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
-
Louis Thornton, a Florida inmate, sought federal habeas relief challenging his 2011 conviction for aggravated battery and firearm possession based on alleged ineffective assistance of trial counsel and other constitutional claims, which the court denied as either improper state l
-
The court held that the petitioner's claim of improper prosecutorial comments was not cognizable in federal habeas corpus because it alleged violations of state law, not federal law, and was conclusory. The court also found substantial evidence of guilt, precluding relief even if
-
The court found that the petitioner had exhausted his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel by challenging the state trial court's ruling on the merits during his state appeal, thus allowing federal review.
-
The Court denies Petitioner's request for a writ of habeas corpus, finding that the state court's decisions were not contrary to federal law and were based on reasonable determinations of fact.
-
The court held that the petitioner's federal habeas corpus petition was untimely filed and that he failed to demonstrate actual innocence to overcome the procedural bar.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2019-09-30
The court held that a Rule 60(b)(3) motion cannot be used to reopen a federal habeas judgment based on fraud perpetrated on a state court.
-
Terry Ragland was convicted of second-degree murder and attempted armed robbery in the 2010 murder of a robbery victim. The federal district court denied Ragland's habeas petition challenging his conviction on grounds of ineffective assistance of trial counsel, finding that each
-
The court held that the petitioner's habeas corpus petition was time-barred under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA).
-
The court held that the petitioner's claims were not cognizable on federal habeas review or were waived by his voluntary plea, and that the state court's factual findings were entitled to deference.
-
The court held that the petitioner's federal habeas corpus petition was filed outside the one-year statute of limitations and was therefore dismissed as time-barred.
-
The court denied the defendant's motion for postconviction relief, finding it to be time-barred and otherwise procedurally barred. The court also determined that the claims raised were without merit.
-
Tavarence Wiggins appeals the denial of his post-conviction motion for relief based on disparate treatment compared to four co-conspirators who received reduced sentences after successful appeals of their RICO conspiracy convictions. The court affirms the denial, holding that whi
-
The court found that the complaint sufficiently alleged false or misleading statements, materiality, and scienter to survive a motion to dismiss for the securities fraud claims.
-
The court held that the exclusion of evidence regarding the complaining witness's prior false accusations of sexual misconduct violated the Confrontation Clause and was not harmless error.
-
The court denied the defendant's fourth motion for postconviction relief and request for appointment of counsel. The court found that the defendant's claims of actual innocence and ineffective assistance of counsel were barred by procedural rules, as the proffered evidence was no
-
The court held that the defendant's motion for post-conviction relief was untimely and that case law does not currently support his legal theory that a life sentence without parole for a juvenile offender constitutes cruel and unusual punishment.
-
The court held that the motion to alter or amend the judgment should be denied, as the prior order correctly applied the harmless error standard and properly addressed the sufficiency of the evidence proffer.
-
The court held that the petitioner's federal habeas petition was untimely because it was filed more than one year after his conviction and sentence became final, and the tolling provisions did not apply.
-
The court held that the federal habeas corpus petition was untimely filed, as it was filed more than one year after the petitioner's conviction became final, and the tolling provisions did not apply.
-
The court held that the petitioner's federal habeas corpus claim was not procedurally defaulted because the state courts did not clearly and expressly state that their judgment rested on a state procedural bar for the specific motion filed.
-
839 F. Supp. 849·
M.D. Fla.·
1993-12-08
The court granted the state's motion for a stay pending appeal, allowing the petitioner to remain incarcerated, despite the grant of a writ of habeas corpus.
-
-
-
-
The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the second habeas petition as an abuse of the writ because the petitioner failed to show cause and prejudice for raising new claims.
-
The court held that there is no constitutional right to effective counsel in state post-conviction or federal habeas corpus proceedings, and therefore, the Public Defender's potential ineffectiveness does not constitute cause to excuse the late filing of claims.
-
The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in limiting cross-examination regarding abuse petitions and the defendant's ongoing relationship with the witness, as no sufficient nexus was shown to demonstrate bias or motive to lie.
