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 while the conviction was valid, the death sentence must be vacated because the 'pecuniary gain' aggravating circumstance duplicated an element of the underlying capital felony murder charge (robbery), thus failing to narrow the class of eligible defendants as
-
364 F.2d 657·
D.C. Cir.·
1966-05-19
·cited 60×
-
The court, through a concurring opinion, suggests that while counsel's failure to present mitigating evidence may not meet the Sixth Amendment's Strickland standard for ineffective assistance, it could still violate Eighth Amendment concerns regarding arbitrary capital sentencing
-
The court held that the district court did not err in denying the habeas corpus petition, as the petitioner's claims were either procedurally barred, lacked merit, or failed to demonstrate prejudice or a constitutional violation.
-
The majority opinion misunderstands the Confrontation Clause by allowing hearsay statements from unavailable witnesses to be admitted against the defendant.
-
259 F.2d 707·
3d Cir.·
1958-09-29
·cited 58×
The knowing false testimony of a police detective, coupled with the destruction of other statements, denied defendants due process of law, rendering their trial fundamentally unfair.
-
Reliance on an unconstitutionally vague or overbroad statutory aggravating circumstance requires vacating the death sentence, especially when the state courts do not reweigh circumstances on appeal.
-
The court held that even if a prosecutor's argument was inflammatory, it does not automatically constitute a denial of due process required for federal habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
-
The majority incorrectly held that the petitioner had a full and fair opportunity to litigate his Fourth Amendment claim in state court, contrary to precedent.
-
The court held that the petitioner's claims regarding sentence enhancement, admissibility of prior convictions, and ineffective assistance of appellate counsel did not warrant federal habeas corpus relief.
-
The court held that the petitioner had met the requirements of the exhaustion doctrine and that his retrial and conviction for embezzlement violated the double jeopardy clause.
-
184 So. 2d 207·
Fla. 3d DCA·
1966-03-08
·cited 55×
Dennis Whitney, convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death, sought collateral relief arguing denial of due process on multiple grounds including pretrial publicity, prosecutorial misconduct, and ineffective assistance of counsel. The appellate court affirmed the tria
-
The dissenting judge argued that even if jury instructions were erroneous under state law, federal habeas review was precluded by the petitioner's failure to object at trial, as required by Wainwright v. Sykes, absent a showing of cause and prejudice.
-
-
The court held that a habeas petitioner is entitled to resentencing if a prior conviction obtained in violation of Gideon was considered by the sentencing judge, even if the prior conviction has not been invalidated in other collateral proceedings.
-
The state trial court's inquiry into the defendant's motion to substitute counsel, though brief, was sufficient under the circumstances, and thus the defendant received effective assistance of counsel.
-
James Ernest Hitchcock appeals his death sentence imposed after a third remand for resentencing in a 1976 murder case. The Florida Supreme Court affirms the death sentence, rejecting all eighteen appellate claims as either procedurally barred or without merit.
-
779 F.2d 1287·
7th Cir.·
1985-12-19
·cited 52×
The majority holds that the petitioner was not denied due process because the record contained sufficient indicia of informant reliability, the petitioner waived his right to exculpatory material, and the magistrate properly handled in camera review.
-
The court held that using a co-conspirator's guilty plea as evidence of a defendant's guilt violates the Sixth Amendment right to confrontation.
-
Larry Eugene Mann, a death row inmate with an active execution warrant, appealed the denial of his Rule 3.851 postconviction motion and public records requests, and petitioned for habeas corpus relief. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court's denials on all grounds,
-
The court held that a single error by counsel, even if resulting in a state law conviction reversal, does not render the entire trial fundamentally unfair or constitute ineffective assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment.
-
The court held that a prosecutor's unexplained refusal to stipulate to exculpatory polygraph evidence, which is otherwise admissible under state law, violates the defendant's due process rights.
-
A state prisoner is barred from federal habeas corpus relief if he failed to comply with valid state procedural requirements that independently preclude direct review of the merits.
-
The federal court erred in granting a writ of habeas corpus and enjoining ongoing state criminal proceedings. The petitioner failed to exhaust his state court remedies on the merits of his speedy trial claim and did not demonstrate "extraordinary circumstances" that would justify
-
The court held that the petitioner's Sixth Amendment claims regarding self-representation and ineffective assistance of counsel, as well as his Eighth Amendment claim regarding sentence proportionality, lacked merit, and affirmed the denial of habeas corpus relief.
