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
-
Edward T. James, a death row inmate with two capital sentences and an active death warrant, appeals the circuit court's summary denial of his successive motion for postconviction relief and petitions for habeas corpus and stay of execution. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the
-
The court denied the petition for writ of habeas corpus, finding that the state court's denial of the petitioner's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of federal law.
-
Terry Lequan Dixon challenged his state conviction for accessory after the fact on federal habeas corpus grounds, asserting that the evidence was insufficient, that the prosecutor improperly commented on his right to remain silent, and that his trial counsel was ineffective for f
-
Reinier Fundora-Martinez, an inmate convicted in Duval County state court of motor vehicle fraud and organized fraud offenses, sought federal habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, raising five grounds including claims of deficient performance by his trial counsel regarding failur
-
The court held that the federal habeas petition was premature because the petitioner had not exhausted all available state court remedies.
-
The court held that the state court's adjudication of the petitioner's claims was not contrary to federal law and denied the petition for writ of habeas corpus.
-
The court held that the petitioner is not entitled to federal habeas corpus relief because his claims were either denied on the merits under AEDPA standards or dismissed as procedurally defaulted and unexhausted.
-
Traci Lynne Clark, an inmate convicted of DUI manslaughter in Putnam County, Florida, challenged her conviction through a federal habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, arguing that her trial counsel was ineffective, that the trial court erred in denying her motion for ju
-
The court held that the petitioner's Fourth Amendment claim is barred under Stone v. Powell because he had a full and fair opportunity to litigate it in state court. The court also found an ineffective assistance of trial counsel claim unexhausted.
-
The court held that the petitioner failed to demonstrate that the state court's decision was contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law, or an unreasonable determination of fact, and thus denied his petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
-
Federal habeas relief is denied because the state court's rejection of the ineffective assistance of counsel claims was not contrary to federal law and not based on an unreasonable determination of facts.
-
A federal court cannot entertain a petition for writ of error coram nobis to challenge a state criminal judgment, and federal courts should abstain from intervening in pending state criminal proceedings absent specific exceptions.
-
The court held that the petitioner failed to show that the state court's denial of his claims was contrary to or involved an unreasonable application of federal law, or was based on an unreasonable factual determination.
-
The court held that a second federal habeas petition filed without prior authorization from the court of appeals is successive and must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
-
The court held that the petition for writ of habeas corpus was untimely filed under AEDPA, and equitable tolling and actual innocence exceptions did not apply.
-
The court held that the federal habeas petition was untimely under AEDPA and that the petitioner's claims lacked merit.
-
The court held that the petitioner's habeas corpus petition was untimely filed under AEDPA, and dismissed the case with prejudice.
-
The federal habeas petition is dismissed as time-barred because it was filed outside the one-year limitations period established by AEDPA, and no tolling or equitable exceptions apply.
-
The court held that the petitioner's federal habeas corpus petition was untimely filed after the one-year limitations period expired, and therefore, it should be dismissed with prejudice.
-
The court held that the petitioner's federal habeas corpus petition was time-barred under AEDPA because it was filed more than three years after the one-year limitations period expired.
-
A state prisoner seeking release on bond pending a habeas corpus decision must demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits of a substantial constitutional claim and extraordinary and exceptional circumstances. Petitioner failed to meet this standard.
-
The court dismissed the case without prejudice because the petitioner failed to use the required standard forms, combine claims improperly, and did not pay the filing fee or seek in forma pauperis status.
-
The Eleventh Circuit held that a state court's explicit designation of an amended sentence as nunc pro tunc requires deference, preventing it from restarting the federal habeas limitations period, but an amended judgment not designated nunc pro tunc does restart the period.
-
The federal habeas petition is dismissed as time-barred because it was filed more than one year after the petitioner's judgment became final, and neither statutory tolling, equitable tolling, nor the actual innocence exception applies.
-
Jesse Alonso, a Florida prisoner, filed a pro se petition for federal habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his conviction for resisting an officer with violence. The district court dismissed the petition as premature because Alonso had not exhausted available state co
-
The court held that the petitioner's habeas corpus petition was untimely filed and dismissed it because he failed to demonstrate actual innocence or any other basis for equitable tolling.
