Knowing And Intelligent Waiver

865 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 197 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• Greene v. United States
  880 F.2d 1299· 11th Cir.· 1989-08-21 ·cited 44×
  The Sixth Amendment prohibits the use of uncounseled convictions to enhance a sentence under 18 U.S.C. App. § 1202(a). A waiver of counsel must be knowing and intelligent, not just voluntary.
• United States v. Padilla
  819 F.2d 952· 10th Cir.· 1987-05-21 ·cited 44×
  The court held that the defendant's waiver of counsel was invalid because the trial court failed to ensure he was aware of the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation.
• Stano Perri v. Dir., Dep't OF Corr., State OF Ill.
  817 F.2d 448· 7th Cir.· 1987-04-29 ·cited 44×
  The court held that a state court's determination of whether a defendant knowingly and intelligently waived Miranda rights is a factual finding entitled to the presumption of correctness under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).
• Nova v. State
  439 So. 2d 255· Fla. 3d DCA· 1983-09-13 ·cited 44×
  Nova sought collateral relief from his 1976 first-degree murder conviction, claiming he waived his constitutional right to a twelve-person jury in reliance on the State's promise that his maximum sentence would be twenty years, but received a mandatory life sentence with a 25-yea
• United States v. Oliver
  525 F.2d 731· 8th Cir.· 1975-10-31 ·cited 44×
• McCOY v. United States
  363 F.2d 306· D.C. Cir.· 1966-06-09 ·cited 44×
  The court held that a judge must consider all evidence to determine if there is a factual basis for a guilty plea, not just an admission of guilt.
• Chames v. DeMAYO
  972 So. 2d 850· Fla.· 2007-12-20 ·cited 43×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that a homeowner cannot waive the constitutional homestead exemption from forced sale through an unsecured agreement, such as a retainer agreement with an attorney. The court reaffirmed over 120 years of precedent, rejecting arguments based on a con
• Carmichael v. State
  715 So. 2d 247· Fla.· 1998-07-09 ·cited 43×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that a defendant's right to be present at the bench during jury selection, established in Coney v. State, must be raised timely at trial or is forfeited on appeal. David Carmichael was convicted of DUI after a jury was selected at a bench conference
• State v. Larzelere
  979 So. 2d 195· Fla.· 2008-02-28 ·cited 42×
  Virginia Larzelere was convicted of murdering her husband and sentenced to death. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the denial of her motion to vacate her conviction but affirmed the trial court's grant of a new sentencing proceeding, finding that her trial counsel provided inef
• State v. Perry
  786 So. 2d 554· Fla.· 2001-04-19 ·cited 42×
  The Florida Supreme Court addresses whether a writ of error coram nobis is available to challenge the voluntariness and intelligence of a guilty plea based on facts that were unknown or unknowable at the time of sentencing. The Court holds that coram nobis relief is available for
• Rogers v. Singletary
  698 So. 2d 1178· Fla.· 1996-11-27 ·cited 42×
  Jerry Layne Rogers petitioned for habeas corpus relief claiming his appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise a Faretta self-representation claim on direct appeal. The Florida Supreme Court denied the petition, holding that the trial court properly inquired into Roge
• United States v. Molina-Uribe
  853 F.2d 1193· 5th Cir.· 1988-08-24 ·cited 42×
  The court held that the supervised release term imposed for Count One was illegal and must be vacated, but the conviction on Count One is affirmed. The court also held that the plea on Count Two must be set aside due to the trial court's failure to properly advise the defendant o
• State v. Manning
  506 So. 2d 1094· Fla. 3d DCA· 1987-05-05 ·cited 42×
  The State appeals the trial court's order suppressing William Manning's confession in a sexual battery case. The appellate court reverses, holding that the police officers' failure to immediately inform Manning of his arrest warrant and their misstatements about medical evidence
• In the Interest of R. v. P.
  395 So. 2d 291· Fla. 5th DCA· 1981-03-18 ·cited 42×·via Intelligent Waiver
  The court held that the evidence was insufficient to support a finding of arson but sufficient to support a finding of burglary.
• United States v. Gillings
  568 F.2d 1307· 9th Cir.· 1978-02-07 ·cited 42×
  The court held that Francis Gillings' waiver of counsel was knowing and intelligent, but Ruth Gillings' waiver was not, requiring reversal of her conviction.
• United States v. Rodriguez
  888 F.2d 519· 7th Cir.· 1989-11-01 ·cited 41×
  The court held that a wife's apparent authority to consent to a search of a room does not extend to closed containers within that room, and that a defendant's waiver of jury trial, while procedurally deficient, was knowing and intelligent and did not affect substantial rights.
• United States v. Balough
  820 F.2d 1485· 9th Cir.· 1987-07-02 ·cited 41×
  The court should give greater deference to a district judge's determination that a defendant is knowingly and intelligently waiving counsel, and not rely solely on rote recitation of mechanical formulas.
