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
-
State evidentiary rulings, even if erroneous, do not constitute constitutional error cognizable in federal habeas corpus proceedings.
-
The court reversed the district court's decision, finding that the District Director improperly relied on a Regional Commissioner's finding under summary exclusion procedures to deny asylum.
-
402 So. 2d 1284·
Fla. 4th DCA·
1981-08-12
·cited 3×
Florida appellate court affirmed trial court's grant of habeas corpus relief to father, holding that an Alabama court had jurisdiction to enter a temporary child custody order.
-
610 F.2d 296·
5th Cir.·
1980-01-23
·cited 3×
The court held that the petitioner's trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to object to the petitioner being shackled during trial, as the decision to shackle was a reasonable exercise of the trial court's discretion based on evidence of the petitioner's violent propensit
-
-
389 F.2d 769·
10th Cir.·
1968-02-08
·cited 3×
The court held that aggregation of successive sentences is improper for determining parole eligibility under the 1966 amendment, but the right to parole consideration does not entitle the prisoner to habeas corpus relief.
-
Ruffie Lundon petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus to prevent his execution by electrocution under a 1941 Florida statute. The Florida Supreme Court denied the petition, holding that the statute was constitutional and that issues previously determined at trial cannot be relitig
-
The Florida Supreme Court quashed a rule nisi in prohibition, holding that a circuit court has the power to find a party in contempt, even if that finding is erroneous and subject to review by habeas corpus. The court found that prohibition was not the proper remedy to challenge
-
The court reviewed a contempt conviction based on allegations that J. Ed Stokes attempted to bribe a grand jury foreman. The court found the evidence insufficient to support the contempt charge and ordered Stokes's discharge unless legally sufficient evidence was presented.
-
This case concerns a father's right to custody of his children after being declared sane and restored to liberty. The court found that a prior ruling on the fitness of a guardian for the children did not definitively settle the father's right to custody.
-
Perry Acree sought habeas corpus discharge from a murder conviction, arguing the grand jury that indicted him was improperly recalled after the court term had adjourned. The Florida Supreme Court rejected this challenge, holding that the court's recess (not adjournment sine die)
-
15 So. 3d 782·
Fla. 1st DCA·
2009-07-17
·cited 2×
A juvenile challenges his secure detention based on a risk assessment instrument (RAI) that allegedly "double-scored" him for firearm possession—counting it once in the offense category and again as a separate aggravating circumstance. The court granted habeas corpus relief, find
-
987 So. 2d 140·
Fla. 5th DCA·
2008-07-11
·cited 2×
R.L. sought habeas corpus relief alleging that Park Place Behavioral Health Care improperly administered medications without authorization by misusing Emergency Treatment Orders. The trial court denied the petition, and the appellate court affirmed, holding that R.L. failed to pr
-
The appellate court denied a petition for habeas corpus relief, finding that while the petitioner may have identified an omission by his appellate counsel, he failed to demonstrate how this omission undermined confidence in the outcome of the appeal. The court emphasized that con
-
The appellate court held that the trial court abused its discretion by denying a bond reduction based on the nature of the offense rather than legally relevant factors, effectively denying bail.
-
858 So. 2d 1230·
Fla. 1st DCA·
2003-11-13
·cited 2×
Two juveniles committed to moderate-risk residential programs by the Department of Juvenile Justice sought habeas corpus relief because they were not placed in residential programs within five days of commitment, as required by Florida law. The court granted the petition as to J.
-
711 So. 2d 134·
Fla. 5th DCA·
1998-05-01
·cited 2×
The court held that a pro se defendant's confusion about filing a notice of appeal is not a valid ground for a belated appeal, as the responsibility lies with the defendant.
-
696 So. 2d 506·
Fla. 3d DCA·
1997-07-03
·cited 2×
Florida appellate court affirmed habeas corpus relief for mother jailed for civil contempt of violating custody orders, holding that the act of state doctrine and the father's absence from Florida rendered compliance with the purge condition impossible.
-
The admission of videotaped depositions of witnesses without a sufficient showing of their unavailability violated the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause, requiring reversal of the conviction.
-
Federal civil courts should not grant habeas corpus relief if military courts have given the petitioner's claims full and fair consideration.
-
The court held that the California Supreme Court's interpretation of sentencing statutes, excluding a quantity enhancement from the double-base-term limitation, was not a violation of due process or the Ex Post Facto Clause.
-
992 F.2d 39·
4th Cir.·
1993-04-16
·cited 2×
The failure of a criminal defense attorney to file a requested notice of appeal constitutes a deprivation of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel, regardless of the potential merit of the lost appeal.
-
990 F.2d 1070·
8th Cir.·
1993-04-13
·cited 2×
The court held that the appellant's claims regarding jury selection, admission of photographs, and his confession were without merit and affirmed the dismissal of his habeas corpus petition.
-
987 F.2d 536·
8th Cir.·
1993-03-04
·cited 2×
The court held that the jury instructions adequately conveyed the substance of the buyer-seller relationship issue, and therefore, there was no reasonable probability of a different trial outcome had the requested instruction been given.
