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
-
488 F.2d 275·
5th Cir.·
1974-01-17
·cited 26×
The court held that a state prisoner's failure to challenge jury selection procedures pre-trial, absent a showing of cause, constitutes a waiver of that claim, precluding federal habeas corpus relief.
-
The court held that the Miranda warning given was constitutionally adequate and the petitioner's statement was voluntarily made, thus affirming the dismissal of his habeas petition.
-
472 F.2d 960·
2d Cir.·
1973-01-19
·cited 26×
The court held that the State failed to present sufficient credible evidence that the petitioner was represented by counsel during his 1960 Arkansas conviction, and therefore, that conviction could not be used to enhance his sentence in New York.
-
The court held that while the parole condition itself was constitutional, the revocation hearing was fundamentally unfair and denied due process by relying solely on an unverified state parole report without allowing confrontation or disclosure of informants.
-
469 F.2d 854·
9th Cir.·
1972-11-27
·cited 26×
Compelling an accused to stand trial in prison clothing may deny the presumption of innocence, and such a denial requires reversal unless harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
-
The court held that the relator's state remedies were exhausted regarding his Miranda claim and that he was not adequately advised of his right to free counsel. The court also found that a hearing was required to determine if the relator waived his rights under Kent v. United Sta
-
The court held that a state prisoner is entitled to an inquiry into the competency of the sentencing judge, as a denial of due process, and remanded for further proceedings.
-
The court affirmed the district court's order granting a conditional writ of habeas corpus, finding that the petitioner's conviction was based on illegally seized evidence and that he did not waive his right to raise the issue.
-
The Eighth Amendment does not guarantee a right to bail pending a probation revocation hearing.
-
The court held that there was an adequate basis in fact for the Navy's denial of the conscientious objector discharge application.
-
225 So. 2d 516·
Fla.·
1969-07-30
·cited 26×
Dominick Angel Bretti, a convicted robber who became a fugitive while appealing a second conviction, challenges the dismissal of his appeal. The Florida Supreme Court holds that a defendant who flees the state while an appeal is pending may have that appeal dismissed and has no c
-
A trial attorney's failure to protect an indigent client's right to appeal, by filing a notice or advising on procedure, constitutes ineffective assistance of counsel.
-
406 F.2d 1243·
5th Cir.·
1969-02-03
·cited 26×
The court held that the appellant's contentions lacked merit and affirmed the district court's denial of the habeas corpus petition.
-
The court held that the petitioner did not waive his constitutional right to a jury free from systematic exclusion of Negroes, as waiver requires an intentional relinquishment of a known right.
-
360 F.2d 157·
10th Cir.·
1966-04-19
·cited 26×
The court held that an inordinate delay in processing a state appeal may constitute a denial of due process, requiring a federal habeas hearing.
-
346 F.2d 1000·
8th Cir.·
1965-06-17
·cited 26×
The court held that the district court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the habeas corpus petition because the defendant failed to allege or show that the remedy under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 was unavailable or inadequate.
-
The court held that a state prisoner's habeas corpus petition need not be dismissed for failure to exhaust state remedies if the state courts have already authoritatively ruled on the identical substantive issue in a prior case, rendering further state court application futile.
-
A federal court exhausts its statutory power in a habeas corpus proceeding after determining a confession introduced in a state criminal trial was voluntarily given; it cannot issue a writ for procedural errors not involving constitutional rights.
-
318 F.2d 852·
4th Cir.·
1963-06-05
·cited 26×
The court held that while the appointed attorney's conduct was neglectful, the prisoner's conviction would not be invalidated because the prisoner had no helpful information to communicate and admitted his involvement.
-
320 F.2d 179·
4th Cir.·
1963-06-03
·cited 26×
The court held that informing the jury of a defendant's prior convictions at the outset of a trial, as part of the indictment, denies the defendant due process of law and a fair trial.
-
315 F.2d 546·
6th Cir.·
1963-04-13
·cited 26×
The court held that the district court erred in denying a habeas corpus petition without a hearing when the pleadings raised factual issues regarding the parole authorities' diligence in executing a parole violation warrant.
-
313 F.2d 929·
4th Cir.·
1963-01-07
·cited 26×
The court held that the petitioner's absence from a conference where the jury's separation was decided, combined with allegations of prejudicial outside influences on the jury, raises constitutional issues requiring further review. The district court erred in denying the writ wit
-
122 So. 2d 318·
Fla. 1st DCA·
1960-07-19
·cited 26×
In this custody case, the appellate court addressed a trial judge's refusal to comply with the court's mandate awarding custody of a minor child to her biological father. The court held that a trial judge has no discretion to reject or delay implementing an appellate court's mand
-
An application under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is a new and independent civil proceeding, requiring a docket fee or permission to proceed in forma pauperis.
-
The court held that deportation to mainland China requires a preliminary inquiry into the Communist Chinese government's willingness to accept the alien, as mandated by statute.
-
The court held that the petitioner's allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel did not present a prima facie showing of unfairness requiring a federal habeas hearing, as counsel was appointed and the petitioner refused their services.