• United States v. Martinez
  883 F.2d 750· 9th Cir.· 1989-08-23 ·cited 40×
  A criminal defendant's fundamental right to testify is not violated when their counsel makes a strategic decision not to call them as a witness, even if the defendant expressed a desire to testify, as long as the decision is reasonable and not ineffective assistance.
• Miller v. Dugger
  838 F.2d 1530· 11th Cir.· 1988-03-10 ·cited 40×
  The court held that the trial court erred by admitting the defendant's statement without first determining if he had knowingly and intelligently waived his Miranda rights, but this error was harmless.
• United States v. Curcio
  694 F.2d 14· 2d Cir.· 1982-11-16 ·cited 40×
  The court held that an order disqualifying criminal defense counsel is appealable under the collateral order doctrine, and that Francis Curcio's waiver of his right to conflict-free representation was not knowing and intelligent.
• Blasingame v. Estelle
  604 F.2d 893· 5th Cir.· 1979-10-16 ·cited 40×
  The court held that a request for an attorney at arraignment does not automatically bar subsequent interrogation if the request was not made in a manner that effectively exercised the right to preclude any subsequent interrogation.
• Meadows v. United States
  420 F.2d 795· 9th Cir.· 1969-12-23 ·cited 40×
  The Supreme Court's decision in Haynes v. United States, establishing the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination as a defense to prosecution under 26 U.S.C. § 5851, applies retroactively to cases finalized before its decision.
• Horne v. United States
  264 F.2d 40· 5th Cir.· 1959-02-26 ·cited 40×·via Intelligent Waiver
  The court held that a defendant's knowing acquiescence to proceeding with fewer than 12 jurors, even without a written waiver, is sufficient to uphold the conviction on collateral review.
• United States v. McDOWELL
  814 F.2d 245· 6th Cir.· 1987-03-16 ·cited 39×
  The court held that the defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his right to counsel and asserted his right to self-representation, and that the district court did not err in failing to conduct a separate competency hearing for self-representation.
• United States v. Hafen
  726 F.2d 21· 1st Cir.· 1984-02-01 ·cited 39×
  A defendant's waiver of counsel is knowing and intelligent if supported by evidence of their background and understanding, even without a specific judicial warning of the dangers of self-representation. Statistical disparity alone, especially when using comparative measures for s
• United States v. Curcio
  680 F.2d 881· 2d Cir.· 1982-05-26 ·cited 39×
  The court held that the defendants were not given an adequate opportunity to make a knowing and intelligent waiver of their right to conflict-free representation, vacating the disqualification order.
• Bustamonte v. Schneckloth
  448 F.2d 699· 9th Cir.· 1971-09-13 ·cited 39×
  The court held that a consent to search, to be valid, must be given with knowledge that the individual has the right to refuse consent.
• United States v. Howton
  688 F.2d 272· 5th Cir.· 1982-09-17 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the defendants knowingly and voluntarily waived their right to conflict-free counsel and that the trial court did not err in its rulings regarding the production of a witness report or the admission of evidence concerning a murder.
• United States v. Lawriw
  568 F.2d 98· 8th Cir.· 1977-12-30 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the district court's inquiry into the potential conflict of interest arising from joint representation was sufficient to establish a knowing and intelligent waiver of the right to separate counsel.
• United States v. McKENZIE
  414 F.2d 808· 3d Cir.· 1969-08-12 ·cited 38×
  The court held that evidence of sudden unexplained acquisition of wealth is admissible to show guilt and that offenses under subsections (a) and (b) of the Federal Bank Robbery Act merge with the more aggravated offense under subsection (d) for sentencing purposes.
• United States ex rel. Albert B. Crosby v. Brierley
  404 F.2d 790· 3d Cir.· 1968-12-09 ·cited 38×
  A guilty plea to murder is invalid if not voluntarily and intelligently made with full understanding of the consequences, especially when the defendant's testimony injects a claim of self-defense, which is a factual issue for a jury.
• Dorrough v. United States
  385 F.2d 887· 5th Cir.· 1967-09-15 ·cited 38×
  A guilty plea is invalid if the defendant is not fully informed of all lesser included offenses and their potential penalties, even if the defendant admits to conduct constituting the greater offense.
• Gill v. P.J. Mecusker
  633 F.3d 1272· 11th Cir.· 2011-02-23 ·cited 37×
  Marvin Gill appealed a district court's denial of his federal habeas petition challenging his conviction for capital sexual battery and related offenses. Gill claimed the trial court violated his Sixth Amendment right to self-representation under Faretta v. California by denying
• United States ex rel. Albert Curtis v. Hon. John Zelker
  466 F.2d 1092· 2d Cir.· 1972-07-17 ·cited 37×·via Intelligent Waiver Of Rights
  A guilty plea is not rendered involuntary by a defendant's mistaken subjective impressions, absent substantial objective proof that those impressions were reasonably justified.
