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 denial of counsel to an indigent defendant, even if the conviction predates Gideon v. Wainwright, violates due process and requires invalidation of the conviction.
-
60 Fla. 35·
Fla.·
1910-06-01
·cited 29×
The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the discharge of a traveling salesman from custody on habeas corpus, holding that a city ordinance requiring a $200 license fee for traveling salesmen violated the dormant Commerce Clause when applied to interstate commerce activities. The court
-
Dolan Darling, a death-row inmate, challenged Florida's lethal injection protocol, the constitutionality of statutes prohibiting disclosure of executioners' identities, and whether Capital Collateral Regional Counsel (CCRC) attorneys could represent him in federal section 1983 cl
-
941 F.2d 1488·
11th Cir.·
1991-09-18
·cited 28×
Fernando Fernandez, convicted of racketeering and marijuana conspiracy and sentenced to twelve years in prison, sought collateral relief based on a severe heart condition diagnosed as terminal coronary artery disease. He filed motions under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35(b
-
The court held that a suspect's confession was admissible despite invoking the right to silence earlier, as fresh Miranda warnings were given, and that the Oregon aggravated murder statute does not violate due process or equal protection.
-
The court held that the petitioner's guilty plea was voluntary and counsel was not ineffective, and that the indictment was sufficient and the confession claim was unsupported.
-
The court held that the district court clearly erred in finding the plea bargain did not include a promise of parole eligibility, reversing the denial of habeas corpus relief.
-
695 F.2d 124·
5th Cir.·
1983-01-10
·cited 28×
-
A state prisoner's claim of illegal sentencing under a new penal code, absent prejudice, does not raise a federal constitutional issue cognizable in habeas corpus.
-
603 F.2d 1208·
6th Cir.·
1979-06-13
·cited 28×
A state court criminal conviction is unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause if it lacks any evidentiary support for a crucial element of the crime, and such a claim is reviewable in federal habeas corpus.
-
A federal judge must recuse himself from a federal habeas corpus case if he previously participated in the state supreme court's adjudication of the same claims, as this objectively raises reasonable questions about his impartiality under 28 U.S.C.A. § 455(a).
-
547 F.2d 269·
5th Cir.·
1977-02-18
·cited 28×
The admission of extraneous evidence, even if erroneous under state rules, does not warrant habeas corpus relief unless it denies fundamental fairness and violates due process.
-
The court affirmed the disposition of the appeal, but the concurring judge expressed reservations about the strict application of exhaustion rules for federal habeas corpus.
-
The court held that neither 21 U.S.C. § 848(q) nor 18 U.S.C. § 3006A entitles a death-sentenced inmate to federally appointed counsel or a psychiatrist for state-court collateral review proceedings, especially when claims are unexhausted.
-
The court held that the petitioner was deprived of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel at a critical stage of his murder prosecution, requiring automatic reversal of his conviction.
-
The court held that the federal district court should have abstained from deciding the case pending the outcome of the state habeas corpus proceedings.
-
The dissenting judge argues that denying credit for pre-sentence and post-sentence detention to indigent defendants solely because of their inability to make bail constitutes unconstitutional discrimination based on wealth.
-
A guilty plea induced by defense counsel's good-faith, but erroneous, sentence estimate or misstatement of law regarding withdrawal does not render the plea involuntary, absent evidence of government inducement.
-
28 F.3d 1123·
11th Cir.·
1994-08-17
·cited 26×
The Sixth Amendment right to counsel is fundamental and requires an affirmative, knowing, intelligent, and voluntary waiver. The temporary absence of counsel during a critical stage of trial, such as the taking of evidence, is a structural defect requiring automatic reversal unle
-
699 F.2d 917·
7th Cir.·
1983-02-04
·cited 26×
Noncompliance with a state contemporaneous-objection rule bars federal habeas review absent a showing of cause and prejudice; the identification was reliable despite suggestive procedures.
-
-
The district court erroneously dismissed the habeas corpus petition for lack of jurisdiction.
-
The court held that a jury charge creating a presumption that a defendant intends the natural and probable consequences of his acts, when intent is a disputed element, unconstitutionally shifts the burden of proof. This unconstitutionality requires habeas relief even if the defen
-
The Parole Commission did not violate due process by failing to provide advance notice of factors considered or by failing to disclose information used to rate the severity of the offense.
-
562 F.2d 903·
3d Cir.·
1977-08-23
·cited 26×
The court held that a federal habeas corpus court cannot relitigate a Fourth Amendment claim if the state provided an opportunity for full and fair litigation, even if the federal court disagrees with the state court's factual findings.
-
Federal habeas corpus relief is not available for Fourth Amendment claims when the state has provided an opportunity for full and fair litigation of that claim.
