7,506 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 5,490 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort
-
962 F.2d 1315·
8th Cir.·
1992-05-01
·cited 6×
A defendant's knowing and intelligent waiver of the right to present mitigating evidence at the penalty phase of a capital trial is valid and forecloses challenges to the death sentence based on the failure to present such evidence.
-
The court held that the petitioner failed to make a substantial showing of a denial of a federal right or a likelihood of success on the merits, thus denying his motions for a certificate of probable cause and a stay of execution.
-
958 F.2d 955·
9th Cir.·
1992-03-12
·cited 6×
The court held that the state court's denial of the habeas petition rested on independent and adequate state grounds, and the petitioner failed to demonstrate cause and prejudice or manifest injustice to overcome this procedural bar.
-
The court held that the district court should have addressed the Commonwealth's abuse of the writ argument before considering the petitioner's failure to exhaust state remedies.
-
The court held that the government did not breach the plea agreement and the defendant was not entitled to withdraw his plea, thus affirming the denial of his § 2255 motion.
-
954 F.2d 422·
7th Cir.·
1992-01-17
·cited 6×
A federal court should not grant a writ of habeas corpus if the petitioner has not exhausted available state remedies, even if the petitioner speculates about potential state procedural hurdles.
-
951 F.2d 916·
8th Cir.·
1991-12-20
·cited 6×
The court held that the conviction for rape was not fundamentally unfair despite a variance between the charge and the jury instruction, as the evidence supported guilt under either method defined by the statute.
-
951 F.2d 126·
7th Cir.·
1991-12-17
·cited 6×
-
951 F.2d 117·
7th Cir.·
1991-12-16
·cited 6×
A confession is not rendered involuntary by a misunderstanding of collateral consequences or the silence of an officer regarding charges outside the scope of a non-prosecution agreement.
-
592 So. 2d 282·
Fla. 1st DCA·
1991-12-13
·cited 6×
The Lees, paternal grandparents, sought a writ of habeas corpus in Florida to enforce a Tennessee court's temporary custody order awarding them custody of the child pending final hearing. The Florida trial court denied the petition, finding that the best interests of the child re
-
A federal court has jurisdiction under § 2254 to consider the constitutionality of an expired conviction if it was used to augment a current sentence.
-
589 So. 2d 456·
Fla. 5th DCA·
1991-11-21
·cited 6×
Fannings Johnson sought habeas corpus relief challenging his parole revocation after being acquitted of the charges that led to revocation. The circuit court denied his petition, apparently on procedural grounds, but the appellate court reversed, finding no abuse of writ where su
-
The court affirmed the district court's rejection of Tart's collateral challenges, finding his Fourth Amendment claim and preemption claim meritless, and his jury instruction claim procedurally barred.
-
948 F.2d 684·
10th Cir.·
1991-11-06
·cited 6×
The court held that a pro se petitioner's lack of legal knowledge or awareness of legal issues does not constitute adequate cause for failing to raise claims in a prior federal habeas petition, thus constituting an abuse of the writ.
-
948 F.2d 1150·
10th Cir.·
1991-11-01
·cited 6×
The court held that the majority opinion created an erroneous rule of constitutional law by presuming juror bias based on past abuse and alleged dishonesty, rather than requiring proof of fixed opinions preventing impartial judgment.
-
945 F.2d 867·
5th Cir.·
1991-10-25
·cited 6×
The court held that the evidence was insufficient to support a conviction for actual delivery of cocaine, thus reversing the district court's dismissal of the habeas corpus petition.
-
966 F.2d 448·
9th Cir.·
1991-09-30
·cited 6×
The court held that judicial estoppel does not bar a habeas petitioner from asserting a claim of innocence based on ineffective assistance of counsel, and that the petitioner may be entitled to relief if her counsel's performance was deficient and prejudiced her defense.
-
945 F.2d 1119·
9th Cir.·
1991-09-27
·cited 6×
The court held that the district court properly dismissed the habeas corpus petition due to state procedural defaults and affirmed the denial of the motion to vacate.
-
945 F.2d 137·
6th Cir.·
1991-09-19
·cited 6×
The court held that the 1980 guilty plea was validly entered, but the 1981 plea was not sufficiently proven to be knowing and intelligent. A conditional writ of habeas corpus was granted, allowing the state to hold a new evidentiary hearing on the 1981 plea.
-
944 F.2d 202·
5th Cir.·
1991-09-18
·cited 6×
The court held that the petitioner's second habeas petition constituted an abuse of the writ because the claims raised could have been presented in the first petition and no cause or prejudice was shown, nor was there a showing of a fundamental miscarriage of justice.
-
The court held that the petitioner procedurally defaulted his claims by failing to file a timely appeal and did not establish cause for the default due to insufficient evidence of mental incompetence.
-
The court held that supervening legal authority (Coleman v. Thompson) requires analysis of procedural defaults under the cause and prejudice standard, not the deliberate bypass standard, and that petitioner's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel did not meet the Strickland
-
The court held that a state trial court's failure to conduct individual voir dire to determine if prospective jurors were aware of the defendant's prior conviction does not violate the Sixth Amendment, as the Constitution does not mandate a presumption of prejudice in such cases
-
The court held that the state prosecutor's failure to disclose the extensive criminal record and deals made with a key witness violated the petitioner's due process rights under Brady v. Maryland.
-
The court held that a trial judge's determination that the evidence was legally insufficient to sustain a guilty verdict, even if framed as a grant of a new trial to allow for appeal, constitutes an acquittal for double jeopardy purposes, barring retrial.
