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 petition challenging a prior conviction used to enhance a current sentence constitutes an abuse of the writ if the claim could have been raised in a prior petition challenging the enhanced sentence.
-
The Supplementary Treaty constitutes a Bill of Attainder because it specifies individuals, inflicts punishment by removing a defense and assuring extradition, and does so without a judicial trial.
-
The court held that the defendant's Penry claim was not procedurally barred, but that it lacked factual support. The court also held that an evidentiary hearing was not required for the ineffective assistance of counsel claim. Therefore, the request for a certificate of probable
-
614 So. 2d 1185·
Fla. 1st DCA·
1993-02-19
·cited 2×
Harrell petitions for mandamus or habeas corpus after being denied pretrial release when she attempted to satisfy multiple cash bond conditions by posting a single surety bond. The court grants relief, holding that cash bond conditions may be automatically satisfied by appropriat
-
A defendant claiming Indian status for criminal jurisdiction purposes must be affiliated with a federally acknowledged Indian tribe.
-
982 F.2d 922·
5th Cir.·
1993-02-10
·cited 2×
The court held that compelling a defendant to provide a voice exemplar, even with prejudicial language, does not violate the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination or due process, and that claims of ineffective assistance of counsel were not substantiated.
-
611 So. 2d 623·
Fla. 4th DCA·
1993-01-27
·cited 2×
-
The court held that the Nebraska Supreme Court's application of the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard for aggravating factors for the first time on appeal, rather than by the sentencing panel, violated Rust's due process rights and statutory entitlements.
-
The court held that a state court's determination of whether a defendant was 'in custody' for Miranda purposes is a factual finding entitled to a presumption of correctness under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).
-
The court held that the exclusion of an attorney from witness preparation during a pretrial lineup did not violate the Sixth Amendment, and any constitutional error was harmless. The court also held that the exclusion of evidence regarding dismissed counts and misidentifications,
-
The court held that while the trial court erred in failing to follow proper procedures for shackling the defendant, the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because the restraints were not visible to the jury and did not impede the defendant's ability to communicate with
-
981 F.2d 473·
10th Cir.·
1992-12-16
·cited 2×
The court should not grant a writ of habeas corpus based on a defense strategy not presented to the trial court.
-
982 F.2d 142·
4th Cir.·
1992-12-16
·cited 2×
The court held that the appellant's federal habeas corpus claims were procedurally barred due to his failure to timely file a notice of appeal in state court, and no exceptions applied.
-
The court held that Jernigan failed to demonstrate that any errors by his counsel or the trial judge prejudiced his trial, and thus he is not entitled to habeas relief.
-
Joint representation of co-defendants does not violate the Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel unless the defendant demonstrates an actual conflict of interest that adversely affected counsel's performance. A voluntary and intelligent guilty plea waives prior
-
981 F.2d 1142·
10th Cir.·
1992-12-10
·cited 2×
The court affirmed the district court's grant of an unconditional writ of habeas corpus, finding that the petitioner's counsel's failure to file a timely appeal constituted ineffective assistance and that the state waived arguments regarding exhaustion and abuse of the writ.
-
979 F.2d 1335·
8th Cir.·
1992-11-23
·cited 2×
The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the appointment of counsel and in dismissing the habeas petition as an abuse of the writ.
-
608 So. 2d 565·
Fla. 1st DCA·
1992-11-19
·cited 2×
-
The court held that the district court did not err in finding Fairchild's confessions voluntary and reliable, and that his Brady claims constituted an abuse of the writ as he failed to demonstrate prejudice.
-
608 So. 2d 117·
Fla. 3d DCA·
1992-11-03
·cited 2×
The court held that a juvenile charged with a felony and released while awaiting final disposition of a prior case meets the statutory criteria for detention.
-
The district court erred in relying on the presumption of correctness under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) to uphold the state court's competency finding, as material facts were not adequately developed in state court.
-
977 F.2d 1259·
8th Cir.·
1992-10-19
·cited 2×
The court affirmed the dismissal of the habeas petition, holding that the appellant procedurally defaulted his Double Jeopardy claim by abandoning the sufficiency of evidence issue in state post-conviction proceedings.
-
The Double Jeopardy Clause applies to Missouri's persistent offender sentencing proceedings, barring a second enhancement hearing after the state failed to prove prior convictions in the first instance.
-
The court held that the prisoner waived his right to be present at sentencing by impeding efforts to procure his presence and failing to exhaust remedies under the Interstate Agreement on Detainers (IAD).
-
The court affirmed the dismissal of the habeas corpus petition, holding that the petitioner failed to establish a prima facie case of racial discrimination in the prosecutor's use of peremptory challenges.
-
976 F.2d 308·
7th Cir.·
1992-09-15
·cited 2×
The court held that the Indiana Department of Corrections' rule allowing officials to refuse to appear as witnesses in disciplinary hearings violates due process, but affirmed the denial of the habeas corpus petition on other grounds.
