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 defendant's constitutional right to be present at critical stages of the trial was violated when he was excluded from an in camera juror disqualification hearing.
-
The court held that the petitioners' habeas corpus petitions were properly denied because the information was not fatally defective and the admission of certain testimony did not violate their constitutional rights.
-
A district court's denial of a habeas petition without an evidentiary hearing was erroneous if it rested on legal errors rather than factual merits, and the ends of justice require reaching the merits of a subsequent petition.
-
The court held that the guilty plea was voluntary and not the product of coercion, and that a new claim regarding sentencing based on an allegedly erroneous probation report was not yet ripe for federal adjudication due to failure to exhaust state remedies.
-
Broderick Monlyn appeals the denial of his motion for postconviction relief and petitions for habeas corpus following his 1993 conviction for first-degree murder, armed robbery, and armed kidnapping, and subsequent death sentence. The Florida Supreme Court addresses his ineffecti
-
The court affirmed the district court's grant of habeas corpus, holding that the petitioner's death sentence was imposed in violation of Hitchcock v. Dugger because the sentencing court was precluded from considering nonstatutory mitigating evidence, and this error was not harmle
-
The court held that the state trial court did not violate Case's constitutional rights by refusing to conduct a post-verdict voir dire of the jury based on equivocal allegations of misconduct. The court also held that the denial of a continuance for a witness whose testimony was
-
809 F.2d 750·
11th Cir.·
1987-01-23
·cited 24×
The court held that the evidence presented was insufficient to establish a prima facie case of grand jury discrimination based on gender.
-
The court held that the admission of evidence of other crimes, the denial of a change of venue due to pretrial publicity, the composition of the jury panel, the prosecutor's voir dire questions, and testimony regarding the defendant's invocation of his rights were either procedur
-
A conviction based on a short-form indictment, authorized by state law and upheld by the state's highest court, does not violate due process, even if it doesn't specify every element, as long as the defendant received adequate notice through a bill of particulars.
-
725 F.2d 1316·
11th Cir.·
1984-02-27
·cited 24×
The court held that the in-court identification was not impermissibly suggestive, but remanded the ineffective assistance of counsel claim for an evidentiary hearing due to unresolved factual issues.
-
The court held that the petitioner failed to exhaust state remedies by not fairly presenting the Miranda waiver issue to the state courts.
-
A federal court may grant habeas corpus relief to prevent retrial if a state appellate court, despite finding evidence sufficient, reversed a conviction on other grounds, and the defendant raises a double jeopardy claim based on insufficiency.
-
The court affirmed the district court's denial of habeas corpus relief, finding that the petitioner's claims of newly discovered evidence, ineffective assistance of counsel, and a chilled right to testify were without merit or unexhausted.
-
The court held that the appellant failed to exhaust state remedies because federal constitutional claims were raised for the first time in federal court, not presented to the state courts.
-
The court held that a federal court must independently review the state court record when considering a state prisoner's habeas corpus petition on self-representation grounds.
-
547 F.2d 1281·
5th Cir.·
1977-03-07
·cited 24×
The court held that the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees did not substantively alter the existing U.S. immigration scheme, did not create new rights or entitlements for aliens, and did not invalidate INS procedures for determining refugee status.
-
A confession obtained after an illegal arrest, without proper warnings or opportunity to consult counsel, is tainted and inadmissible as 'fruit of the poisonous tree'. Evidence seized during a warrantless search lacking clear and convincing proof of valid consent is also inadmiss
-
The court held that a federal habeas petitioner is precluded from attacking jury composition due to failure to timely object, construing such failure as a waiver.
-
The court held that the trial judge's declaration of a mistrial due to a juror's premature comment about the defendant's sanity, after a careful inquiry, was supported by manifest necessity and did not violate the petitioner's Fifth Amendment double jeopardy rights.
-
A defendant's counsel can waive constitutional objections as a matter of trial strategy, and this waiver binds the defendant, even if the state court initially considered the merits of the waived claims.
-
318 F.2d 150·
4th Cir.·
1963-05-10
·cited 24×
The court held that the per curiam opinion's observations disparaging the petitioner's case were ill-advised and could prejudice the upcoming hearing.
-
The court held that the district court erred in denying a hearing on the motion to vacate sentence, as the record did not conclusively show the prisoner was entitled to no relief.
-
141 F.2d 727·
D.C. Cir.·
1944-03-30
·cited 24×
The court held that a prior adjudication of issues in a habeas corpus proceeding may be given controlling weight, even if res judicata does not strictly apply.