-
The dissenting judge would reverse the district court's grant of the writ, finding no constitutional error regarding notice and that any error was invited or not prejudicial.
-
Mandatory attendance at an alcohol rehabilitation program constitutes 'custody' for the purposes of federal habeas corpus review under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a).
-
992 F.2d 1509·
10th Cir.·
1993-05-17
The court held that the Oklahoma court's application of the Edwards requirement, which shifted the burden to the petitioner to show why he would not have been certified as an adult, constituted an inadequate fact-finding procedure, thus the state court's determination was not ent
-
The court held that a federal court should dismiss a habeas petition without prejudice when a petitioner raises a colorable claim for waiver of procedural default under state law, allowing the petitioner to assert this claim in state court first.
-
984 F.2d 142·
5th Cir.·
1993-02-08
The court held that a stipulation agreeing not to appeal must be enforced as written.
-
979 F.2d 1058·
5th Cir.·
1992-12-10
The dissenting judge argues that the case should not be remanded because the evidence of prejudice is overwhelming and the merits of the claim are clear, making the conviction fatally flawed.
-
978 F.2d 855·
5th Cir.·
1992-11-17
The court should not deny federal courts the opportunity to hear constitutional errors in habeas proceedings.
-
The court held that the appellant's third federal habeas corpus petition was properly dismissed as a successive petition because he failed to demonstrate cause and prejudice or a fundamental miscarriage of justice.
-
976 F.2d 376·
8th Cir.·
1992-09-14
The dissenting judges believe the majority improperly disregarded the trial court's findings regarding newly discovered evidence and its potential impact on the petitioner's trial outcome.
-
The court held that the Mississippi Supreme Court's procedural bars were not strictly or regularly followed, allowing federal habeas review of the 'especially heinous' aggravating circumstance claim. The death sentence was unconstitutional due to the improper use of this circumst
-
The court held that the defendant's failure to object to the non-submission of certain charges to the jury constituted consent, thereby waiving any double jeopardy claim regarding reprosecution on those charges.
-
The court held that the petitioner failed to exhaust state remedies and the futility exception did not apply, affirming the dismissal of his federal habeas corpus petition.
-
The court held that a state prisoner's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel at trial, on appeal, and in post-conviction proceedings were without merit and did not warrant federal habeas corpus relief.
-
The court held that the district court's decision could be reversed using McNeil v. Wisconsin, as Teague v. Lane does not bar its application in this context, or alternatively, by applying existing Sixth Circuit precedent in Boles v. Foltz.
-
The court held that admitting videotaped depositions of child victims did not violate the appellant's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation, as the procedures met the standards set forth in Maryland v. Craig.
-
The court affirmed the dismissal of the appellant's second and third federal habeas corpus petitions and the denial of his Rule 60(b) motion, finding he failed to meet the standards for successive or abusive claims.
-
954 F.2d 945·
3d Cir.·
1992-01-28
The court held that the District of Columbia Good Time Credits Act, by its terms, applies only to prisoners confined in a District correctional facility, and therefore, prisoners convicted under District law but serving sentences in federal facilities are not entitled to its bene
-
The court held that the petitioner abused the writ by failing to raise new claims in his first federal habeas petition without adequate cause.
-
The court held that a prisoner challenging parole eligibility must pursue federal habeas corpus and exhaust state remedies, even if state law does not recognize habeas corpus for this purpose.
-
The court held that the appellant had procedurally defaulted on claims that could have been raised in state court and were not, and that no state remedies remained available to him.
-
584 So. 2d 600·
Fla. 2d DCA·
1991-07-31
The Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services appeals an order unsealing adoption records to disclose the adoptive parents' names to the child's natural mother. The court reverses and remands, holding that the trial court failed to conduct a full evidentiary hearin
-
The court held that the petitioner's second federal habeas corpus petition constituted an abuse of the writ because he failed to demonstrate cause and prejudice for not raising his claims in the first petition, and the claims did not present a fundamental miscarriage of justice.
-
The court held that the petitioner's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and violations of his rights of silence and counsel due to psychiatric examinations were without merit, and thus affirmed the denial of his habeas corpus petition.