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 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.
-
560 F.2d 1072·
2d Cir.·
1977-08-09
·cited 12×
The court affirmed the denial of the petition because the appellant had not exhausted his state remedies regarding the ineffective assistance of counsel claim.
-
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.
-
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.
-
442 F.2d 1082·
3d Cir.·
1971-05-05
·cited 12×
The court held that the district court correctly dismissed the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, as pre-induction judicial review of Selective Service classifications is generally barred by statute.
-
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.
-
113 Fla. 732·
Fla.·
1934-01-12
·cited 12×
The Florida Supreme Court reviewed an ordinance by the City of Vero Beach that prohibited the operation of skating rinks where any admission or skate rental fee was charged. The court found the ordinance unreasonable and an unwarranted interference with lawful business, thus void
-
89 Fla. 293·
Fla.·
1925-03-26
·cited 12×
The Florida Supreme Court reversed a lower court's decision in a habeas corpus case. The court found that the information charging the petitioner with violating a statute regulating heavy vehicle use on public roads was fatally defective, thus entitling the petitioner to discharg
-
84 Fla. 520·
Fla.·
1922-11-15
·cited 12×
The Florida Supreme Court upheld a Miami Beach ordinance regulating automobile speeds within the city against a constitutional challenge, holding that the ordinance's language should be construed in light of the city's delegated power to regulate speeds on city streets rather tha
-
16 Fla. 144·
Fla.·
1877-01-01
·cited 12×
The Florida Supreme Court dismissed an appeal from a habeas corpus proceeding, holding that a writ of error, not an appeal, is the exclusive method for reviewing such judgments.
-
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.
-
909 F.2d 111·
5th Cir.·
1990-07-30
·cited 11×
Claims raised under Clemons and Maynard are not available to a habeas petitioner whose conviction was final prior to these decisions, as they constitute a new rule of law under Teague.
-
The court ultimately concurs with the majority's decision, despite prior reservations.
-
The court affirmed the denial of habeas corpus relief, finding that the petitioner failed to make a substantial threshold showing of present insanity and that his claims of ineffective counsel lacked merit under the Strickland standard.
-
781 F.2d 1477·
11th Cir.·
1986-01-27
·cited 11×
The Criminal Justice Act does not authorize the appointment and compensation of counsel in habeas corpus actions brought by excludable aliens challenging the Attorney General's refusal to parole them.
-
741 F.2d 847·
6th Cir.·
1984-08-16
·cited 11×
The dissenting judge would hold that the Allen charge, combined with other factors, deprived the defendant of his constitutional right to a fair trial and that the error was not harmless.
-
The court held that the involuntary surgical removal of a bullet from a suspect's body, under the circumstances presented, would violate the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches. It also held that such a claim is cognizable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, not habea
-
A mere technical violation of Rule 11, such as failing to fully advise a defendant of the maximum possible special parole term, does not warrant collateral relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 absent a showing of manifest injustice or exceptional circumstances.
-
The dissenting judge would affirm the district court's denial of the petition for habeas corpus, finding that the petitioner's counsel deliberately waived objections as a matter of trial strategy.
-
The court held that claims of illegal arrest and improper lineup were insufficient for habeas relief, but the denial of the inadequate counsel claim was vacated for further review.
-
Florida inmates challenged Department of Corrections rules prohibiting preparation of legal documents by those in disciplinary confinement. The court held that the rules unconstitutionally restrict access to federal courts for habeas corpus petitions and civil rights actions, vio
-
The court held that the district court's denial of the habeas corpus petition was proper, as the alleged errors did not rise to the level of constitutional violations or were harmless.
-
-
The court held that a federal court may not grant habeas corpus relief before a state retrial when the prior conviction was reversed for trial error, as double jeopardy does not bar such a retrial. The court also found that the petitioner had adequately exhausted her federal due
-
The Court of Appeals held that the Cage v. Louisiana decision announced a "new rule" of constitutional law and therefore could not be applied retroactively to Skelton's case on federal habeas review, as it did not fall within the exceptions to the Teague doctrine.
-
949 F.2d 1546·
10th Cir.·
1991-12-09
·cited 10×
The court held that the trial court's determination of competency to stand trial, when supported by the record and applying the correct legal standard, is entitled to deference and should not be overturned on appeal.
-
942 F.2d 1352·
9th Cir.·
1991-08-09
·cited 10×
The INS policy of incarcerating children pending deportation hearings, rather than releasing them to responsible non-relative adults, flagrantly violates due process.
-
The dissent argues that the new Minnesota parole regulations constitute a law for ex post facto purposes because they are binding on the agency and lack discretion, unlike federal guidelines. The dissent would find the regulations violate the ex post facto clause.
-
A voluntary and intelligent guilty plea waives the right to collaterally attack convictions on double jeopardy grounds, unless the violation is apparent on the face of the indictment or record.
-
919 F.2d 1270·
7th Cir.·
1990-12-11
·cited 10×
The court held that a petitioner's failure to demonstrate cause and prejudice for a procedural default in state court bars federal habeas corpus review, and illiteracy does not constitute cause.
-
915 F.2d 1188·
8th Cir.·
1990-10-03
·cited 10×
The court affirmed the district court's denial of habeas relief, finding no constitutional error in the state court proceedings or convictions.
-
896 F.2d 661·
2d Cir.·
1990-02-07
·cited 10×
The court held that a new Supreme Court rule requires federal courts to consider the merits of a habeas petition if the state appellate court's opinion does not clearly and expressly state that its judgment rests on a state procedural bar.
-
The court held that the trial judge's decision to shackle the defendant was not an abuse of discretion that denied due process, considering the specific security risks and the defendant's history.
-
The court vacated the district court's ruling, declined to vacate the stay of execution, and remanded the case for further consideration of the habeas petition and the state's assertion of writ abuse.
-
An issue is not considered fairly presented to the state's highest court for exhaustion purposes unless the applicant has raised it within the application for further appellate review.
-
The court held that the prisoner was not entitled to a stay of execution because his section 1983 claim, based on the premise that a Louisiana statute unconstitutionally limited his federal right to seek Supreme Court review, lacked merit. The federal statute does not grant the a