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 petitioner was not required to exhaust state remedies because the state's highest court had repeatedly rejected similar claims, making further state court action futile.
-
The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's grant of habeas corpus, holding that a prior 4-4 affirmance by the Supreme Court did not preclude federal review of the due process claim and that the identification procedures were indeed violative of due process.
-
Counsel appointed to represent indigent persons on appeal must advise them of their right to appeal, inquire whether they wish to appeal, and perfect an appeal if requested, even if counsel believes the appeal to be frivolous.
-
-
The court held that a state prisoner's claims of insufficient evidence and an improper jury instruction on flight are not reviewable on federal habeas corpus unless they rise to the level of a constitutional violation.
-
A state prisoner who fails to avail himself of a state remedy for a constitutional claim, and subsequently loses the opportunity to do so, is barred from seeking federal habeas corpus relief.
-
The dissenting judge argues that the federal court should not be bound by state court findings of fact when reviewing the voluntariness of confessions, especially given coercive police tactics.
-
207 F.2d 25·
D.C. Cir.·
1953-07-16
·cited 16×
The court held that a discrepancy in dates between an affidavit and an indictment does not invalidate the indictment for extradition purposes, and conflicting evidence regarding the fugitive status is insufficient to warrant discharge on habeas corpus.
-
The State of Colorado satisfies the requirements for providing meaningful access to the courts for mental patients committed after being found not guilty by reason of insanity, by providing contract attorneys to counsel them on their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims.
-
730 F.2d 721·
11th Cir.·
1984-04-23
·cited 15×
The court held that the evidence presented was insufficient to prove a sale of marijuana by the petitioner, as mere presence and an informant placing money in the pocket does not constitute a sale.
-
The court held that the petitioner was not denied due process regarding competency proceedings or effective assistance of counsel, and pretrial identification was permissible.
-
515 F.2d 853·
5th Cir.·
1975-07-09
·cited 15×
The court held that the petitioner's conviction for robbery by assault was not overturned on the grounds that the state failed to afford him a speedy trial.
-
-
197 So. 3d 1152·
Fla. 1st DCA·
2016-07-12
·cited 14×
A state prisoner challenges his assignment to Close Management (solitary confinement) after spitting in a psychiatrist's face. The court recedes from prior precedent holding that such challenges must be brought as habeas corpus petitions, ruling instead that Close Management assi
-
Chadwick D. Banks, under a signed death warrant, appealed the circuit court's denial of his second successive motion for postconviction relief and denial of public records requests. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed, rejecting Banks' claims of ineffective postconviction counsel,
-
934 F.2d 99·
7th Cir.·
1991-05-30
·cited 14×
The court held that a federal court cannot grant habeas corpus relief based on a state court's interpretation of state law, even if the interpretation is claimed to be erroneous.
-
The court concurs in the result but disagrees with the reasoning that Stone v. Powell does not apply when state appellate courts do not issue opinions.
-
The majority's decision departs from Supreme Court precedent by requiring a petitioner to show only a colorable showing of prejudice, rather than 'actual innocence,' to obtain federal habeas review after procedural default.
-
892 F.2d 1205·
5th Cir.·
1989-12-08
·cited 14×
The court affirmed the denial of habeas corpus relief, agreeing that the issue was procedurally barred and that the venireman's exclusion was proper on the merits.
-
A state prisoner's federal habeas claim is exhausted if the substance of the claim was presented to the state courts in a manner likely to alert them to its federal nature, even if only state precedent was cited.
-
869 F.2d 1008·
7th Cir.·
1989-02-15
·cited 14×
The court held that Wisconsin's limitation on the attorney-client privilege, allowing a psychiatrist retained by the defense to testify for the prosecution, does not violate the Sixth Amendment right to counsel, and that any evidentiary errors were harmless.
-
The court held that the failure to inform a defendant of the potential benefits of the Alabama Youthful Offender Act before accepting a guilty plea violates federal due process, requiring the plea to be set aside.
-
821 F.2d 469·
8th Cir.·
1987-06-12
·cited 14×
The court held that the sentencing phase must be remanded for reconsideration in light of Wainwright v. Witt, but affirmed the district court's denial of relief on other claims.
-
The court affirmed the denial of federal habeas corpus relief, holding that the trial court's instructions did not violate Enmund v. Florida and that the death penalty was not discriminatorily imposed.
-
The court held that the police tactics employed during the interrogation of a juvenile suspect violated his Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights, rendering his confession involuntary.
