held that the federal habeas corpus petition should have been dismissed for failure to exhaust state remedies, not on the merits.
-
The court held that the petitioner failed to exhaust state remedies by not presenting his claim to the state appellate courts.
-
261 So. 2d 573·
Fla. 1st DCA·
1972-02-08
·cited 2×
A mother sought habeas corpus relief to recover custody of her minor son from her parents, who were withholding the child in violation of a 1966 divorce decree awarding custody to the mother. The court upheld the mother's right to custody, finding her to be a fit and proper perso
-
The court held that the prisoner's claims of incompetent counsel and an invalid guilty plea lacked merit, and affirmed the denial of habeas corpus relief.
-
The court held that a prior denial of a habeas corpus petition on the merits is controlling if the same ground is presented and the ends of justice would not be served by reaching the merits again.
-
The court vacated its prior judgment and remanded the case to the district court for fact-finding on an issue raised by the Solicitor General.
-
The court held that the petitioner's confessions were voluntary and that the state proceedings adequately determined their voluntariness, thus denying the petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
-
A petitioner must exhaust state remedies under the Tennessee Post-Conviction Procedure Act of 1967 before seeking federal habeas corpus relief, as the Act provides an available remedy for challenging convictions.