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
-
938 F.2d 1062·
10th Cir.·
1991-06-17
·cited 12×
The court modified its previous order to delete the requirement that two specific cases be consolidated, but reaffirmed its prior opinion regarding the investigation of constitutional allegations concerning the provision of appellate counsel to indigent defendants.
-
The court held that the defendant received ineffective assistance of counsel during the sentencing phase of his capital trial due to counsel's failure to present available mitigating evidence.
-
The court held that the victim's in-court identification was reliable, evidence of other crimes was properly admitted, the speedy trial claim was procedurally barred, and counsel was not ineffective.
-
The court held that excluding a co-defendant's confession that exculpated the defendant, solely on the grounds of hearsay and the declarant's unavailability for cross-examination, violated the defendant's due process rights.
-
A federal habeas court cannot grant relief based solely on newly discovered evidence that is relevant only to the guilt or innocence of a state prisoner.
-
934 F.2d 991·
9th Cir.·
1990-06-20
·cited 12×
The dissent argues that the INS regulations unconstitutionally deprive detained alien minors of their liberty, as the majority erred in applying a deferential standard of review and narrowly defining the constitutional right at stake.
-
A federal prisoner is not entitled to credit against their sentence for time spent on bail prior to conviction and sentencing.
-
The court should remand the case to the district court for reconsideration of the ineffective assistance of counsel claim, as the district court failed to review the state record to determine if the claim was fairly presented.
-
847 F.2d 1118·
4th Cir.·
1988-06-03
·cited 12×
The court, in a concurring opinion, expresses doubt about the plaintiffs' standing to prosecute their case due to the consistent provision of counsel in state post-conviction proceedings.
-
826 F.2d 967·
10th Cir.·
1987-08-19
·cited 12×
The court held that habeas corpus actions arising from criminal confinement are not 'civil actions' within the meaning of the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), and thus attorney's fees cannot be awarded under it.
-
The court held that the Sentencing Reform Act's amendments do not apply retroactively to the petitioner's sentence and that the Act's provisions for parole determination are not yet effective for him.
-
The court held that a federal court must deny habeas relief due to procedural default, even if the state court considered the merits of the claim, absent a showing of cause and prejudice.
-
The court held that while some prosecutorial remarks were improper, they did not render the trial so fundamentally unfair as to deny due process, and thus habeas corpus relief was not warranted.
-
Inordinate delay by the state in processing post-conviction relief can excuse the federal habeas corpus exhaustion requirement.
-
The court held that the appellant's civil rights claims were time-barred by the applicable one-year statute of limitations and that county prosecutors were absolutely immune from suit.
-
797 F.2d 108·
2d Cir.·
1986-08-11
·cited 12×
The court held that an order dismissing some but not all claims in a habeas corpus petition is not a final order and thus not immediately appealable.
-
The court held that the district court correctly denied federal habeas corpus relief on Fourth and Fifth Amendment claims and that the prosecutor's remarks did not render the trial fundamentally unfair.
-
The court held that the case must be remanded for an evidentiary hearing to determine if the petitioner had sufficient cause to overcome a procedural default in challenging jury composition.
-
The evidence presented at trial was sufficient to sustain the defendant's murder conviction, and therefore a writ of habeas corpus should not issue.
-
The court affirmed the dismissal of the habeas corpus petition, finding that the Fourth Amendment claim was barred by Stone v. Powell and the Sixth Amendment claim lacked merit because a motion to suppress would have failed.
-
The Supreme Court's Doyle rule, prohibiting impeachment by post-Miranda silence, applies to cases on direct review when Doyle was decided.
-
The court held that the petitioner was not subjected to double jeopardy and affirmed the denial of his habeas corpus petition.
-
The court held that it lacks jurisdiction to hear an appeal from a federal habeas corpus petition dismissal without a certificate of probable cause and will remand for the district court to consider granting one.