-
The court held that the petitioner's claim was not procedurally barred because the state court did not clearly and expressly state that its judgment rested on a state procedural bar, and the state failed to demonstrate prejudice from the delay in filing the petition.
-
935 F.2d 850·
7th Cir.·
1991-06-14
·cited 6×
The court held that there is a reasonable probability that the jury would have recommended against the death penalty had they known of Brewer's limited intellect and passive personality.
-
The dissenting judge would grant the writ of habeas corpus, finding that the admission of Purvis's confession violated Miranda, either due to custody issues or the improper admission of details obtained after custody began.
-
935 F.2d 1007·
9th Cir.·
1991-06-03
·cited 6×
The court held that a habeas court need only examine relevant portions of the state court record for harmless error analysis of a defective jury instruction on aiding and abetting, not the entire record. It also held that extensive pretrial publicity did not violate the defendant
-
932 F.2d 626·
7th Cir.·
1991-05-13
·cited 6×
The court held that the prior appellate decision regarding the procedure for gathering evidence on remand constituted the law of the case and was not subject to reconsideration under the new evidence or clearly erroneous exceptions.
-
A guilty plea to habitual criminal status waives subsequent collateral attacks on prior convictions, and claims not raised in the district court are not considered on appeal.
-
932 F.2d 31·
1st Cir.·
1991-04-26
·cited 6×
The court held that the imposition of a supervised release term was not a constitutional or jurisdictional error cognizable under § 2255, and the petitioner was not denied his right of allocution.
-
576 So. 2d 713·
Fla.·
1991-04-11
·cited 6×
Douglas Ray Meeks, a death row inmate, petitioned for habeas corpus relief claiming his two death sentences violated Hitchcock v. Dugger by restricting jury consideration to only statutory mitigating circumstances. The Florida Supreme Court found a Hitchcock violation but remande
-
The court held that the New Jersey Supreme Court's interpretation of the state's juvenile law was not unforeseeable, and therefore its retroactive application to Helton did not violate due process.
-
-
926 F.2d 74·
1st Cir.·
1991-02-19
·cited 6×
The court held that the trial court's jury instructions did not shift the burden of proof or create a miscarriage of justice, and that counsel's failure to object to instructions or move to suppress identification did not constitute ineffective assistance.
-
The court held that the district court erred in vacating the original sentence because the designation of the place of confinement was surplusage and the challenge to the execution of the sentence was not cognizable under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.
-
922 F.2d 492·
8th Cir.·
1991-01-07
·cited 6×
The court held that a motion for a certificate of probable cause, filed by a pro se petitioner within the time limits, can serve as the functional equivalent of a notice of appeal, thus conferring jurisdiction.
-
The court held that a procedural default in state court bars federal habeas review of claims unless the petitioner demonstrates both cause for the default and prejudice resulting from the state court's failure to address the claims.
-
921 F.2d 518·
4th Cir.·
1990-12-19
·cited 6×
The court held that the jury instructions did not unconstitutionally limit the consideration of mitigating evidence, nor did the omission of specific language in the fourth sentencing question constitute prejudicial error.
-
921 F.2d 100·
7th Cir.·
1990-12-18
·cited 6×
The court held that appointed counsel's failure to argue the Posse Comitatus Act did not constitute ineffective assistance because the military's involvement was not pervasive enough to violate the statute, and the exclusionary rule would likely not apply.
-
752 F. Supp. 1027·
M.D. Fla.·
1990-12-12
·cited 6×
The court held that the admission of codefendants' confessions, even if interlocking, was permissible under certain circumstances indicating reliability, and that counsel's performance did not constitute ineffective assistance.
-
The court held that the confinement prior to trial did not interfere with the defendant's ability to prepare his defense or obtain counsel, and that his waiver of counsel was knowing and intelligent.
-
917 F.2d 764·
3d Cir.·
1990-10-23
·cited 6×
The court held that the challenged provisions of the Pennsylvania Mandatory Minimum Sentencing Act do not violate the Due Process Clause.
-
567 So. 2d 1000·
Fla. 1st DCA·
1990-10-08
·cited 6×
The court held that while the Florida Parole Commission violated the appellant's due process rights by failing to provide him with findings from his preliminary parole revocation hearing, the appellant must still demonstrate prejudice from this omission to be entitled to habeas c
-
912 F.2d 1343·
11th Cir.·
1990-09-25
·cited 6×
The court should affirm the district court's dismissal of the habeas corpus petition due to prejudice caused by the petitioner's delay in filing.
-
912 F.2d 189·
7th Cir.·
1990-09-06
·cited 6×
The court held that if the Parole Commission fails to provide a prisoner with adequate notice of documents and witnesses to be used against him, it violates his due process rights, and the decision may not be upheld based on other evidence if the improperly considered factors con
-
The court held that while federal courts have inherent power to enjoin vexatious litigants, such orders require notice, an adequate record, substantive findings of frivolousness or harassment, and must be narrowly tailored; otherwise, they are an abuse of discretion.
-
912 F.2d 1111·
9th Cir.·
1990-08-30
·cited 6×
The court held that the regulation mandating forfeiture of street time was an unreasonable interpretation of the statute and thus invalid, and that street time forfeiture is a discretionary decision for the Commission.
-
912 F.2d 894·
7th Cir.·
1990-08-29
·cited 6×
The court held that the Parole Commission's failure to provide the petitioner with reasonable access to his files at least thirty days before his parole hearing violated 18 U.S.C. § 4208(b) and was not harmless error.