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
-
The court held that a prior conviction dismissed under California Penal Code § 1203.4 is still considered a felony for sentencing purposes under Health and Safety Code § 11501, and that the appellant was not deprived of due process.
-
381 F.2d 523·
6th Cir.·
1967-07-19
·cited 6×
-
380 F.2d 94·
7th Cir.·
1967-06-22
·cited 6×
The court held that the district court properly dismissed the habeas corpus petition for failure to exhaust state remedies, as the petitioner had not presented his newly asserted constitutional claims to the state courts.
-
The District Court erred in holding that the withdrawal of an appeal constituted a waiver of a federal claim regarding an involuntary guilty plea, especially when state courts had addressed the claim on its merits.
-
378 F.2d 85·
2d Cir.·
1967-05-26
·cited 6×
The court held that the relator's detention as a parole violator was lawful, and the denial of his habeas corpus petition was proper.
-
378 F.2d 324·
9th Cir.·
1967-05-23
·cited 6×
A conviction following a guilty plea is based solely on the plea, not on prior evidence, and forecloses collateral attack unless the plea was coerced.
-
376 F.2d 516·
10th Cir.·
1967-04-17
·cited 6×
The court affirmed the denial of the appellant's motion for sentence credit.
-
374 F.2d 90·
5th Cir.·
1967-03-06
·cited 6×
The court held that a sentence is not void or ambiguous merely because it is made consecutive to a prior sentence that is pending appeal.
-
-
The court held that a discrepancy in the date of a waiver of rights, coupled with an allegation of duress and lack of counsel, warrants a hearing to determine the waiver's validity.
-
The court held that the federal court should defer to state courts to determine the application of New York law regarding the denial of a free transcript of preliminary hearing minutes to an indigent defendant.
-
The court held that the district court's finding of a knowing waiver of appeal was clearly erroneous and that the Arizona Supreme Court did not consider the merits of the appellant's claim regarding the mistrial denial.
-
371 F.2d 681·
9th Cir.·
1967-01-18
·cited 6×
The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the habeas corpus petition without resolving factual issues regarding exhaustion of state remedies and the applicability of McNally v. Hill.
-
370 F.2d 997·
9th Cir.·
1967-01-06
·cited 6×
The dissenting judge would affirm the district court's decision, finding the appellee's confinement based on an invalid conviction to be unjust and lacking jurisdictional foundation.
-
-
The court held that a motion under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 is the exclusive remedy for federal prisoners to attack their sentences, and failure to succeed on such a motion does not render it inadequate or ineffective.
-
The court held that the prisoner had not exhausted his state remedies, thus federal habeas corpus relief was premature.
-
The court held that the petitioner's confession was involuntary due to coercive interrogation tactics and his intellectual deficiencies, thus violating his due process rights.
-
364 F.2d 808·
9th Cir.·
1966-07-27
·cited 6×
The court held that the prisoner's constitutional claims were without merit and that the petition for a writ of habeas corpus was properly denied.
-
The court held that the district court did not err in denying the writ of habeas corpus, as the prisoner's claims of constitutional violations were unsupported by evidence or were waived.
-
359 F.2d 796·
8th Cir.·
1966-04-29
·cited 6×
The court held that the district court properly dismissed the habeas corpus petition without a hearing because the issue of the appellant's mental competency was being addressed by the court where the charges were pending.
-
The court denied the petitioner's application for a certificate of probable cause, affirming the district court's denial of the writ of habeas corpus.
-
The court held that even if the Habitual Criminal Act was improperly applied, the petitioner is not entitled to immediate release because the enhanced sentence is separable from the original sentence for burglary and larceny.
-
353 F.2d 528·
9th Cir.·
1965-11-24
·cited 6×
The court held that the appellant was denied due process under the Vth and XIVth Amendments due to a lack of counsel and improper handling of his plea.
-
A judgment of commitment is not void for lack of clarity regarding sentence commencement or service location when governed by federal statutes.
-
The court held that the recidivist sentence was void because the defendant was not duly cautioned as required by statute and because prior convictions used to support the sentence were void due to lack of counsel.
-
The court held that a federal district court was justified in denying a habeas corpus hearing based on the state court record and that the petitioner was not denied constitutional rights regarding counsel at plea or sentencing.