-
The court held that a claim regarding prior convictions affecting punishment is not a separate offense and that the judge's determination of prior convictions does not violate the Constitution. Furthermore, failure to perfect an appeal is not a ground for federal habeas corpus wi
-
245 F.2d 317·
10th Cir.·
1957-05-16
·cited 26×
The court held that the military had jurisdiction over the appellant and that his claims of unconstitutionality and denial of due process were matters for military courts to resolve, not federal habeas corpus.
-
6th Cir.·
2010-06-01
·cited 25×
The Court held that an uncoerced statement following Miranda warnings establishes an implied waiver of the right to remain silent, and that a suspect must unambiguously invoke this right to cease questioning.
-
492 F.3d 1273·
11th Cir.·
2007-07-20
·cited 25×
Mars Gore was convicted of the murder, kidnapping, and robbery of Susan Roark in 1990 and sentenced to death. On federal habeas review under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, Gore challenged the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress statements he made to Metro-Dade Detective Simmons dur
-
The court affirmed the denial of the federal habeas petition, finding no merit in the petitioner's claims regarding the trial judge's comments, improper juror exclusion, ineffective assistance of counsel, or racial discrimination in sentencing.
-
832 F.2d 492·
9th Cir.·
1987-11-10
·cited 25×
The court held that the offenses charged were within the extradition treaty and that there was sufficient evidence to establish probable cause for extradition, affirming the denial of the habeas corpus petition.
-
757 F.2d 988·
9th Cir.·
1985-04-08
·cited 25×
The court held that the defendant's constitutional right to be present at critical stages of the trial was violated when he was excluded from an in camera juror disqualification hearing.
-
The court held that the petitioners' habeas corpus petitions were properly denied because the information was not fatally defective and the admission of certain testimony did not violate their constitutional rights.
-
A district court's denial of a habeas petition without an evidentiary hearing was erroneous if it rested on legal errors rather than factual merits, and the ends of justice require reaching the merits of a subsequent petition.
-
The court held that the guilty plea was voluntary and not the product of coercion, and that a new claim regarding sentencing based on an allegedly erroneous probation report was not yet ripe for federal adjudication due to failure to exhaust state remedies.
-
Broderick Monlyn appeals the denial of his motion for postconviction relief and petitions for habeas corpus following his 1993 conviction for first-degree murder, armed robbery, and armed kidnapping, and subsequent death sentence. The Florida Supreme Court addresses his ineffecti
-
The court affirmed the district court's grant of habeas corpus, holding that the petitioner's death sentence was imposed in violation of Hitchcock v. Dugger because the sentencing court was precluded from considering nonstatutory mitigating evidence, and this error was not harmle
-
903 F.2d 526·
7th Cir.·
1990-06-05
·cited 24×
The court held that the petitioner's confession was voluntary and that the admission of his statements did not violate Miranda, affirming the denial of his habeas petition.
-
The court held that the state trial court did not violate Case's constitutional rights by refusing to conduct a post-verdict voir dire of the jury based on equivocal allegations of misconduct. The court also held that the denial of a continuance for a witness whose testimony was
-
The court held that the admission of evidence of other crimes, the denial of a change of venue due to pretrial publicity, the composition of the jury panel, the prosecutor's voir dire questions, and testimony regarding the defendant's invocation of his rights were either procedur
-
789 F.2d 722·
9th Cir.·
1986-05-09
·cited 24×
The majority's requirement of double jeopardy waiver is pointless and rests on incorrect assumptions about double jeopardy law when a plea bargain is breached.
-
A conviction based on a short-form indictment, authorized by state law and upheld by the state's highest court, does not violate due process, even if it doesn't specify every element, as long as the defendant received adequate notice through a bill of particulars.
-
The court held that the petitioner failed to exhaust state remedies by not fairly presenting the Miranda waiver issue to the state courts.
-
A federal court may grant habeas corpus relief to prevent retrial if a state appellate court, despite finding evidence sufficient, reversed a conviction on other grounds, and the defendant raises a double jeopardy claim based on insufficiency.
-
The court affirmed the district court's denial of habeas corpus relief, finding that the petitioner's claims of newly discovered evidence, ineffective assistance of counsel, and a chilled right to testify were without merit or unexhausted.
-
624 F.2d 51·
6th Cir.·
1980-06-30
·cited 24×
The failure of a state court to instruct the jury on lesser included offenses is cognizable on habeas corpus, but procedural noncompliance can bar review if not plain error. The evidence was sufficient to support the murder conviction.
-
The court held that the appellant failed to exhaust state remedies because federal constitutional claims were raised for the first time in federal court, not presented to the state courts.
-
The court held that a federal court must independently review the state court record when considering a state prisoner's habeas corpus petition on self-representation grounds.
-
573 F.2d 708·
2d Cir.·
1978-02-15
·cited 24×
The court held that while joint representation is disfavored, the defendant did not suffer sufficient particularized prejudice to warrant a finding of unconstitutional denial of effective assistance of counsel.