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 State of Colorado satisfies the requirements for providing meaningful access to the courts for mental patients committed after being found not guilty by reason of insanity, by providing contract attorneys to counsel them on their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims.
-
The court held that the evidence presented was insufficient to prove a sale of marijuana by the petitioner, as mere presence and an informant placing money in the pocket does not constitute a sale.
-
678 F.2d 951·
11th Cir.·
1982-06-14
·cited 15×
The court held that a writ of prohibition is not warranted to prevent a district court from conducting an evidentiary hearing in a habeas corpus proceeding.
-
The court held that the petitioner was not denied due process regarding competency proceedings or effective assistance of counsel, and pretrial identification was permissible.
-
-
Chadwick D. Banks, under a signed death warrant, appealed the circuit court's denial of his second successive motion for postconviction relief and denial of public records requests. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed, rejecting Banks' claims of ineffective postconviction counsel,
-
The court concurs in the result but disagrees with the reasoning that Stone v. Powell does not apply when state appellate courts do not issue opinions.
-
The majority's decision departs from Supreme Court precedent by requiring a petitioner to show only a colorable showing of prejudice, rather than 'actual innocence,' to obtain federal habeas review after procedural default.
-
The court affirmed the denial of habeas corpus relief, agreeing that the issue was procedurally barred and that the venireman's exclusion was proper on the merits.
-
A state prisoner's federal habeas claim is exhausted if the substance of the claim was presented to the state courts in a manner likely to alert them to its federal nature, even if only state precedent was cited.
-
The court held that the failure to inform a defendant of the potential benefits of the Alabama Youthful Offender Act before accepting a guilty plea violates federal due process, requiring the plea to be set aside.
-
The court affirmed the denial of federal habeas corpus relief, holding that the trial court's instructions did not violate Enmund v. Florida and that the death penalty was not discriminatorily imposed.
-
The court held that the police tactics employed during the interrogation of a juvenile suspect violated his Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights, rendering his confession involuntary.
-
The court held that the State is estopped from contesting Zellers' assertion of cause for his procedural default due to systemic failures in providing due process rights. The court also found sufficient prejudice to justify a hearing.
-
750 F.2d 438·
5th Cir.·
1985-01-14
·cited 14×
A federal habeas corpus petition may be dismissed under Rule 9(a) if the state demonstrates prejudice due to the petitioner's delay in filing, and the petitioner cannot show diligence or grounds for the delay.
-
The court held that the appellant's claims were without merit and denied his application for a certificate of probable cause and leave to appeal in forma pauperis.
-
The court held that the novelty of the constitutional claim at the time of trial constituted cause for failing to raise it on appeal, and prejudice was present, thus satisfying the cause and prejudice exception to the procedural bar rule.
-
A confession obtained after a defendant invoked his right to counsel, even if readvised of his rights, is inadmissible.
-
669 F.2d 973·
5th Cir.·
1982-03-08
·cited 14×
The court held that the federal habeas review standard for a state court jury's competency verdict is whether any rational trier of fact could conclude the evidence does not predominate in favor of incompetence, viewing evidence favorably to the verdict.
-
The dissenting judge believes the majority improperly expanded federal habeas corpus powers by granting relief based on prosecutorial misconduct without a showing of actual prejudice to the defendant.
-
The court held that the district court had subject matter jurisdiction to entertain the petition and that Florida was not obligated to provide free legal counsel in this civil custody dispute.
-
The court held that procedural defaults, under state law, bar federal habeas review of the merits unless cause and prejudice are shown.
-
The court held that the district court did not err in granting summary judgment for the state on the speedy trial claim and in denying the motion for appointment of counsel.
-
The court held that the district court correctly dismissed the habeas corpus petition, affirming the denial of relief based on search and seizure claims and the admission of prior bad acts evidence.
-
A guilty plea entered with the advice of counsel, which advice was within the range of competency demanded of attorneys in criminal cases, is not subject to federal habeas corpus intervention.
-
The court affirmed the dismissal of the habeas corpus petition, finding no constitutional violations in the state court proceedings.
-
The court held that a federal habeas petition must be dismissed if the petitioner has not exhausted available state remedies for the claims raised.