-
111 F.3d 801·
11th Cir.·
1997-04-18
·cited 22×
The Eleventh Circuit held that the filing fee requirements of the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 do not apply to habeas corpus proceedings under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2254 and 2255. Although habeas corpus proceedings are technically civil in nature, they are hybrid actions sui gener
-
The court held that both the Sandstrom and Jackson claims must be dismissed under Rule 9(b) as successive petitions, and the district court's denial of relief is affirmed.
-
The Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses does not guarantee a defendant the right to cross-examine into a relevant subject already broached solely to expose witness demeanor, nor does it mandate the admission of evidence routinely excluded by evidentiary rules, even if exc
-
The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the habeas petition as mixed, and that the petitioner did not knowingly and intelligently waive his right to counsel.
-
The court held that the jury instructions regarding mitigating circumstances were adequate and that the prosecutor's comments about other murders did not render the trial fundamentally unfair. The court also found that Batson v. Kentucky does not apply retroactively to collateral
-
The court held that the defendant's absence from non-critical stages of his trial was harmless error and that he deliberately bypassed his ineffective assistance of counsel claim in state court.
-
The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the habeas corpus petition, finding that the appellant's claims were procedurally defaulted and that any alleged ineffective assistance of counsel did not result in prejudice.
-
The court held that the rule of Stone v. Powell does not bar a federal habeas claim of ineffective assistance of counsel based on counsel's failure to pursue a Fourth Amendment claim. However, the court affirmed the denial of the habeas petition, finding that the trial counsel's
-
The court held that a state prisoner seeking federal habeas corpus relief is barred by a state contemporaneous objection rule if they fail to show both cause for noncompliance and actual prejudice from the alleged constitutional error.
-
The court held that issues not raised on direct appeal are cognizable in federal habeas corpus under the Fay v. Noia standard, and that the petitioner's remaining claims were without merit.
-
The court held that the petitioner's nolo contendere plea was voluntary and intelligently made, despite his claims of ineffective counsel.
-
The court held that the jury charge shifting the burden of proof to the defendant regarding the unlicensed nature of a pistol violated due process. However, the arrest and search were constitutional.
-
The court held that a voluntary guilty plea, entered with comprehension of then-existing circumstances, is generally invulnerable to collateral attack, even on constitutional grounds.
-
The court held that an inordinate and inexcusable delay in pursuing state appellate remedies may constitute a denial of due process, allowing federal habeas corpus relief.
-
The court held that excluding jurors for general objections to the death penalty violates Witherspoon v. Illinois, and that shackling a defendant throughout a trial without sufficient justification constitutes a denial of due process and a fair trial.
-
The court held that the appellant has not exhausted his state remedies because a revised post-conviction rule now provides an adequate avenue for relief.
-
The court held that the appellant had not exhausted his state court remedies, as required by 28 U.S.C. § 2254, when he filed his federal habeas corpus petition.
-
338 F.2d 48·
10th Cir.·
1964-11-12
·cited 22×
The court held that the appellant competently and understandingly waived his right to counsel, and the district court's finding of waiver was adequately supported by the record.
-
110 Fla. 283·
Fla.·
1933-05-23
·cited 22×
This case reviews a habeas corpus proceeding where the plaintiff in error was denied bail on a first-degree murder charge. The appellate court determined that the evidence did not clearly establish premeditated design, thus entitling the plaintiff in error to bail.
-
James Dailey, convicted of murder in 1987 and sentenced to death, sought permission to file a second federal habeas petition raising claims of actual innocence, Brady violations, and ineffective assistance of counsel based on newly discovered evidence. The Eleventh Circuit Court
-
A defendant's statement, "Not without my attorney. Well, ask your questions, and I will answer those I see fit," constitutes an unequivocal selective waiver of the right to counsel, allowing subsequent interrogation on topics the defendant chooses to answer.
-
The court affirmed the denial of federal habeas corpus relief, finding no violation of the defendant's constitutional rights.
-
The court held that the appellant failed to provide clear and convincing evidence of fraud on the court and did not adequately explain the failure to raise the fraud claim in a prior petition, thus affirming the dismissal of his independent action and denial of his habeas corpus
-
Where a state court denies a habeas corpus petition presenting a federal constitutional question without stating a reason, the federal court will assume the state court passed on the merits and resolved the issue against the petitioner.
-
The court held that the denial of a certificate of probable cause was proper because the petitioner failed to demonstrate that the bail amount set by the state court was arbitrary or discriminatory, thus violating federal constitutional rights.
-
The court held that the defendant's confession was voluntary and the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction, affirming the denial of federal habeas relief.