565 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 717 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort
-
The court held that the Parole Commission did not impermissibly "double-count" factors by using the same facts to determine offense severity and to justify a parole decision outside the guidelines, as the factors were related but distinct.
-
An interlocutory order denying a motion for appointment of counsel in a habeas corpus proceeding is not an appealable final decision under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
-
The court affirmed the denial of the habeas corpus petition, finding no constitutional error in the petitioner's conviction. Claims regarding illegal arrest evidence, prosecutorial misconduct, jury instructions, and the presumptive intent instruction were all rejected.
-
703 F.2d 978·
6th Cir.·
1983-04-07
·cited 10×
The court held that the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel was not violated by his trial attorney's actions or inactions.
-
The court held that consecutive sentences for RICO and predicate drug offenses do not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause when Congress intends to authorize multiple punishments, and that the government sufficiently proved the existence of a RICO enterprise.
-
694 F.2d 98·
5th Cir.·
1982-12-20
·cited 10×
The court held that a federal court cannot review a state court's application of Fourth Amendment principles in habeas proceedings unless the petitioner was denied a full and fair opportunity to litigate the claim. Furthermore, withholding cumulative evidence from the jury does n
-
The court concurred in the result because the petitioner is serving a life sentence without parole, rendering prior convictions irrelevant to collateral consequences.
-
Federal habeas relief is available when a state court's application of a procedural rule, even if facially adequate, frustrates a defendant's opportunity to fully litigate a Fourth Amendment claim.
-
The court held that the petitioner had exhausted state remedies for direct appeal issues and affirmed the dismissal of ineffective assistance of counsel and jury selection claims.
-
The court held that the district court erred by failing to conduct a de novo determination of the magistrate's report, as required by the Federal Magistrate's Act, before issuing a writ of habeas corpus.
-
The dissenting judge would affirm the denial of the habeas corpus petition, finding that the majority improperly conducted a de novo review of the evidence.
-
642 F.2d 161·
5th Cir.·
1981-04-10
·cited 10×
The court held that the Georgia trial court's jury instruction on self-defense unconstitutionally shifted the burden of persuasion to the defendant and that this shift was not harmless error.
-
The dissenting judges believe the en banc court should have reversed the district court's judgment based on Supreme Court precedent.
-
The court affirmed a landlord's non-liability for a tenant's injuries resulting from a defective condition on the leased premises, adhering to the common law rule of caveat lessee in the absence of statutory modification.
-
629 F.2d 1036·
5th Cir.·
1980-11-03
·cited 10×
-
615 F.2d 722·
6th Cir.·
1980-02-22
·cited 10×
The dissenting judge would have remanded the case for a determination of prejudice to the defendant's right to a fair trial.
-
The court held that Ohio's contemporaneous objection rule could not be used to deny the retroactive benefit of the Robinson decision, as doing so violated due process.
-
The court held that a state prisoner cannot obtain federal habeas corpus relief on Fourth Amendment claims if they were given a full and fair opportunity to litigate those claims in state court. Additionally, a volunteered statement made before Miranda warnings is admissible.
-
A guilty plea is not rendered involuntary by the failure to advise a defendant of potential parole eligibility, as this is not a direct consequence of the plea.
-
523 F.2d 807·
3d Cir.·
1975-10-02
·cited 10×
Joint representation of co-defendants with conflicting interests, without a waiver, constitutes a deprivation of the Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel.
-
The dissenting judge believes the state appellate court's thorough review compensated for any deficiencies in appointed counsel's brief, thus satisfying the Anders standard and obviating the need for further state proceedings.
-
510 F.2d 1126·
3d Cir.·
1975-02-10
·cited 10×
The court held that the state court's resentencing procedure did not violate due process, and therefore, federal intervention via habeas corpus was unwarranted.
-
503 F.2d 38·
10th Cir.·
1974-09-10
·cited 10×
The court held that appellants were entitled to no relief because they failed to demonstrate any adverse disposition from their disciplinary proceedings or any harm resulting from alleged procedural due process violations. The court also affirmed that the Fifth Amendment privileg
-
The court held that the determination of whether counsel is required for a parolee at a revocation hearing must be made by the state parole authority on a case-by-case basis, exercising sound discretion according to Supreme Court guidelines.
-
A district judge must personally inspect allegedly obscene material when deciding a habeas corpus petition, and cannot solely rely on a magistrate's recommendation.
-
474 F.2d 1114·
10th Cir.·
1973-03-16
·cited 10×
The court held that where a habeas petitioner alleges coercion in his guilty plea, the federal court must conduct an inquiry to determine if the state court adequately ascertained the plea's voluntariness, even if a written form exists.