-
348 F.2d 215·
3d Cir.·
1965-07-14
·cited 6×
The court held that the lower court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the habeas corpus petition because it challenged future custody, not present custody.
-
The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the habeas corpus petition without a full and fair hearing, requiring a remand for further proceedings.
-
The court held that the petitioner's Fourth Amendment claim was adjudicated on the merits by the Ohio Supreme Court, and that Mapp v. Ohio is not retroactively applicable to convictions prior to its decision.
-
348 F.2d 159·
9th Cir.·
1965-06-25
·cited 6×
-
347 F.2d 369·
10th Cir.·
1965-06-22
·cited 6×
The formal written judgment and commitment, not the oral pronouncement, constitutes the effective sentence when it clarifies the court's intent.
-
346 F.2d 991·
5th Cir.·
1965-06-14
·cited 6×
The court held that the petitioner had exhausted state remedies and was entitled to a hearing on his habeas corpus petition regarding the denial of counsel.
-
The court held that the trial court had jurisdiction to try the defendant for assault with intent to commit armed robbery based on the information filed, and that the conviction was not void due to the lack of a grand jury indictment.
-
The court held that the defendant failed to demonstrate a deprivation of federal constitutional rights, and thus the lower court properly denied his petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
-
342 F.2d 202·
3d Cir.·
1965-03-08
·cited 6×
The court affirmed the denial of the habeas corpus petition, remanding the appellant to state courts for a hearing on the merits.
-
The court held that the Uniform Code of Military Justice's Articles 10 and 32 are not the military equivalent of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 5(a) and the Mallory principle, and therefore, pre-trial confinement without immediate charges or investigation does not invalidate
-
339 F.2d 585·
8th Cir.·
1964-12-30
·cited 6×
The Attorney General's authority to designate a prisoner's place of confinement, including transfer to a medical center, is not subject to review in habeas corpus proceedings.
-
The court held that the appellants' constitutional rights were not violated regarding counsel, representation adequacy, indictment validity, or awareness of their guilty plea.
-
The court held that constitutional rights were not violated and affirmed the district court's denial of the habeas corpus petition.
-
The court held that the district court's findings were supported by evidence and that the appellant's contentions lacked merit.
-
The court held that the dismissal of the habeas corpus application was proper because the grounds raised were without merit and the defendant waived any right to a Kansas-licensed attorney.
-
332 F.2d 34·
7th Cir.·
1964-05-13
·cited 6×
The court held that the granting of an adequate parole revocation hearing, even after an unreasonable delay, renders the subsequent custody lawful and defeats a claim for release on habeas corpus.
-
The court held that a prior state sentence completed before the federal sentence was entered cannot be considered concurrent with the federal sentence. It also held that a hearing is not required when the merits of a habeas corpus petition can be determined from the record.
-
The court held that the District Parole Board properly applied the D.C. Code in revoking parole and forfeiting good time, and that the issue of the recommitment date extending beyond the original maximum sentence is not yet ripe for review.
-
Anthony Gentilli petitioned for habeas corpus challenging his murder conviction, arguing he was incompetent to stand trial. The Florida Supreme Court held that the trial court violated Florida law by failing to conduct a statutory sanity hearing before trial, despite having reaso
-
The court held that the information charging burglary was valid and that the search and seizure did not violate the Constitution, affirming the lower court's denial of the habeas corpus petition.
-
John Alford petitioned for habeas corpus challenging his convictions on the grounds that he was denied the right to counsel. The Florida Supreme Court, guided by the landmark U.S. Supreme Court decisions in Carnley v. Cochran and Gideon v. Wainwright, vacated his convictions and
-
The Florida Supreme Court, pursuant to a remand from the U.S. Supreme Court, vacated its prior judgment and appointed a special commissioner to hear evidence on whether the petitioner was denied the right to counsel when he entered his guilty plea. This case addresses fundamental
-
318 F.2d 64·
3d Cir.·
1963-05-23
·cited 6×
The court held that a defendant is entitled to reasonable notice and an opportunity to be heard regarding a recidivist charge, but not necessarily advance notice before the trial on the substantive offense. The court also held that a state supreme court's remand for a proper sent