-
Petitioner Tilghman sought habeas corpus relief after being retried and reconvicted following the vacation of his initial conviction due to lack of notice denying him counsel. The Florida Supreme Court rejected his double jeopardy claim but granted relief requiring the trial cour
-
Sneed sought habeas corpus relief to challenge his conviction for breaking and entering, claiming he was denied trial by jury and counsel despite not being competent to waive those rights. The Florida Supreme Court held that although the trial court failed to comply with statutor
-
The court held that the sentencing judge had the authority to amend the sentence within three days to clarify its time sequence, and this amendment did not increase the sentence or violate the appellant's rights.
-
A registrant cannot seek a writ of habeas corpus to challenge his classification or orders before he has been inducted into service or taken into actual physical custody.
-
144 F.2d 565·
10th Cir.·
1944-08-26
·cited 26×
The court held that the trial court did not err in denying the petitioner's application to appeal in forma pauperis because the petition lacked merit and the trial court's certification of bad faith was made in good faith.
-
141 F.2d 845·
2d Cir.·
1944-04-13
·cited 26×
The court held that the appellate tribunals' affirmation of the 1-A classification was insufficient to determine if they adopted the hearing officer's findings, requiring a remand for clarification.
-
141 F.2d 664·
3d Cir.·
1944-03-15
·cited 26×
A civil court may review a court-martial proceeding via habeas corpus to determine if fundamental fairness, guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment's due process clause, was violated.
-
The dissenting judge argues that the trial court did not err in denying a habeas corpus petition for a sanity hearing without a formal hearing. The petition, when considered with prior court records showing recent adverse adjudications of insanity, did not present a sufficient ba
-
The court held that the appellant's claims of denial of confrontation and compulsory process rights were not supported by the record, and thus the writ of habeas corpus was properly denied.
-
121 F.2d 914·
10th Cir.·
1941-08-02
·cited 26×
The court held that the petitioner's allegations of conspiracy, perjured testimony, insufficient evidence, and denial of compulsory process did not establish a violation of due process or Sixth Amendment rights sufficient to warrant habeas corpus relief.
-
118 F.2d 704·
9th Cir.·
1941-03-24
·cited 26×
The court held that a habeas petitioner's allegations of counsel's withdrawal without court consent, if not factually supported and if the petitioner was present at sentencing, do not establish a Sixth Amendment violation requiring discharge.
-
The Florida District Court of Appeal, First District imposed sanctions against pro se litigant Robert Michael Ardis, barring him from proceeding pro se in any future cases before the court due to his pattern of filing voluminous, repetitive, and meritless pleadings across multipl
-
David Joseph Pittman was convicted of three counts of first-degree murder and sentenced to death for the 1990 murders of Clarence, Barbara, and Bonnie Knowles in Mulberry, Florida. On appeal from denial of postconviction relief and a habeas corpus petition, the Florida Supreme Co
-
The Court held that an uncoerced statement following Miranda warnings establishes an implied waiver of the right to remain silent, and that a suspect must unambiguously invoke this right to cease questioning.
-
3 So. 3d 986·
Fla.·
2009-01-29
·cited 25×
Perry Alexander Taylor appeals the trial court's denial of his postconviction motion to vacate his first-degree murder conviction and death sentence under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851, and petitions for writ of habeas corpus. The Florida Supreme Court affirms the deni
-
Steven Maurice Evans appeals the denial of his Rule 3.851 postconviction motion and petitions for a writ of habeas corpus in a first-degree murder and kidnapping case. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's denial of postconviction relief and denied the habeas petit
-
875 So. 2d 586·
Fla.·
2004-06-03
·cited 25×
Richard Eugene Hamilton, a death row inmate, appealed the denial of his motion for postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 and petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus challenging his conviction for first-degree murder and sentence of death. The Florida
-
Carlos De La Teja, a Cuban national paroled into the United States during the Mariel boatlift, was convicted of drug and property crimes in 1996 and deported after serving his sentence. He challenged his pre-removal detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c) as violating the Fifth Amendm
-
The Florida Supreme Court established a procedural rule for capital appeals, holding that it will not accept pro se filings from represented defendants that contain claims of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, requests to dismiss counsel, or supplemental bases for relie
-
The court held that the petitioner's pro se filings substantially interfered with judicial administration and prohibited him from appearing pro se in the future.
-
The court held that the trial judge erred in allowing confusion between pro se representation and appointed counsel, violating the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel, and that counsel's failure to object to a directed verdict constituted ineffective assistance of counse
-
542 So. 2d 980·
Fla.·
1989-04-20
·cited 25×
Roy Allen Harich, a death row inmate, appealed the denial of his postconviction motion for relief and sought a stay of execution, raising multiple claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and constitutional violations. The Florida Supreme Court remanded for an evidentiary hear
-
856 F.2d 129·
11th Cir.·
1988-09-28
·cited 25×
The court held that the petitioner's confession was voluntary and not obtained in violation of his Miranda rights, and therefore affirmed the denial of his habeas corpus petition.
-
514 So. 2d 1092·
Fla.·
1987-10-30
·cited 25×
The majority erred in labeling the sentencing instruction error as harmless, as it improperly restricted the jury's consideration of mitigating evidence.