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 petitioner was not procedurally barred from seeking collateral review of his federal constitutional claim under Arizona law because the record did not show he knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived the claim, and he had not previously litigated i
-
The Sixth Amendment does not require a defendant's consent to proceed with an eleven-member jury in a state criminal trial when state law permits it due to juror disability.
-
A petitioner satisfies the exhaustion requirement for federal habeas corpus if they have fairly presented their claims to the state's highest court, even if that presentation was via a petition for discretionary review after an intermediate appellate court ruled on the merits.
-
The court held that a federal court cannot grant habeas relief based on a 'new rule' that does not fall under Teague v. Lane exceptions, and that claims based on post-conviction conduct are matters for executive clemency, not federal habeas corpus.
-
The court held that the district court announced a new constitutional rule and applied it retroactively, violating the Teague v. Lane precedent.
-
Federal habeas review is precluded when a state court explicitly relies on a procedural default, even if it also rules on the merits.
-
The court held that a federal habeas court must defer to a state court's determination that the state legislature intended cumulative punishments, thus finding no double jeopardy violation.
-
The court held that the rule established in Carter v. McCarthy, requiring defendants to be informed of mandatory parole terms as a direct consequence of a guilty plea, should not be applied retroactively to pleas entered before Carter was decided.
-
-
The court held that the right to expunge state records is not a federal constitutional right and habeas corpus is the exclusive federal remedy for attacking state court convictions.
-
873 F.2d 761·
5th Cir.·
1989-04-27
The court held that a prisoner's civil rights claims challenging parole supervision fees as an ex post facto violation should not be dismissed prematurely and may require a stay or dismissal without prejudice pending habeas corpus exhaustion.
-
The court held that the denial of an evidentiary hearing was proper because the petitioner failed to establish cause and prejudice to overcome a procedural bar on his claim of diminished capacity to waive Miranda rights.
-
The court denied the warden's motion to vacate the stay of execution, affirming the district court's decision to grant the stay pending federal habeas corpus review.
-
The court held that a state prisoner seeking federal habeas corpus relief was not denied due process when a plea bargain was not strictly adhered to, because the prisoner was aware of the deviation and remained silent.
-
The court held that the jury was not misled regarding its advisory role in sentencing and that certain claims regarding a prior conviction were procedurally barred.
-
A state court's determination that a Fourth Amendment violation was harmless error is not reviewable on federal habeas corpus, as it is inseparable from the underlying Fourth Amendment claim and barred by Stone v. Powell.
-
-
796 F.2d 373·
10th Cir.·
1986-07-22
The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to review the district director's denial of employment authorization because it involved factual issues requiring initial district court review, but affirmed the deportation order which was factually supported.
-
489 So. 2d 1234·
Fla. 1st DCA·
1986-06-13
-
Federal habeas relief is barred for a Fourth Amendment claim if the state provided a full and fair opportunity to litigate it.
-
The court held that the petitioner's claims regarding jury instructions, confession voluntariness, prosecutorial misconduct, and double jeopardy did not rise to the level of constitutional error warranting habeas relief.
-
Federal habeas corpus relief is barred by procedural default when a state prisoner fails to raise issues on direct appeal as required by state law, absent a showing of cause and prejudice.
-
The court held that the petitioner's claims were either successive, constituted abuse of the writ, or lacked merit, and therefore denied his application for a stay of execution and habeas relief.
-
The court affirmed the denial of a stay of execution and injunctive relief, finding the petitioner failed to present a substantial case on the merits.
-
The court held that the admission of the inculpatory statement was not a violation of the petitioner's right to counsel, and any potential error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
-
The court held that the district court properly dismissed the federal habeas corpus claim for failure to exhaust state remedies and the § 1983 claim as it was subsumed by the habeas claim.
-
The court held that the exclusion of the confession testimony, based on the attorney-client privilege, did not violate the defendant's constitutional rights, nor did the attorney's actions constitute ineffective assistance of counsel.
-
The court held that the state proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the juvenile court judge would have waived jurisdiction even if apprised of the omission of 'best interest' findings, rendering the due process violation harmless error.
-
The court held that the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the bullet wound inflicted by the defendant caused the victim's death.
-
The court held that a petitioner must exhaust state remedies by applying to the state's highest court, even if it seems futile, to satisfy federal habeas corpus requirements.
-
The court held that Mississippi Code Annotated section 99-35-115, which generally denies bail pending appeal for certain serious offenses like robbery, does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection or due process clauses.
-
The court affirmed the denial of the habeas corpus petition, finding no sufficient reason for the state court to doubt the petitioner's competency.
-
Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.691(a), which prohibits bail for convicted felons with prior felony convictions pending appeal, does not violate the Due Process or Eighth Amendments.
-
The court held that a federal due process violation did not occur when a state granted a continuance ex parte, as long as the defendant was later given notice and an opportunity to object and seek dismissal.
-
391 So. 2d 214·
Fla.·
1980-12-04
The Supreme Court approved amendments to the Rules of Judicial Administration regarding filing fees for habeas corpus proceedings and the terms for chief judges.
-
The dismissal of a direct appeal by the United States Supreme Court for want of a substantial federal question operates as an adjudication on the merits, precluding relitigation of the same issues in a federal habeas corpus proceeding.
-
The dissenting judge argues that the panel erred in finding a Sixth Amendment violation based on dual representation without requiring a showing of actual prejudice and without sufficient state action.
-
The court held that the case must be remanded to determine if the cause and prejudice test from Wainwright v. Sykes can be met.
-
The court held that the appellant's contentions were insufficient to justify relief in federal court, affirming the denial of his petition.
-
Federal habeas corpus relief is unavailable for Fourth Amendment search and seizure claims when the state has provided a full and fair opportunity to litigate them. Statements made by the petitioner were not obtained in violation of Miranda.
-
A rational decision not to appeal, made to avoid the risk of a harsher sentence (like the death penalty) upon retrial, does not constitute a deliberate bypass of state remedies that would preclude federal habeas corpus review.
-
The Court of Appeals held that despite potentially suggestive pretrial identification procedures, the victim's identification of the defendant was reliable under the totality of the circumstances and therefore did not violate due process.
-
507 F.2d 273·
6th Cir.·
1974-11-25
The court held that the district court's finding that the petitioner was advised of his right to appeal was not clearly erroneous, and thus affirmed the dismissal of the habeas corpus petition.
-
476 F.2d 278·
5th Cir.·
1973-04-12
The court held that the appellant's claims of jury exposure to inadmissible evidence and illegal search were not federally reversible errors, lacking record support.
-
The court held that the district court properly ruled that the petitioner failed to exhaust state remedies before seeking federal habeas corpus relief.
-
453 F.2d 751·
5th Cir.·
1972-01-11
-
The court held that the petitioner had not exhausted his state remedies and therefore could not bring a federal habeas corpus petition.
-
The court held that a petitioner who raised federal constitutional claims on direct appeal, which were reviewed and rejected by the state's highest court, has exhausted state remedies for federal habeas corpus purposes.
-
A petitioner seeking federal habeas relief based on a Fourth Amendment violation must demonstrate a possessory or proprietary interest in the place searched or the evidence seized to have standing.
-
239 So. 2d 608·
Fla. 4th DCA·
1970-09-23