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 state prisoner has no absolute federal constitutional right to bail pending appeal, and federal courts will not review state court discretion in granting or withholding bail if state remedies have not been exhausted.
-
The court held that a federal prisoner seeking credit for pre-sentence or post-sentence imprisonment must pursue relief in the sentencing court under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, not through a declaratory judgment action.
-
A state prisoner is entitled to a federal habeas corpus hearing if the state's fact-finding procedure was inadequate, and the federal court should grant a plenary hearing on claims of mental incompetency and plea involuntariness, potentially requiring appointment of counsel.
-
The court held that a federal court should not vacate a state court conviction for ineffective counsel without the prisoner first exhausting state remedies. However, a conviction obtained when the prosecuting attorney had a conflict of interest, representing the victim in a relat
-
197 F.2d 959·
8th Cir.·
1952-07-10
·cited 18×
The court held that a motion to vacate a sentence under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 is a collateral attack, and objections to the indictment's sufficiency, if not raised at trial or on direct appeal, are waived unless the indictment is fundamentally defective.
-
173 F.2d 810·
10th Cir.·
1949-03-17
·cited 18×
The court held that the trial court's order granting a rehearing was void because it was not made within the time prescribed by Rule 59(d) for sua sponte action, and thus the original order discharging the petitioner was reinstated.
-
The court granted the certificate of probable cause to appeal, finding the issue debatable among jurists of reason, but ultimately affirmed the district court's denial of the writ, holding the state court's 'paper hearing' was adequate for § 2254(d) presumption of correctness.
-
The court held that the district court erred in applying a procedural bar to seventeen claims, which must be reconsidered on the merits, and affirmed the denial of other claims.
-
The court held that the petitioner was not guilty of deliberate delay that would support dismissal under Rule 9(a), and exhaustion of state remedies was achieved before final action by the district court.
-
Pre-trial federal habeas corpus relief is not available to adjudicate a state prisoner's speedy trial or due process claims when those issues can be resolved through pending state court proceedings.
-
The court held that the state's identification procedures did not violate due process, as the trial court's factual determination of reliability was entitled to a presumption of correctness under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).
-
770 F.2d 850·
9th Cir.·
1985-09-06
·cited 17×
The court held that a district court's failure to conduct a colloquy with a defendant before accepting a written jury trial waiver does not automatically constitute reversible error.
-
A pretrial application for a writ of prohibition to a state supreme court does not satisfy the exhaustion requirement for federal habeas corpus relief.
-
Failure to object to a coerced confession at trial, when done as a deliberate trial strategy to bypass state procedures, precludes a federal habeas corpus hearing on the confession's voluntariness, even if the trial occurred before Jackson v. Denno.
-
A federal habeas corpus petitioner must demonstrate cause and prejudice for failing to raise claims in a prior petition, or show a fundamental miscarriage of justice, to avoid dismissal for abuse of the writ.
-
The dissent argues that the majority misapplies the 'plain statement' rule from Harris v. Reed, improperly expanding federal habeas review by disregarding an adequate and independent state procedural ground.
-
The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying High's motion for Rule 60(b)(6) relief because there was no supervening change in law and the jury's erroneous perception was not of constitutional dimension.
-
The court held that the Illinois appellate court's finding of waiver was an independent and adequate basis for decision, even though it also analyzed the issue for plain error.
-
The court held that the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel was violated because he did not knowingly and intelligently waive his right to counsel and did not clearly assert his right to self-representation.
-
The court held that the introduction of 'other crimes' evidence did not deny the petitioner a fair trial, and the petitioner failed to establish sufficient cause to excuse his procedural default in challenging jury composition.
-
The court held that the petitioner's claims were procedurally barred due to failure to object at trial, and even if considered, did not demonstrate ineffective assistance of counsel or prejudice.
-
777 F.2d 175·
4th Cir.·
1985-11-19
·cited 16×
The court held that the district court's findings of fact were not clearly erroneous and its determination of dangerous special offender status was not an abuse of discretion.
-
Explicit state court reliance on a procedural default bars federal habeas review of the forfeited claim absent a showing of cause and prejudice, regardless of whether the state court also ruled on the merits.
-
The court held that jury instructions that allowed conviction for an offense not charged in the indictment violated the defendant's Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment right to notice of charges, warranting habeas corpus relief.
-
The court affirmed the denial of habeas corpus relief, holding that the petitioner's procedural failures, including the provisional nature of the trial court's ruling and the failure to make an offer of proof, precluded a constitutional review of the exclusion of character witnes
-
The court held that a prisoner's pro se civil rights complaint alleging constitutional deprivations should not be dismissed unless it appears beyond doubt that no relief can be granted.