• Nneka West v. State
  876 So. 2d 614· Fla. 4th DCA· 2004-06-16 ·cited 36×
  A Miranda warning that fails to expressly advise a suspect that she has the right to have counsel present during interrogation is facially inadequate, and the failure to give this warning renders a confession inadmissible even where the suspect understood her other rights and the
• Knight v. State
  770 So. 2d 663· Fla.· 2000-11-02 ·cited 36×·via Knowing And Intelligent Waiver Of Counsel
  Ronald Knight appeals his death sentence for first-degree murder, challenging his right to self-representation, the trial court's failure to renew counsel offers at every stage, and the use of a subsequent murder conviction as an aggravating factor. The Florida Supreme Court affi
• Hayes v. Kincheloe
  784 F.2d 1434· 9th Cir.· 1986-03-19 ·cited 35×·via Knowing And Intelligent Guilty Plea
  A guilty plea is involuntary if the defendant does not receive actual notice of the true nature of the charge against him or possess an understanding of the law in relation to the facts.
• Johnston v. United States
  254 F.2d 239· 8th Cir.· 1958-04-24 ·cited 35×
  The court held that the defendant's guilty plea was voluntary and intelligent, and his claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and lack of evidence were without merit.
• Gamble v. State
  877 So. 2d 706· Fla.· 2004-05-06 ·cited 34×
  Guy Richard Gamble, sentenced to death for the 1991 murder of his landlord, challenged his conviction and sentence through post-conviction relief and habeas corpus petitions, arguing ineffective assistance of counsel and constitutional defects. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed
• Hardy v. State
  655 So. 2d 1245· Fla. 5th DCA· 1995-05-26 ·cited 34×·via Knowing And Intelligent Waiver Of Counsel
  Ralph Hardy appeals his convictions for forgery and uttering forged instruments, challenging the validity of his Faretta waiver of counsel and his sentences. The court affirmed his convictions, finding the Faretta inquiry adequate, but vacated his sentences because the trial cour
• Agee v. J.D. White
  809 F.2d 1487· 11th Cir.· 1987-02-13 ·cited 34×
  The court held that a confession obtained after an illegal arrest is admissible if the taint of the arrest is sufficiently attenuated by intervening circumstances, and that a suspect's subjective belief of immunity, absent police misrepresentation, does not render a Miranda waive
• United States v. Romero
  640 F.2d 1014· 9th Cir.· 1981-03-06 ·cited 34×·via Knowing And Intelligent Waiver Of Counsel
  The court held that the defendant's conviction for willful failure to file income tax returns should be affirmed, as any procedural errors were harmless and the defendant knowingly waived counsel and understood the charges.
• United States v. Lopez-Diaz
  630 F.2d 661· 9th Cir.· 1980-08-08 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the district court's finding of a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary waiver of Miranda rights was not clearly erroneous, and thus, the confession was admissible.
• Quartz v. State
  258 So. 2d 283· Fla. 3d DCA· 1972-02-15 ·cited 34×·via Intelligent Waiver
  A written waiver of jury trial, signed by the defendant and approved by the court and state, is sufficient to constitute an intelligent waiver, even without explicit judicial interrogation of the defendant. Additionally, a motion for a new trial may be denied if no grounds are pr
• United States v. Weber
  429 F.2d 148· 9th Cir.· 1970-07-09 ·cited 34×
  A voluntary and intelligent guilty plea, entered with awareness of the law at the time, waives the Fifth Amendment defense to the tax charge, even if later judicial decisions suggest the plea was based on a faulty premise.
• Hood v. United States
  152 F.2d 431· 8th Cir.· 1946-01-03 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the denial of the motion to vacate sentences was proper because the appellants' contentions had been previously adjudicated in habeas corpus proceedings and were without merit.
• Nixon v. State
  857 So. 2d 172· Fla.· 2003-07-10 ·cited 33×
  Joe Elton Nixon, a death row inmate, appealed the denial of postconviction relief based on his trial counsel's admission of his guilt without his explicit consent. The Florida Supreme Court reversed and remanded for a new trial, holding that silent acquiescence to a counsel's str
• Allen v. State OF Ala.
  728 F.2d 1384· 11th Cir.· 1984-04-02 ·cited 33×
  The court held that a federal district court must grant an evidentiary hearing to a habeas applicant when the merits of the factual dispute were not resolved in the state hearing, and the state factual determination is not fairly supported by the record.
• United States v. Todisco
  667 F.2d 255· 2d Cir.· 1981-05-22 ·cited 33×·via Knowing And Intelligent Guilty Plea
  The court affirmed convictions, holding that pre-trial motions to suppress evidence were properly denied, including evidence obtained from pen registers, wiretaps, warrantless arrests, and searches, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion regarding continuances or j
• United States v. Evelio Martinez
  588 F.2d 1227· 9th Cir.· 1978-10-10 ·cited 33×
  The court held that the wiretap evidence was admissible because the affidavit demonstrated necessity and the authorization/issuance procedures were proper; the search warrant was valid due to probable cause shown in the affidavit; and the appellant's statements were admissible as