-
A state prisoner who failed to timely challenge grand jury composition under state law must show both cause and prejudice for federal habeas review, and ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to advise of appeal rights does not constitute cause for failing to challenge the
-
The court held that the undisclosed police report, useful only for impeachment, did not meet the stricter materiality standard required for a new trial, and thus did not violate due process.
-
The court held that a prosecutor's comment on a defendant's consultation with an attorney after a crime, which suggests guilt, constitutes a violation of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel, and such error is not harmless when the defendant's credibility is central to the case.
-
419 F.2d 617·
D.C. Cir.·
1969-03-14
·cited 49×
The court held that the record was inadequate to determine if the hospital's decision to keep the appellant in maximum security was permissible and reasonable, requiring a remand for further proceedings.
-
The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of habeas relief, holding that the petitioner's Batson claim was not procedurally barred from federal review because Alabama courts have not consistently applied a procedural bar in similar cases. The court further held tha
-
The district court erred in dismissing the second habeas corpus petition under Rule 9(b) for abuse of the writ.
-
-
The court held that the Florida Supreme Court's finding on direct appeal satisfied the Enmund requirement, and that Tafero's other claims, including ineffective assistance of counsel and disparate sentencing, were without merit.
-
The court reinstated its prior judgment, holding that the state courts did not decide the constitutional claim on procedural grounds, thus federal habeas review of the merits is proper.
-
The Eleventh Circuit held that the Supreme Court's decision in Hurst v. Florida does not apply retroactively to cases that became final before Hurst was decided, and therefore Knight cannot obtain federal habeas relief on that basis. The court also found that the Florida Supreme
-
The court held that a state court's adjudication of a constitutional claim on its merits, despite a procedural default, allows federal habeas review, and that a simple minute entry is insufficient to prove a knowing and intelligent waiver of counsel.
-
The court held that the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals' reformation of a sentence, even if erroneous under state law, is a matter of state law and not a federal constitutional issue cognizable on federal habeas corpus.
-
The court held that the petitioners' constitutional rights were not violated by the denial of counsel before the preliminary examination or by the admission of their confessions.
-
227 F.2d 528·
3d Cir.·
1955-11-30
·cited 45×
The court held that the district judge acted within his jurisdiction in admitting a state prisoner to bail pending a habeas corpus hearing.
-
52 Fla. 125·
Fla.·
1906-06-01
·cited 45×
The Florida Supreme Court held that a conditional pardon remains enforceable even after the specific time period mentioned in the original sentence expires, and that violation of pardon conditions at any time renders the pardon void and subjects the parolee to re-imprisonment for
-
775 F.2d 1037·
9th Cir.·
1985-11-01
·cited 44×
The court held that the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) does not apply to habeas corpus proceedings challenging immigration exclusion policies, and that the government's position was substantially justified, thus denying attorneys' fees.
-
The dissenting judge disagrees with the majority's decision to reverse the dismissal and remand for appointment of counsel and reconsideration of other issues, arguing the majority erred in directing counsel appointment and in its approach to prisoner civil rights cases.
-
A federal court must decline to decide any issues in a habeas corpus petition until all claims raised have been exhausted in state court, absent specific mitigating circumstances.
-
88 So. 3d 312·
Fla. 4th DCA·
2012-05-02
·cited 43×
The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the summary denial of Charles Thompson's Rule 3.850 postconviction motion seeking relief based on claims of ineffective assistance of counsel regarding his trial competency. The court clarified the legal standards distinguishing betwee
-
A contemporaneous objection to the use of peremptory challenges to exclude jurors based on race is a necessary predicate for later raising a Batson claim, even in federal habeas corpus proceedings.
-
The court held that even though constitutional errors occurred during the trial, they were harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because the evidence of guilt was overwhelming.
-
A state court's constitutional error at trial can warrant federal habeas relief, even considering principles of comity and finality.
-
A jury instruction creating a burden-shifting presumption of intent violates due process and requires federal habeas relief, even if not objected to at trial, provided the petitioner can show cause for the failure to object.
-
The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the denial of Mungin's habeas petition, holding that two ineffective assistance of counsel claims failed on the merits and two were barred by the statute of limitations.
-
520 F.2d 27·
2d Cir.·
1975-06-23
·cited 42×
The court held that the Parole Board's practices do not provide (a)(2) prisoners with as effective and meaningful parole consideration as other prisoners, failing to give sufficient weight to rehabilitation.