-
A state prisoner has exhausted state remedies for federal habeas corpus purposes when the federal claim has been fairly presented to the highest state court, even if that court did not explicitly address the claim in its opinion.
-
-
The court held that the jury instruction on 'depraved mind' in a second-degree murder case, while potentially subject to improvement, did not render the trial fundamentally unfair or violate constitutional rights.
-
The court held that while the petitioner had exhausted state remedies, his Fourth Amendment claim could not be granted on federal habeas review because the state courts provided a full and fair opportunity to litigate the claim, as required by Stone v. Powell.
-
Federal habeas corpus relief is not available for Fourth Amendment claims if the state provided a full and fair opportunity to litigate them.
-
A person fined by a state court is not considered "in custody" for federal habeas corpus purposes unless confinement is imminent or actual.
-
The court held that the appellant failed to establish reversible error in the acceptance of his guilty plea or denial of effective assistance of counsel.
-
The court held that the state court failed to afford the appellant a full and fair evidentiary hearing on his claim of unconstitutional jury exclusion.
-
457 F.2d 1223·
10th Cir.·
1972-03-24
·cited 12×
The court held that the ruling in O'Callahan v. Parker, which limited military court jurisdiction to service-connected offenses, should not be applied retroactively to convictions that became final before O'Callahan was decided.
-
The court held that the district court correctly dismissed the petition for habeas corpus relief, affirming the denial of all five arguments presented by the petitioner.
-
A federal habeas corpus petitioner who has had claims considered by the highest state court on direct appeal has exhausted state remedies and is not required to present claims again in a collateral proceeding.
-
The court held that the district court erred in rejecting the ineffective assistance of counsel claim based solely on the consistency of defenses, and that the issue requires further examination.
-
The court held that a general allegation of a coerced guilty plea is insufficient to warrant federal habeas relief without specific factual allegations and exhaustion of state remedies.
-
The court held that the petitioner's confession was voluntary and admissible, affirming the denial of his habeas corpus petition.
-
The court held that the petitioner's confessions were voluntary and that he received a full and fair hearing in the state courts, thus affirming the denial of his federal habeas corpus petition.
-
-
The court held that the right to challenge a search warrant under Aguilar v. Texas was not knowingly waived in this case.
-
The court held that charging a state prisoner with a more serious felony after he successfully obtained a federal writ of habeas corpus for misdemeanor convictions, solely to make appointed counsel available, impermissibly burdens the right to seek habeas relief.
-
-
Discovery interrogatories are not authorized in federal habeas corpus proceedings under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or 28 U.S.C. § 2246.
-
A state prisoner must exhaust available state remedies before seeking federal habeas corpus relief, and the mere possibility of an unfavorable outcome in state court does not render the remedy inadequate.
-
368 F.2d 645·
3d Cir.·
1966-10-28
·cited 12×
The court held that the district court did not err in denying the motion to vacate the sentence without a hearing because the record conclusively showed the prisoner was entitled to no relief.
-
326 F.2d 594·
8th Cir.·
1964-01-24
·cited 12×
The court held that the district court's findings were not clearly erroneous and affirmed the denial of the motion to vacate sentence.
-
160 Fla. 744·
Fla.·
1948-07-30
·cited 12×
The Florida Supreme Court reversed a trial court's quashing of an information charging Gene Nelson as a second offender for sentencing purposes. The Court held that a prosecutor may file a second offender information after a defendant serves a sentence imposed without proper cons
-
144 F.2d 927·
9th Cir.·
1944-06-26
·cited 12×
The court held that there was some evidence to sustain the administrative charges, which is sufficient for review.
-
114 Fla. 374·
Fla.·
1934-03-27
·cited 12×
This case concerns whether an accessory before the fact can be sentenced before the principal offender. The court held that while the conviction of the accessory is permissible, sentencing must await the principal's sentencing.
-
The court held that the state trial judge's refusal to give a mitigating circumstance instruction, despite the lack of supporting evidence, violated the Eighth Amendment as explained in Lockett.