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
-
A prisoner denied parole eligibility due to subsequent convictions is considered 'in custody' for federal habeas corpus purposes, allowing a collateral attack on those convictions.
-
699 F.2d 1031·
11th Cir.·
1983-02-14
·cited 41×
-
The court held that claims not exhausted in state courts must be remanded for dismissal, while claims previously decided on direct appeal and found not to raise constitutional issues are affirmed.
-
The court held that the district court erred in denying habeas corpus relief without considering the merits, as the petitioner may be able to show cause and prejudice for his failure to raise a jury composition claim at trial.
-
The court held that evidentiary rulings, jury instructions, and sufficiency of evidence claims do not present constitutional issues cognizable on federal habeas corpus review.
-
A petitioner's failure to file a state collateral relief petition within the time limit constitutes a procedural default, requiring a showing of cause and prejudice to consider federal habeas claims.
-
The court held that the record was insufficient to determine if Hitchcock error was harmless, and thus, a remand for an evidentiary hearing was necessary.
-
The court held that the Mississippi Supreme Court's procedural bar was not adequate and independent, allowing federal review of the Eighth Amendment claim, and that the petitioner was competent to stand trial.
-
The court held that the district court correctly conducted an independent inquiry into the constitutional validity of a state search warrant, irrespective of prior state court rulings, and that the affidavit supporting the warrant met constitutional standards. The court also foun
-
Federal courts must apply state procedural waiver rules in habeas corpus proceedings unless the petitioner demonstrates actual prejudice from the alleged constitutional violation.
-
The court held that the issue of whether a conflict of interest arose during trial, depriving the petitioner of effective counsel, had not been fully and fairly presented to the South Dakota courts and therefore remanded for further proceedings in the state court.
-
337 F.2d 49·
4th Cir.·
1964-09-21
·cited 38×
A district judge who presided over a defendant's original trial and sentencing is not disqualified from ruling on a motion to vacate sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, even if the judge's recollection supplements an incomplete transcript.
-
92 So. 2d 264·
Fla.·
1957-01-23
·cited 38×
William Bradford Huie appealed an appearance bond forfeiture order entered after the Florida Supreme Court dismissed his habeas corpus petition and remanded him to the custody of the Suwannee County Sheriff. The Supreme Court held that while the trial judge had jurisdiction to or
-
64 Fla. 326·
Fla.·
1912-06-01
·cited 38×
The Florida Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of a 1911 statute imposing license taxes on automobiles and motor vehicles used on public roads. The court rejected a habeas corpus challenge and reversed the discharge of a defendant charged with violating the licensing requ
-
-
819 F.2d 1382·
7th Cir.·
1987-05-22
·cited 36×
The court affirmed the district court's grant of a writ of habeas corpus, finding that the petitioner was denied the effective assistance of counsel.
-
A federal court may not consider a habeas claim that a state prisoner has waived by failing to raise it in state court proceedings, absent a showing of 'cause' for the failure and 'prejudice' resulting therefrom.
-
The court held that the petitioner failed to establish sufficient cause for not challenging a juror for cause or using a peremptory challenge, and thus could not raise the issue on federal habeas corpus. The court also held that the pretrial publicity did not render the jury impa
-
The court held that the conviction for operating a motor vehicle to avoid arrest was obtained in violation of due process due to a fundamentally unfair trial stemming from lack of notice regarding the essential elements of the offense. The court abstained from ruling on the doubl
-
The court affirmed the district court's orders releasing petitioners, holding that their claims for good behavior time credit were properly considered under the habeas corpus statute, which requires exhaustion of state remedies.
-
The court held that exceptional circumstances, including significant delay and prior federal court involvement, warranted the District Court deciding the voluntariness of the petitioner's confessions, despite the general rule of exhausting state remedies.
-
The court held that inordinate delay in adjudicating a state post-conviction remedy can constitute a denial of due process, entitling a petitioner to federal habeas corpus relief.
-
The court held that while the exhaustion doctrine is rooted in comity, federal courts must intervene when state remedies are demonstrably ineffective or absent. A petitioner's failure to appeal a state court denial, especially when acting without counsel or under a misunderstandi
-
The district court erred in denying the habeas corpus petition and stay of execution, and its judgment must be reversed and remanded for proper consideration of the constitutional issues.