-
975 F.2d 316·
7th Cir.·
1992-09-11
·cited 2×
The court held that the district court correctly granted a writ of habeas corpus because the burglary of jurors during deliberations created circumstances justifying a presumption of implied bias, violating the defendant's right to a fair and impartial jury.
-
975 F.2d 463·
8th Cir.·
1992-09-11
·cited 2×
The court held that the appellant's sentence was not cruel and unusual punishment, his counsel was not ineffective, his guilty plea had a factual basis and was voluntary, and he was not denied due process by the refusal of a continuance.
-
974 F.2d 302·
2d Cir.·
1992-09-08
·cited 2×
The court held that the petitioner did not suffer a per se denial of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel because his attorney's alleged incapacity due to illness did not fall under the narrow circumstances where prejudice is presumed.
-
The Eighth Circuit held that prosecuting McIntyre for stealing a car after he had already been prosecuted for tampering with the same car violated the Double Jeopardy Clause, as the conduct constituting the tampering offense was used to prove essential elements of the stealing ch
-
The court held that the district court erred in failing to conduct an evidentiary hearing on the petitioner's ineffective assistance of counsel claim, but otherwise affirmed the denial of the petition.
-
The court held that the defendants did not violate the Constitution by continuing to detain the plaintiff because there was no evidence they knew of the writ of habeas corpus or intended to violate his rights, and state law violations are not actionable under § 1983.
-
The court held that the district court did not err in denying petitioner's request for an evidentiary hearing or in denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus, as the issues could be resolved on the state court record and petitioner failed to demonstrate ineffective assista
-
The court held that substantial evidence supported the conviction, and a rational fact-finder could have found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
-
971 F.2d 1427·
9th Cir.·
1992-08-05
·cited 2×
The court held that the exclusion of the victim's statement did not deprive the defendant of constitutional rights, and the defendant waived his claim regarding impeachment with a prior conviction by not testifying.
-
The court held that the petitioner's Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury and right to a fair trial were not violated by a juror's nondisclosure of a past trauma or by prosecutorial remarks.
-
968 F.2d 284·
2d Cir.·
1992-07-07
·cited 2×
While the thirteen-year delay in processing the defendant's direct appeal violated his due process rights, habeas corpus relief is not warranted without a showing of prejudice to the appeal's outcome.
-
Chester Levon Maxwell appeals his death sentence, claiming the trial court committed a Hitchcock error by failing to properly consider and weigh nonstatutory mitigating evidence during the penalty phase. The Florida Supreme Court vacates the death sentence and remands for a new p
-
600 So. 2d 558·
Fla. 5th DCA·
1992-06-19
·cited 2×
Eric Russaw sought appellate review of his sentence but could not afford the filing fee. His public defender failed to pursue proper indigency procedures, and the trial judge's dismissive denial of indigency was not communicated to Russaw. The appellate court transferred the case
-
The court held that the use of dual juries in a non-capital case does not violate the Constitution unless prejudice is shown, and that Beam's death sentence was unconstitutional due to reliance on a vague aggravating factor and impermissible use of sexual history.
-
The court held that the major thrust of the petitioner's mitigating evidence was not substantially beyond the scope of the special questions posed to the jury, and therefore, his death sentence was not imposed in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments.
-
794 F. Supp. 1568·
M.D. Fla.·
1992-05-26
·cited 2×
The court held that the petitioner's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and Brady violations lacked merit, and that procedural default barred one claim.
-
The court held that Moss was not denied effective assistance of appellate counsel because he had no nonfrivolous issues to raise on appeal, and therefore, the district court erred in granting habeas relief.
-
The court denied the application for a certificate of probable cause and vacated the stay of execution, finding no substantial showing of a federal right denial.
-
The court held that a prisoner is not entitled to a lay advocate unless illiterate or the case is complex, and that denying a request to call witnesses is permissible if it poses a security risk.
-
598 So. 2d 280·
Fla. 1st DCA·
1992-05-13
·cited 2×
The circuit court lacked jurisdiction to hear the inmate's petition because the Interstate Corrections Compact subjects inmates to the sending state's jurisdiction, requiring the receiving state to act solely as its agent.
-
The court denied the motion for appointment of counsel, finding that the issues, while complex, were sufficiently addressed by existing circuit precedent and legal scholarship to not require additional attorney assistance.
-
Larry Bland petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus challenging the sufficiency of the burglary information under which he was convicted, arguing it failed to allege the essential element of intent to commit an offense. The Florida appellate court denied the petition, holding that
-
The court held that excluding individuals over sixty-five from jury duty does not violate the Sixth Amendment's fair-cross-section requirement, and that the State did not violate Brady v. Maryland by failing to disclose the exact timing of a witness's immunity grant.
-
963 F.2d 1117·
8th Cir.·
1992-05-08
·cited 2×
The court held that the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial was not violated, as the delay was not inordinate, there was good reason for it due to lack of timely notice, and the defendant failed to allege prejudice.