452 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 1,220 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort
-
The Florida Supreme Court resolved a conflict between two district courts regarding whether a contemporaneous objection is required to preserve an improper comment on a defendant's right to remain silent as an issue on appeal. The Court held that a timely objection at trial is ne
-
The Court's opinion, which the concurring justice joins, holds that the prosecution must prove every element of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt, but this does not conflict with the principle that a defendant may bear the burden of proving an affirmative defense like insanity.
-
1993 WL 259424·
S.D. Fla.·
1993-07-09
·cited 343×
The court held that the magistrate had jurisdiction, the charged offenses were within the extradition treaty, and there was sufficient evidence to support a finding of probable cause for extradition.
-
The court holds that while generally mixed habeas petitions should be dismissed, district judges may address exhausted grounds when fundamental rights are at stake, and such decisions will be reviewed on the merits.
-
828 F.3d 1277·
11th Cir.·
2016-07-12
·cited 197×
Johnny Marshall appealed the denial of his habeas corpus petition challenging his Florida armed robbery conviction, arguing that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance under Strickland v. Washington by failing to move to suppress an eyewitness identification obtained d
-
The concurrence agrees with the majority that the Georgia Superior Court's application of the Brecht harmless-error standard, rather than the Chapman standard, on state collateral review is irrelevant to federal habeas relief under AEDPA. The concurrence emphasizes that AEDPA req
-
The court held that the district court erred in applying the outcome-determinative test for prejudice in a habeas corpus claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. It established a new standard for prejudice, requiring proof that the omitted mitigating evidence would have "subst
-
The court held that a federal court should not grant habeas corpus relief if state remedies have not been exhausted, meaning the federal constitutional claim must have been presented to the state courts.
-
753 F.2d 877·
11th Cir.·
1985-01-29
·cited 125×
-
952 F.2d 1567·
11th Cir.·
1992-01-27
·cited 121×
Durham Stokes was convicted of two murders and sentenced to death after confessing to police officers immediately following his initial court appearance, where counsel had been appointed. The Eleventh Circuit reversed and remanded for an evidentiary hearing, finding that the stat
-
519 F.2d 184·
5th Cir.·
1975-09-10
·cited 120×
The court held that federal courts have a limited scope of review for court-martial convictions, requiring claims to be of substantial constitutional dimension or fundamental legal error, and that the military courts had fairly considered Calley's claims.
-
The court held that shackling a defendant at the sentencing phase of a bifurcated state trial, under specific circumstances including the defendant's status as a convicted violent felon and the absence of a defense request for a hearing, does not violate the Constitution.
-
Willie James Pye, convicted of murder, kidnapping, rape, and robbery, challenged his death sentence on federal habeas review, arguing that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance during sentencing by failing to investigate and present mitigating evidence of his difficul
-
The court held that the petitioner failed to allege sufficient facts to warrant an evidentiary hearing on claims of ineffective assistance of counsel due to tactical decisions and potential conflict of interest.
-
The court held that prosecutorial arguments implying the defendant sold heroin, when he was only convicted of possession, were so inflammatory and prejudicial as to violate due process, even with curative instructions.
-
39 Fla. 734·
Fla.·
1897-06-01
·cited 104×
The Florida Supreme Court reversed a lower court's decision to remand a petitioner to custody, finding that the petitioner's actions did not violate the statute under which he was charged. The court emphasized strict construction of penal statutes and found the petitioner's act o
-
-
Federal courts cannot grant habeas relief for issues solely based on state law, even if framed as federal constitutional claims.
-
The court held that the state court's finding that the suggestive station-house identification did not taint the subsequent in-court identification was supported by the record and binding on federal habeas review.
-
Luther McKiver appealed his federal habeas petition challenging his Florida drug trafficking conviction, arguing that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate and present witnesses regarding the victim's drug-dealing history and for failing to investigate the
-
-
The court's holding is not explicitly stated in this concurring and dissenting opinion, but it addresses the application of waiver rules to habeas corpus claims.
-
William Lee Thompson appealed his death sentence imposed after remand for resentencing in a 1976 kidnapping-murder case. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the death penalty, finding harmless error regarding the admission of autopsy photographs and the use of the 'cold, calculate
-
The court held that a judge's conversation with a defendant about a guilty plea, even if potentially coercive, does not automatically constitute a denial of due process; the specific content and effect must be considered. The 'unless clearly erroneous' rule applies to factual inf
-
The dissenting judge concluded that the Florida Supreme Court's decision denying federal habeas relief was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts and an unreasonable application of federal law. Therefore, the defendant is entitled to federal habeas relief.