-
982 F.2d 1483·
10th Cir.·
1993-01-06
·cited 2×
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction despite exculpatory blood test results, and the victim's identification, though from a suggestive procedure, was reliable enough to not violate due process.
-
980 F.2d 292·
5th Cir.·
1992-12-15
·cited 2×
The court held that Jernigan failed to demonstrate that any errors by his counsel or the trial judge prejudiced his trial, and thus he is not entitled to habeas relief.
-
The court held that the district court erred by granting habeas relief without first determining if the claims were barred by procedural default, and that the petitioner failed to demonstrate cause for the defaults.
-
977 F.2d 475·
9th Cir.·
1992-10-07
·cited 2×
The court held that the prisoner waived his right to be present at sentencing by impeding efforts to procure his presence and failing to exhaust remedies under the Interstate Agreement on Detainers (IAD).
-
975 F.2d 931·
1st Cir.·
1992-09-23
·cited 2×
The court affirmed the dismissal of the habeas corpus petition, holding that the petitioner failed to establish a prima facie case of racial discrimination in the prosecutor's use of peremptory challenges.
-
The court denied the motion for a certificate of probable cause and the motion for a stay of execution.
-
973 F.2d 655·
8th Cir.·
1992-08-25
·cited 2×
The court held that the district court did not err in denying petitioner's request for an evidentiary hearing or in denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus, as the issues could be resolved on the state court record and petitioner failed to demonstrate ineffective assista
-
The court held that Miranda failed to exhaust available state remedies by not fairly presenting his federal constitutional claims to the state courts, and his claims lack merit.
-
961 F.2d 514·
5th Cir.·
1992-05-12
·cited 2×
The court denied the motion for appointment of counsel, finding that the issues, while complex, were sufficiently addressed by existing circuit precedent and legal scholarship to not require additional attorney assistance.
-
963 F.2d 1306·
9th Cir.·
1992-05-11
·cited 2×
The court held that the application of Nev.Rev.Stat. § 484.381(1) as a mandatory conclusive presumption violated the petitioner's due process right to have the state prove every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.
-
958 F.2d 793·
7th Cir.·
1992-04-01
·cited 2×
The court held that the petitioner failed to demonstrate ineffective assistance of counsel or that newly discovered evidence warranted a new trial, thus denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
-
958 F.2d 826·
8th Cir.·
1992-03-11
·cited 2×
The court held that counsel's failure to secure a stipulation for polygraph results was not ineffective assistance because Arkansas law requires written stipulations and an objection would have been futile.
-
The court held that the trial court's failure to instruct the jury on self-defense and defense of others did not violate the defendant's constitutional rights because the defendant did not present evidence of an imminent threat as required by Indiana law.
-
957 F.2d 537·
8th Cir.·
1992-02-21
·cited 2×
The court held that trial counsel's strategic decision to focus on justification rather than diminished capacity was reasonable, and the evidence was sufficient to support a first-degree murder conviction.
-
A district court has jurisdiction to stay the execution of a state prisoner to appoint counsel to assist in preparing a federal habeas corpus petition.
-
The court held that the appellant's federal habeas claims were procedurally defaulted because they were not presented to the state courts in a timely or procedurally correct manner, and the appellant failed to demonstrate cause for the default or actual innocence.
-
The court should have reviewed the Parole Commission's decision for abuse of discretion, and Wright's due process rights were violated.
-
The court held that the appellant's counsel was not ineffective for failing to seek a new trial because the jury's verdict was a valid compromise and would not have been overturned.
-
The use of a security courtroom, absent actual prejudice, is not inherently prejudicial and does not violate a defendant's right to a fair trial.
-
The Court of Appeals held that the Cruz rule regarding the admission of codefendant confessions in joint trials should be applied retroactively, but that the admission of the codefendant's confession in this case was harmless error given the strength of the other evidence.
-
943 F.2d 463·
4th Cir.·
1991-08-26
·cited 2×
The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the habeas corpus petition, finding no error in the conviction or sentencing.
-
The court should have allowed the jury to hear a third-party confession that was reliable, despite hearsay rules, to assist in separating the guilty from the innocent.
-
930 F.2d 1246·
7th Cir.·
1991-04-26
·cited 2×
The dissenting judge would vacate the guilty plea due to deficiencies in the plea-taking procedure and the government's failure to fulfill its commitment regarding the return of cows.
-
929 F.2d 560·
10th Cir.·
1991-04-01
·cited 2×
A civil forfeiture proceeding is a collateral consequence of a guilty plea and does not need to be included in a plea agreement for the plea to be considered knowing and voluntary.
-
A habeas petition is not successive under Rule 9(b) if changed circumstances or new legal grounds, not previously considered on the merits, alter the case's landscape.
-
The admission of a non-testifying codefendant's incriminating statements at a joint trial violates the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause, even if the statements interlock, if they are not substantially the same and consistent on the major elements of the crime.