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
-
766 F.2d 270·
7th Cir.·
1985-06-17
·cited 20×
The court held that the state courts' rejection of the defendant's claims regarding false testimony and Brady violations was entitled to deference, and that the defendant's other claims lacked merit or were procedurally barred.
-
A federal habeas corpus petitioner's failure to object to jury instructions at trial, and subsequent failure to present claims in prior petitions without adequate excuse, bars consideration of those claims.
-
The dissenting judge argues that the petitioner failed to exhaust state remedies and did not demonstrate cause and prejudice for federal habeas review.
-
718 F.2d 1372·
5th Cir.·
1983-11-10
·cited 20×
A guilty plea, if voluntarily and knowingly entered, should not be set aside.
-
The court held that the petitioner's Sixth Amendment confrontation clause rights were not violated by hearsay remarks or opening statement summaries, and the pandering statute was not unconstitutionally vague. Furthermore, the petitioner did not receive ineffective assistance of
-
The court held that a federal habeas corpus petition must be dismissed if the specific legal theory supporting the constitutional claim was not fairly presented to the state courts.
-
The court held that collateral estoppel does not bar a § 1983 action for search and seizure claims when federal habeas corpus relief is unavailable, and that the district court should not have granted summary judgment without considering all claims.
-
Federal habeas corpus relief is precluded when a petitioner had a full and fair opportunity to litigate their Fourth Amendment claim in state court, even if the state court's ruling differs from federal precedent or if raising the issue in state court would have been deemed futil
-
584 F.2d 100·
5th Cir.·
1978-11-17
·cited 20×
The court held that the state record was insufficient to determine if the guilty plea was voluntary, requiring a remand for a hearing on that issue.
-
A default judgment from state court, grounded in fraud, does not have collateral estoppel effect in bankruptcy proceedings to establish nondischargeability of a debt under 11 U.S.C. § 35(a)(2) because the issues were not actually litigated.
-
A guilty plea, entered with advice of counsel, breaks the chain of prior constitutional violations, and federal habeas relief is limited to the voluntariness and knowing character of the plea itself.
-
The court held that the waiver principle does not bar federal habeas review when state courts considered the merits, and that discriminatory impact in grand jury selection, without a satisfactory explanation, allows an inference of discriminatory purpose.
-
Federal courts should not grant habeas corpus relief for Fourth Amendment claims if the state provided a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue.
-
The court held that the state's actions did not demonstrate a sufficient lack of interest to waive jurisdiction over the parolee's sentence, as required by Shields v. Beto.
-
The court concurred with the result but expressed concern that the jurisdictional amount requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 1331 was not met, suggesting this issue requires further consideration.
-
The court held that the state court's refusal to admit psychiatric testimony regarding specific intent did not violate due process or equal protection.
-
The court affirmed the denial of a certificate of probable cause because the petitioner failed to exhaust remedies in California, where his current sentence was being served and parole was affected by the prior conviction.
-
The district court did not abuse its discretion in granting a writ of habeas corpus based on an involuntary confession, as res judicata does not apply to successive petitions and the facts supported a finding of involuntariness.
-
The district court erred in finding intentional bypass of state remedies without an evidentiary hearing.
-
The court held that the district court did not err in denying the habeas corpus petition because the appellant was mentally competent when he entered his guilty plea.
-
The dissenting judge would have reversed the district court's denial of a new trial, finding that the Indiana courts violated the defendant's due process rights by refusing a psychiatric examination and sanity hearing.
-
The court held that the appellant had not exhausted his state remedies because he had not utilized the available Kansas post-conviction relief procedures.
-
The admission of testimony describing the fruits of an illegal search violated the accused's constitutional rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments.
-
273 F.2d 643·
10th Cir.·
1959-12-29
·cited 20×
The court held that the contention of ineffective assistance of counsel was not reviewable on habeas corpus as it was not raised within the military system, and the court-martial's voting procedures were proper.
-
36 F.3d 1014·
11th Cir.·
1994-10-07
·cited 19×
Robert Dewey Glock II was convicted of first-degree murder, kidnapping, and robbery in 1983 and sentenced to death. On federal habeas review, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed his murder conviction despite finding a Bruton violation in the admission of his nontestifying codefendant's
-
The court held that constitutional errors at sentencing, including ineffective assistance of counsel and an unconstitutionally vague aggravating factor, undermined the accuracy of the death sentence, thus warranting a grant of habeas corpus to prevent a fundamental miscarriage of
-
The court held that the petitioner's claim based on Caldwell v. Mississippi is procedurally barred under state law, and thus federal habeas relief is denied.