-
653 F.2d 942·
5th Cir.·
1981-08-14
·cited 90×
The court held that the district court did not err in denying an evidentiary hearing and in finding that the appellant's trial counsel was effective, and that the jury instructions, while irregular, did not render the trial fundamentally unfair.
-
737 F.2d 1539·
11th Cir.·
1984-08-03
·cited 87×
The court held that while the state trial court erred in excluding Dr. Rodriguez's testimony regarding the defendant's prior mental health issues, this error was not of constitutional magnitude and did not violate fundamental fairness.
-
The Sixth Circuit held that the District Court erred in granting habeas corpus relief by independently assessing 'plain error' instead of deferring to the state court's application of its contemporaneous objection rule, absent a showing of cause and prejudice.
-
The court denied a petition for rehearing en banc.
-
-
The district court erred in dismissing petitioner's second federal habeas corpus petition as a successive petition constituting an 'abuse of the writ'.
-
Curtis Windom challenges his conviction for three counts of first-degree murder and death sentence by appealing the denial of post-conviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 and filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus. The Florida Supreme Court affirms t
-
A federal court is precluded from considering a state prisoner's Fourth Amendment claims on habeas corpus if the state provided an opportunity for full and fair litigation of those claims, even if the state court resolved the claim on procedural grounds.
-
The court held that the appellant's confession was voluntary and admissible, and that his claims of ineffective assistance of counsel were without merit.
-
714 F.2d 365·
5th Cir.·
1983-08-26
·cited 75×
The Fifth Circuit should apply the same standard of review in Witherspoon cases as in other habeas corpus matters, giving deference to state court factual findings unless clearly erroneous, and remanding for evidentiary hearings when the record is unclear.
-
The court held that the cause and prejudice standard from Wainwright v. Sykes applies to claims barred by a state's successive petition rule, and the petitioner bears the burden of proving cause and prejudice.
-
The court held that a defendant may waive their right to be present at critical stages of a capital trial, and the specific circumstances of the defendant's absence during voir dire require further inquiry into knowing and voluntary waiver.
-
777 F.2d 630·
11th Cir.·
1985-11-19
·cited 71×
The dissenting judge held that the petitioner was denied effective assistance of counsel because his counsel's lack of preparation and trial errors prejudiced him, creating a reasonable probability of a different outcome.
-
The court held that the appellate court cannot discard a district judge's inferences, which are part of the findings of fact. The court also discussed the evolving doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies in prisoner § 1983 cases.
-
William Earl Sweet, convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death for a 1990 shooting that killed one person and wounded three others, appealed the dismissal of his federal habeas petition as untimely under the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA). Swe
-
Marvin Edwin Johnson, a Florida death row inmate, appealed the district court's denial of his second federal habeas corpus petition challenging his death sentence for a 1978 pharmacy robbery and murder. The panel majority had concluded Johnson was entitled to an evidentiary heari
-
The dissent argues that under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2241 and controlling precedent like Ahrens v. Clark, habeas corpus jurisdiction is limited to the district where the petitioner is physically present and in custody.
-
The court held that a federal civil rights action for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 cannot be used to relitigate the voluntariness of a guilty plea that has already been affirmed on direct appeal and denied on collateral attack in state court. The exhaustion requirement of 28 U.
-
A state prisoner is not required to pursue state remedies if Georgia law is settled against post-conviction review of newly raised constitutional claims.
-
The court held that the exclusion of evidence of the decedent's prior armed robbery conviction and the prosecutor's improper closing argument did not rise to the level of constitutional error warranting federal habeas corpus relief.
-
The court held that the state court's construction of California Penal Code sections did not deprive appellants of federal rights, and that the district court did not err in denying relief on most grounds, but must remand for a hearing on the accuracy of transcribed statements us
-
766 F.2d 1478·
11th Cir.·
1985-07-11
·cited 63×
The court held that the Attorney General's suspension of parole releases under the Status Review Plan was based on a facially legitimate and bona fide reason, and that the district court lacked jurisdiction to set aside exclusion orders for the entire class without individual exh
-
-
811 F.2d 1008·
7th Cir.·
1987-01-28
·cited 62×
The court held that the petitioner failed to meet his burden of proving prejudice from counsel's alleged ineffectiveness because he did not sufficiently demonstrate what favorable evidence the uncalled witnesses would have provided.
-
The court held that the petitioner's contentions regarding the Enmund issues, denial of an evidentiary hearing, and evidentiary error at the sentencing hearing did not warrant federal habeas relief.