-
Roosevelt Kirk, a juvenile offender sentenced to life with parole for a 1983 murder, sought federal habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, arguing his resentencing violated the Eighth Amendment under Miller v. Alabama. The federal court denied relief, holding that Miller does not
-
The court held that the petitioner's habeas corpus petition was untimely filed and dismissed it with prejudice.
-
The court held that certain claims were procedurally defaulted and unexhausted, and that the remaining claims did not meet the standard for federal habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).
-
Former FBI Special Agent John Joseph Connolly challenged his second-degree murder conviction for his role in the 1982 killing of John B. Callahan, arguing that Florida prosecutors committed a Brady violation by withholding a 2006 email from his trial in which an FBI supervisor st
-
The court held that the federal habeas petition was time-barred because the state post-conviction motion did not toll the limitations period, and the petitioner failed to establish actual innocence.
-
A freestanding claim of actual innocence based on newly discovered evidence is not cognizable on federal habeas corpus review under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in non-capital cases.
-
Rashane Jones, a Florida inmate convicted of three counts of attempted second-degree murder and one count of felon in possession of a firearm, filed a federal habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his 2014 state court conviction. The District Court for the Mid
-
Federal habeas relief is denied because the petitioner's claims are either not cognizable in federal court as they involve state law issues or fail to demonstrate that the state court's adjudication was contrary to or an unreasonable application of federal law.
-
The court held that the petitioner failed to show the state court's decision denying his due process and double jeopardy claims was contrary to or an unreasonable application of federal law, or based on an unreasonable determination of facts.
-
The court held that the petitioner's arguments did not meet the high standard required for federal habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) and that the arguments were frivolous.
-
The court denied the petition for a writ of habeas corpus, finding that the state court's denial of the ineffective assistance of counsel claims was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of federal law.
-
The court held that the petitioner's habeas corpus petition was untimely filed under AEDPA and dismissed it.
-
James Willie Holt, an inmate challenging his 2016 conviction for lewd or lascivious molestation of a three-year-old, petitioned for federal habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, raising four grounds including claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel and confrontat
-
Louis Alexander Wingard, a state prisoner convicted of home invasion robbery and other firearms offenses, filed a federal habeas petition challenging his conviction on nine separate grounds, all of which were either procedurally defaulted or lacked merit under AEDPA's deferential
-
The court held that a resentencing order entered nunc pro tunc does not constitute a new judgment for purposes of AEDPA's second or successive petition bar, and thus the current petition is barred.
-
The court held that a federal habeas petitioner cannot obtain relief on a Fourth Amendment claim if the state provided a full and fair opportunity to litigate it, and that the petitioner's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel lacked merit because his underlying Fourth Amen
-
The court held that the petitioner's Fourth Amendment claim is barred from federal habeas review.
-
Keith Patrick Henry, an inmate serving a twenty-year sentence for attempt to possess cocaine and conspiracy to traffic in controlled substances, petitioned for federal habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, raising eleven grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel and rel
-
The court denied the petition for a writ of habeas corpus, finding no constitutional violations in the state court proceedings.
-
Joseph Luis Levin, an inmate serving a 44-year sentence for six counts of lewd or lascivious battery, one count of soliciting a child via computer, and one count of traveling to meet a minor, challenged his convictions in a federal habeas corpus petition, raising claims of incomp
-
The federal court denied the habeas petition, finding the state court's adjudications were neither contrary to nor an unreasonable application of federal law, and not based on an unreasonable determination of facts.
-
Robert Earl Hayes, a Florida inmate serving a life sentence as a prison releasee reoffender following conviction for three counts of robbery and one count of possession of ammunition by a convicted felon, petitioned for federal habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, raising
-
The court held that the state court's denial of the petitioner's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and trial court error was not contrary to, nor an unreasonable application of, federal law, and was not based on an unreasonable determination of the facts.
-
The court held that the petitioner's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel was unexhausted and procedurally defaulted, and he failed to demonstrate cause and prejudice to overcome the default.