-
773 F.2d 55·
6th Cir.·
1985-09-11
·cited 14×
The admission of a deceased codefendant's custodial confession, which incriminated the petitioner, violated the petitioner's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation because the statement did not fall under a valid hearsay exception and was not harmless error.
-
The court held that the State is estopped from contesting Zellers' assertion of cause for his procedural default due to systemic failures in providing due process rights. The court also found sufficient prejudice to justify a hearing.
-
The court held that the appellant's claims were without merit and denied his application for a certificate of probable cause and leave to appeal in forma pauperis.
-
742 F.2d 741·
2d Cir.·
1984-08-27
·cited 14×
The court held that the government informant did not elicit inculpatory statements from the appellant, and the lower courts' findings to this effect were supported by the record.
-
The court held that the novelty of the constitutional claim at the time of trial constituted cause for failing to raise it on appeal, and prejudice was present, thus satisfying the cause and prejudice exception to the procedural bar rule.
-
703 F.2d 728·
3d Cir.·
1983-03-29
·cited 14×
The court held that the trial court did not sufficiently inform the defendant of his right to counsel and the dangers of self-representation, thus the waiver was not knowing and intelligent.
-
679 F.2d 1209·
6th Cir.·
1982-06-03
·cited 14×
The court held that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, entitling the petitioner to habeas corpus relief.
-
A confession obtained after a defendant invoked his right to counsel, even if readvised of his rights, is inadmissible.
-
667 F.2d 1357·
11th Cir.·
1982-02-16
·cited 14×
A defendant who testifies on the merits of his case waives his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent, allowing the prosecution to comment on his failure to deny incriminating facts.
-
645 F.2d 1179·
2d Cir.·
1981-02-26
·cited 14×
The court held that the identification procedures were not impermissibly suggestive and did not violate due process, and therefore habeas corpus relief was not warranted.
-
The dissenting judge believes the majority improperly expanded federal habeas corpus powers by granting relief based on prosecutorial misconduct without a showing of actual prejudice to the defendant.
-
The court held that the district court had subject matter jurisdiction to entertain the petition and that Florida was not obligated to provide free legal counsel in this civil custody dispute.
-
622 F.2d 914·
5th Cir.·
1980-08-01
·cited 14×
The court held that the district court did not err in denying the habeas petition, as the petitioner's guilty plea was voluntary and knowing, and other claims lacked merit.
-
626 F.2d 264·
3d Cir.·
1980-06-30
·cited 14×
The court held that deleting language from an indictment to conform to the prosecution's election of theories does not constitute an amendment requiring grand jury approval if the remaining language still states an offense and does not broaden the charges.
-
The court held that procedural defaults, under state law, bar federal habeas review of the merits unless cause and prejudice are shown.
-
The court held that the district court did not err in granting summary judgment for the state on the speedy trial claim and in denying the motion for appointment of counsel.
-
The court held that the district court correctly dismissed the habeas corpus petition, affirming the denial of relief based on search and seizure claims and the admission of prior bad acts evidence.
-
A guilty plea entered with the advice of counsel, which advice was within the range of competency demanded of attorneys in criminal cases, is not subject to federal habeas corpus intervention.
-
The court affirmed the dismissal of the habeas corpus petition, finding no constitutional violations in the state court proceedings.
-
The court held that a federal habeas petition must be dismissed if the petitioner has not exhausted available state remedies for the claims raised.
-
The court held that a district court's recommendation for a federal prisoner to serve his sentence in a state facility has no legal effect and does not entitle the prisoner to credit for the period between the recommendation and actual transfer. However, a claim for credit on a s
-
519 F.2d 1356·
3d Cir.·
1975-07-17
·cited 14×
The court held that the state trial court's failure to conduct a voir dire examination after prejudicial mid-trial publicity, despite ruling the publicity would not affect the jury, violated the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury.
-
A state prisoner is entitled to federal habeas relief if trial counsel failed to protect his right to appeal, without requiring a showing of prejudice or specific lost points.
-
The court held that the district judges did not err in denying habeas corpus petitions after independently reviewing the state court record, as the petitioners' counsel failed to request further proceedings or argument and the record substantiated a full and fair hearing.
-
The court held that the prisoner's constitutional rights were not violated by the admission of evidence from a warrantless car search or an in-jail statement, and that the sufficiency of evidence is not generally subject to federal habeas review.