-
The court held that the appellant failed to demonstrate a basis for ordering an evidentiary hearing on his alleged deprivation of federal constitutional rights regarding the right to appeal from a guilty plea.
-
The court held that the district court correctly denied jurisdiction because the registrant's induction order was not a 'blatantly lawless' action or a 'clear departure from its statutory mandate'.
-
424 F.2d 299·
5th Cir.·
1970-04-07
·cited 10×
The court held that an applicant for conscientious objector discharge does not need to appeal to the Board for Correction of Military Records if no court-martial is pending, and that the Army's denial of discharge based on a lack of substantial change in religious beliefs subsequ
-
Incriminating statements made by a defendant to a fellow inmate, who is not acting as an agent of the police and is not instructed by them, are admissible even if made after indictment and in the absence of counsel.
-
The court held that while an indigent patient and their counsel may be entitled to psychiatric assistance in preparing for an adversarial hearing, the record did not demonstrate a denial of such assistance in this specific case.
-
The court held that a trial judge has discretion to allow a late response to requests for admissions, relieving a party of default, and that illegally obtained evidence does not automatically invalidate a guilty plea unless it induced the plea.
-
The court denied the motion for rehearing, holding that a prior state sanity hearing met the requirements of Townsend v. Sain, and no further federal hearing was required.
-
Willie Thomas Smith was convicted of breaking and entering and grand larceny after a bench trial. He filed a petition to vacate claiming deprivation of a fair trial but alleged only legal conclusions without factual support. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's summary
-
The court held that the relator failed to make a clear and convincing showing that the denial of bail was without reasonable foundation.
-
A unanimous vote is not required for conviction of an offense where the death penalty is permissive but not mandatory under the Articles of War.
-
This case concerns whether operating a passenger automobile for compensation on public highways, even for a single trip, constitutes a violation of Florida's motor vehicle transportation laws. The court reversed a lower court's discharge of a defendant, finding that the facts pre
-
The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a lower court's decision to quash a writ of habeas corpus, holding that a challenge to the statute of limitations on a criminal charge is a matter for trial, not habeas corpus.
-
The Florida Supreme Court reversed a habeas corpus decision and ordered discharge of M. Garvey, who was charged under Chapter 8401, Acts of 1921 (the worthless check statute). The court found the information charging Garvey with passing a worthless check was legally insufficient
-
64 F.4th 1264·
11th Cir.·
2023-04-11
·cited 9×
The court affirmed the denial of the habeas petition, finding no Brady violation and that any deficient performance by trial counsel was not prejudicial.
-
36 So. 3d 883·
Fla. 2d DCA·
2010-06-04
·cited 9×
The appellate court affirmed the denial of a motion to vacate convictions but reversed the denial of a motion to vacate sentences, finding that the sentencing procedure for mentally disordered sex offenders was not followed.
-
916 So. 2d 946·
Fla. 3d DCA·
2005-12-02
·cited 9×
Roberto Camara sought habeas corpus relief challenging his $5,000,000 bond set in a first-degree murder case. The court granted the petition and remanded for a full evidentiary hearing on Camara's financial resources, finding the bond hearing was insufficient because no testimony
-
938 F.2d 120·
8th Cir.·
1991-07-08
·cited 9×
The court held that erroneous advice regarding parole eligibility can constitute ineffective assistance of counsel, and the defendant was prejudiced by such advice.
-
The court held that the district court did not err in refusing an entrapment instruction, that the jury instructions for mail fraud were adequate, and that the bribery counts were properly brought under 18 U.S.C. § 666 without requiring tracing of federal funds.
-
The court held that the Parole Commission's forfeiture of Munguia's street time was mandatory under statute, and therefore, the lack of prehearing notice of this specific penalty did not violate his due process rights.
-
The court held that the petitioner is entitled to resentencing because the jury was improperly instructed to consider only statutory mitigating factors, violating the Eighth Amendment.
-
The court, bound by habeas corpus rules, could not find the Indiana Supreme Court's findings clearly wrong, despite doubts about the identification evidence.
-
The court affirmed the denial of the habeas petition, finding that the petitioner failed to establish a constitutional right to a newsman's privilege and that the petition improperly sought review of state court substantive decisions.
-
767 F.2d 752·
11th Cir.·
1985-07-23
·cited 9×
The court holds that a juror's opposition to the death penalty does not automatically disqualify them if they can still apply the law impartially.
-
The court held that the arrest warrant complied with the extradition treaty, even if it did not list all extraditable offenses.