-
The court held that the state's procedural requirements for raising a federal constitutional claim were not satisfied in a way that would bar federal habeas review, and that the appellant's trial jury was sworn after the date of Taylor v. Louisiana, making the ruling applicable.
-
574 F.2d 209·
5th Cir.·
1978-05-30
·cited 16×
The court held that the district court abused its discretion in denying the respondent's motion for relief from judgment under Rule 60(b)(6) and remanded for a full evidentiary hearing on the conflict of interest and waiver issues.
-
The court held that the Special Prosecutor did not breach the plea agreement by his conduct or recommendations, and therefore, the petitioner was not entitled to habeas corpus relief.
-
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, sitting en banc, reversed the district court's grant of a writ of habeas corpus. The majority held that the petitioner's failure to comply with the Texas contemporaneous objection rule barred federal habeas review of his claim that the prosecut
-
The appellate court held that while the petitioner was not precluded from raising his constitutional claim due to failure to object, the prosecutor's remarks, viewed in context, did not deprive the defendant of a fair trial.
-
The court held that the district court erred in failing to consider all of the petitioner's habeas corpus claims, requiring remand for further proceedings on those claims. The court affirmed the denial of relief on the involuntary confession claim.
-
The court held that the petitioner's trial counsel's failure to object to jury instructions or call certain witnesses did not render the trial fundamentally unfair or constitute a miscarriage of justice, thus not violating constitutional rights.
-
The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the habeas corpus petition on non-exhaustion grounds when new evidence warranted an evidentiary hearing and the state had previously had a chance to address the issue.
-
The court held that the appellants lacked standing to bring a class action challenging the Florida Public Defender system due to a failure to establish a case or controversy.
-
The court held that petitioners waived their claims of systematic discrimination in jury selection by failing to raise them prior to their federal habeas corpus case, as required by Alabama procedural law and federal precedent.
-
The court held that allowing jurors who sat on the first trial to sit on the second trial, after the defendant had testified and invoked the Fifth Amendment, created a likelihood of prejudice that denied the petitioner due process.
-
The federal court improperly intervened in state proceedings by granting habeas corpus relief before state remedies were exhausted, thus the order granting relief is reversed.
-
The court held that the petitioner was not required to exhaust state remedies because the state's highest court had repeatedly rejected similar claims, making further state court action futile.
-
The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's grant of habeas corpus, holding that a prior 4-4 affirmance by the Supreme Court did not preclude federal review of the due process claim and that the identification procedures were indeed violative of due process.
-
Counsel appointed to represent indigent persons on appeal must advise them of their right to appeal, inquire whether they wish to appeal, and perfect an appeal if requested, even if counsel believes the appeal to be frivolous.
-
441 F.2d 219·
9th Cir.·
1971-04-13
·cited 16×
A defendant's inculpatory statements cannot be presented to a jury unless they have been found voluntary by a separate tribunal, requiring a preliminary determination by the trial judge.
-
-
166 So. 2d 708·
Fla. 3d DCA·
1964-06-23
·cited 16×
A former husband appealed an order awarding attorney's fees to his ex-wife in a habeas corpus proceeding over child custody. The court reversed, holding that statutory authority to award attorney's fees under § 65.16, Fla.Stat. applies only to proceedings enforcing alimony or chi
-
The court held that a state prisoner's claims of insufficient evidence and an improper jury instruction on flight are not reviewable on federal habeas corpus unless they rise to the level of a constitutional violation.
-
295 F.2d 699·
7th Cir.·
1961-10-16
·cited 16×
The court held that the district court's finding that the relator's confession was voluntary was not clearly erroneous, and thus affirmed the dismissal of the habeas corpus petition.
-
A state prisoner who fails to avail himself of a state remedy for a constitutional claim, and subsequently loses the opportunity to do so, is barred from seeking federal habeas corpus relief.
-
The dissenting judge argues that the federal court should not be bound by state court findings of fact when reviewing the voluntariness of confessions, especially given coercive police tactics.
-
210 F.2d 56·
10th Cir.·
1954-01-26
·cited 16×
The court held that the Parole Board did not abuse its discretion in revoking the petitioner's conditional release based on his conviction for a misdemeanor.
-
166 F.2d 605·
7th Cir.·
1948-02-11
·cited 16×
The court held that Rule 52 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, requiring findings of fact and conclusions of law, is applicable to naturalization proceedings heard in open court.