-
The court held that a diner owner's comment to jurors during sentencing deliberations, suggesting the defendant should be executed, created a presumption of prejudice that the Commonwealth failed to rebut, thus vacating the death sentence.
-
The dissenting judge holds that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in limiting cross-examination regarding a witness's bias, as sufficient evidence of bias was presented to the jury.
-
The court held that a federal habeas corpus petition must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, as the petitioner was in custody in Alabama and not Florida.
-
The court held that the trial court erred in placing the burden of proving incompetency on the habeas petitioner when the issue of competency was raised but not litigated prior to conviction.
-
Eugene Clemons, convicted of capital murder of a federal DEA agent, sought federal habeas relief on thirty-two claims after the Supreme Court decided in Atkins v. Virginia that executing intellectually disabled persons violates the Eighth Amendment. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed
-
Carl Robert Alvarez, convicted in 1991 of first-degree murder, sexual battery, and aggravated child abuse, appealed a district court dismissal of his § 1983 civil rights action challenging Florida's denial of his petition for postconviction DNA testing. The Eleventh Circuit affir
-
The court affirmed the denial of the habeas petition, finding that the petitioner's claims regarding ex parte jury communication, prosecutorial misconduct, and ineffective assistance of counsel were without merit or based on frivolous allegations.
-
The court held that the petitioner knowingly and intelligently waived his right to conflict-free counsel, affirming the denial of his habeas corpus petition.
-
The court held that a federal habeas petition containing both exhausted and unexhausted claims must be dismissed.
-
825 F.2d 879·
5th Cir.·
1987-08-17
·cited 18×
The court held that in a death penalty case, evidence presented at an evidentiary hearing for one ineffective assistance claim should also be considered for a related claim, even if initially deemed insufficient, to avoid potential grave injustice.
-
820 F.2d 1450·
9th Cir.·
1987-06-25
·cited 18×
The court held that the claim of right defense is eliminated for robbery by statute and that no theft instruction was warranted due to lack of supporting evidence.
-
The court held that ineffective assistance of counsel can constitute cause for a procedural default, but the petitioner's claim of ineffective assistance was meritless.
-
The court held that the initial commitment under § 4241(d) was valid for only four months, and the subsequent indefinite commitment under § 4246 was invalid due to procedural and due process violations.
-
788 F.2d 400·
6th Cir.·
1986-04-18
·cited 18×
The court held that the circumstantial evidence was sufficient to support the second-degree murder conviction, the prosecutor's comments were not an unconstitutional violation of the Fifth Amendment, the trial court's handling of jury transcript requests did not deny due process,
-
A Texas inmate seeking federal habeas relief has not exhausted state remedies if they fail to petition the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals for discretionary review of their conviction.
-
The court held that the determination of competency to waive federal habeas review in a death case is a mixed question of fact and law, not subject to the clearly erroneous standard of review.
-
741 F.2d 1456·
3d Cir.·
1984-08-17
·cited 18×
The court held that the majority erred in treating the voluntariness of a confession as a question of fact, thereby deferring to state court findings, when Supreme Court precedent establishes it as a mixed question of law and fact requiring independent federal review.
-
The court held that a pro se petitioner's claim of unawareness of new controlling law, like Edwards v. Arizona, can constitute a justifiable reason for filing a successive habeas petition, thus precluding dismissal for abuse of the writ.
-
A petitioner convicted of a state offense punishable only by a fine is not 'in custody' for federal habeas corpus jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
-
The dissent argues that a state prisoner's claim for damages under § 1983, which does not directly attack the fact or length of confinement, should not require exhaustion of state remedies.
-
The dissenting judge argues that federal habeas corpus relief is an inappropriate vehicle for addressing state child custody disputes, and that federal courts should defer to state courts in such matters.
-
A federal court may review a habeas corpus petition when state court delay in ruling on a new trial motion is excessive and effectively denies the petitioner's right to appeal.
-
The court held that the state courts' denial of new trial motions, based on newly discovered evidence, did not violate due process because the evidence was found to be cumulative and not credible, and the state courts conducted a full and fair review.