-
The court held that a district court's recommendation for a federal prisoner to serve his sentence in a state facility has no legal effect and does not entitle the prisoner to credit for the period between the recommendation and actual transfer. However, a claim for credit on a s
-
A state prisoner is entitled to federal habeas relief if trial counsel failed to protect his right to appeal, without requiring a showing of prejudice or specific lost points.
-
The court held that the district judges did not err in denying habeas corpus petitions after independently reviewing the state court record, as the petitioners' counsel failed to request further proceedings or argument and the record substantiated a full and fair hearing.
-
The court held that the prisoner's constitutional rights were not violated by the admission of evidence from a warrantless car search or an in-jail statement, and that the sufficiency of evidence is not generally subject to federal habeas review.
-
The court remands the case to the trial judge for further factual exploration regarding the voluntariness of a confession.
-
The court affirmed the denial of the federal writ of habeas corpus, finding no violation of constitutional rights and sufficient evidence for conviction.
-
The court held that the district court erred in denying the petition for habeas corpus without an evidentiary hearing, as the state court's fact-finding procedure was inadequate.
-
The court held that the district court should stay proceedings pending a renewed application for relief under the new Missouri Supreme Court Rule 27.26, as the appellant may not have fully exhausted state remedies.
-
A state prisoner's knowing and intelligent decision to withdraw his appeal, even if based on counsel's advice about potential consequences, does not constitute a "deliberate bypass" of state remedies that would bar federal habeas corpus review, but failure to object at trial to i
-
The court held that the Mapp v. Ohio exclusionary rule applies to convictions that were not final at the time Mapp was decided, and that failure to object to illegally obtained evidence does not constitute a waiver of rights in habeas corpus proceedings.
-
337 F.2d 990·
6th Cir.·
1964-11-10
·cited 14×
The court held that a state prosecutor's comment on a defendant's failure to testify violates the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, which is applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.
-
165 So. 2d 213·
Fla. 2d DCA·
1964-05-22
·cited 14×
Vesta Hedges was convicted of manslaughter in the death of her lover of seven years after a struggle over his gun at her home. The Second District affirmed her conviction, rejecting six grounds for reversal including challenges to the sufficiency of evidence, prosecutorial remark
-
156 So. 2d 550·
Fla. 2d DCA·
1963-09-11
·cited 14×
In this habeas corpus appeal, the Florida District Court of Appeal reversed the discharge of Jack Ippolito, manager of a supermarket operating a promotional 'Good-Will Cash Night' drawing, holding that the scheme constituted an illegal lottery under Florida law. The court adopted
-
The court held that Noia did not waive his constitutional right against conviction based on a coerced confession, and that his failure to appeal did not preclude federal habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 because state remedies were ineffective.
-
The relator has not exhausted his state remedies as required by 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254, as he failed to properly present his federal claim to the state courts through an available and appropriate procedure.
-
73 Fla. 889·
Fla.·
1917-04-19
·cited 14×
W. B. Douglass challenges a municipal court conviction and sentence via habeas corpus. The Florida Supreme Court affirms the Circuit Court's order remanding Douglass to custody for proper sentencing by the Mayor, holding that despite procedural defects in the original sentence, t
-
Sentencing a defendant under a habitual offender statute that was not in effect at the time of the offense and by its own terms does not apply to the defendant violates the ex post facto clause of the Constitution, denying due process.
-
The court held that the petitioner forfeited federal habeas review of three of his four claims because he failed to present a federal constitutional claim in the state courts, and the remaining claim regarding a continuance for pre-trial publicity was properly denied on the merit
-
A state prisoner is presumed to have exhausted state remedies when the state's highest court denies a hearing without citation or comment, even if the state court has expressed a preference for habeas corpus review of certain claims.
-
A guilty plea is invalid if the defendant is not informed of the maximum possible sentence, as this violates due process.
-
The court held that a petitioner's failure to object to evidence at trial does not preclude federal habeas corpus relief if the evidence was admissible under the law at the time of trial and the state courts have passed on the merits of the constitutional claim.
-
The court held that the petitioner's Sixth Amendment claim was a reargument of a previously decided Eighth Amendment claim and thus barred as a successive petition. The court denied the certificate of probable cause and dismissed the petition.
-
The dissenting judge argues that the majority erred in finding ineffective assistance of counsel and in ordering resentencing to life imprisonment.