-
-
673 F.2d 879·
5th Cir.·
1982-04-23
·cited 35×
The court held that a defendant's attorney's tactical decisions, even if unsuccessful in retrospect, do not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel if they were reasoned professional judgments.
-
The court held that a federal habeas corpus petition was properly dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust state remedies, as indicated by the petitioner's own response on the application form.
-
Juan Carlos Chavez, a death row inmate scheduled for execution, appealed the district court's denial of his request for appointment of counsel to investigate and litigate claims based on Martinez v. Ryan. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the denial, holding that Martinez creates onl
-
The court held that the petitioner's escape does not automatically waive his right to federal habeas review for claims not reviewable on direct appeal, and that the state court's denial of coram nobis on the merits, not procedural grounds, means the federal court can review the c
-
-
The court held that a prosecutor's racially inflammatory remarks during closing arguments in a rape trial so infected the proceedings with unfairness as to deny the defendants due process of law.
-
The court held that the petitioner had exhausted his state remedies, either through prior rulings or due to circumstances rendering the state process ineffective, and thus was entitled to federal habeas corpus relief.
-
The court held that the denial of a continuance, which prevented defense counsel from adequately preparing for trial, amounted to a denial of the Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel.
-
406 F.2d 795·
8th Cir.·
1969-02-04
·cited 34×
A prior conviction obtained without counsel, or with an invalid sentence due to lack of counsel, cannot be used to enhance punishment under a habitual criminal statute.
-
Federal courts must consider exhausted claims in habeas corpus petitions even if unexhausted claims are also present, especially if the unexhausted claims are unrelated or frivolous.
-
A federal prisoner who, through counsel, intentionally bypasses orderly procedures for raising a Fourth Amendment search and seizure claim at trial or on direct appeal, waives that claim and cannot raise it in a subsequent Section 2255 motion.
-
William Greg Thomas, a Florida death row inmate, challenged the timeliness of his federal habeas petition, which was filed nearly nine months after AEDPA's one-year deadline expired because his appointed counsel, Mary Catherine Bonner, deliberately delayed filing to use his case
-
The court held that a petitioner seeking to raise successive or abusive habeas claims must demonstrate actual innocence of the death penalty, which requires showing a fair probability that a rational trier of fact would have entertained a reasonable doubt as to the existence of t
-
The failure of retained counsel to file a promised appeal constitutes a Sixth Amendment violation, entitling the defendant to an out-of-time appeal.
-
The court held that the petitioner's claims for federal habeas relief based on alleged trial errors, including improper evidence admission, prosecutorial misconduct, and suggestive identification procedures, were without merit.
-
123 Fla. 9·
Fla.·
1936-02-21
·cited 33×
This case involves a habeas corpus proceeding where Antonio Florio challenged his arrest under an executive warrant of extradition issued by the Governor of Florida in response to a Connecticut requisition for charges of conspiracy and theft. The Florida Supreme Court reversed th
-
-
The court held that the trial court did not err in its handling of potential conflicts of interest regarding joint representation and that faulty jury instructions on intent were harmless error given the facts of the case.
-
Johnny Paul Witt was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death for the 1973 killing of an 11-year-old boy. On federal habeas review, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's rejection of Witt's challenges to the admission of his confession, the Florida Sup
-
The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the habeas petition as an abuse of the writ without affording the petitioner a reasonable opportunity to explain his failure to raise claims in a prior petition.
-
The majority's conclusion that the state's inadvertent provision of fewer peremptory challenges than statutorily required violates the Due Process Clause is foreclosed by Supreme Court precedent.
-
The court held that enforcement of Oklahoma's contemporaneous objection rule in this case fails to serve a legitimate state interest and should not bar review of the federal question.
-
-
A federal court should dismiss a habeas petition containing only unexhausted claims, even if the district court erroneously reached the merits, to allow the state courts the first opportunity to address the claims.
-
An accidental pre-trial encounter between an accused and a witness can support a federal habeas corpus claim if the encounter was unnecessarily suggestive and undermined the reliability of the subsequent identification.