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 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
-
344 F.2d 937·
10th Cir.·
1965-05-03
·cited 14×
The court held that civil courts' review of military convictions via habeas corpus is limited to jurisdiction and lawful power, not re-evaluation of evidence or procedural errors outside that scope.
-
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.
-
326 F.2d 982·
Ct. Cl.·
1964-01-24
·cited 14×
The court held that retired members of the armed forces entitled to pay are subject to court-martial jurisdiction under UCMJ Article 2(4), and that such jurisdiction is constitutional.
-
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.
-
249 F.2d 232·
10th Cir.·
1957-10-29
·cited 14×
The court held that civil courts' habeas corpus review of military convictions is limited to whether the military courts had jurisdiction and acted within their lawful powers, and gave full and fair consideration to constitutional claims.
-
20 Fla. 806·
Fla.·
1884-06-01
·cited 14×
G.D. Powell challenges his extradition to Georgia on a fugitive from justice warrant issued by the Florida Governor. The Florida Supreme Court initially reversed Powell's detention, finding the Governor's warrant lacked sufficient judicial authorization, but on a second habeas pe
-
527 F.3d 1149·
11th Cir.·
2008-05-13
·cited 13×
Robert Hendrix was convicted of two counts of first-degree murder and sentenced to death after murdering his cousin Elmer Scott and Scott's wife to prevent Scott from testifying against him in a burglary case. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the denial of his federal habeas petitio
-
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.
-
653 F.2d 1254·
9th Cir.·
1980-01-25
·cited 13×
The court held that a district court has jurisdiction to review the denial of discretionary relief in a deportation proceeding when the review is sought via a habeas corpus petition.
-
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.
-
111 Fla. 267·
Fla.·
1933-07-06
·cited 13×
The Florida Supreme Court reversed a lower court's denial of habeas corpus, holding that the City of Fort Pierce could not impose a license tax on a truck merely delivering goods within city limits unless the city had specific charter authority to do so. The case addresses the li
-
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.
-
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.
-
904 F.2d 903·
4th Cir.·
1990-06-01
·cited 12×
The court affirmed the dismissal of Acord's petition, finding the state procedural bar adequate and independent, and reversed the grant of habeas relief to Meadows, remanding for dismissal due to failure to exhaust state remedies.
-
A federal prisoner is not entitled to credit against their sentence for time spent on bail prior to conviction and sentencing.
-
892 F.2d 556·
7th Cir.·
1989-12-22
·cited 12×
The court held that the petitioner's claims regarding competency, ineffective assistance of counsel, missing photographs, and insufficient evidence did not warrant habeas corpus relief.
-
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.
-
862 F.2d 1108·
5th Cir.·
1988-12-22
·cited 12×
The court held that the petitioner's claims of prosecutorial misconduct, erroneous jury instructions, and ineffective assistance of counsel were either procedurally barred or without merit, affirming the denial of the writ of habeas corpus.
-
858 F.2d 322·
6th Cir.·
1988-09-28
·cited 12×
The Sixth Circuit held that the Ohio common law rule requiring circumstantial evidence to be irreconcilable with any reasonable theory of innocence should not be applied by federal courts in habeas corpus proceedings reviewing state criminal convictions. The federal constitutiona
-
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.
-
840 F.2d 834·
11th Cir.·
1988-03-23
·cited 12×
The court held that the prosecutor's conduct in acting as both witness and advocate, combined with the lack of overwhelming evidence, rendered the trial fundamentally unfair, thus meeting the standard for federal habeas review despite the procedural default.
-
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.
-
808 F.2d 406·
5th Cir.·
1987-01-23
·cited 12×
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.
-
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.
-
646 F.2d 136·
4th Cir.·
1981-04-09
·cited 12×
The court's reasoning and result are concurred with, but a distinction is made regarding the evidentiary standards applied in different contexts.
-
-
620 F.2d 212·
9th Cir.·
1980-05-30
·cited 12×
The federal district court's finding that a state prisoner's guilty plea was not knowingly and voluntarily made is not clearly erroneous and is therefore affirmed.