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
-
Federal courts must dismiss habeas petitions that raise issues not first presented to a state court, requiring exhaustion of state remedies.
-
The Circuit Court has jurisdiction to issue writs of habeas corpus and grant bail, even without appellate jurisdiction over the originating court.
-
464 F.2d 735·
5th Cir.·
1972-07-20
·cited 20×
The court affirmed the district court's adoption of the magistrate's findings, holding that the search was substantially contemporaneous with a valid arrest, thus not violating the Fourth Amendment.
-
464 F.2d 1084·
1st Cir.·
1972-06-15
·cited 20×
The court denied the petition for rehearing, finding no merit in the petitioner's arguments regarding misleading court actions, the application of Rule 6(e), or treating a motion for reconsideration as a motion to vacate judgment.
-
The court affirmed the district court's grant of habeas corpus, finding that the petitioner's guilty plea was involuntary due to his heroin influence at the time.
-
The district court did not abuse its discretion in granting a writ of habeas corpus based on an involuntary confession, as res judicata does not apply to successive petitions and the facts supported a finding of involuntariness.
-
448 F.2d 552·
2d Cir.·
1971-09-03
·cited 20×
-
447 F.2d 747·
5th Cir.·
1971-08-23
·cited 20×
The court held that a federal prisoner is not entitled to credit for time spent in state custody if the federal detainer did not cause the denial of state bail, but rather the prisoner's inability to make bail.
-
The court held that Boykin v. Alabama, requiring inquiry into the voluntariness of guilty pleas, is not retroactive to pleas entered before its decision.
-
The court held that the petitioner failed to demonstrate ineffective assistance of counsel, as the defense attorney employed reasonable strategies despite the strong prosecution case and the identification procedures were not impermissibly suggestive.
-
440 F.2d 835·
7th Cir.·
1971-02-18
·cited 20×
A trial judge must advise indigent defendants of their right to appeal and their right to court-appointed counsel if they cannot afford one, as failure to do so violates the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection and due process clauses.
-
The court held that a federal prisoner must exhaust state remedies before seeking federal habeas corpus relief to remove a state detainer, as the state court is the primary forum to determine speedy trial rights.
-
430 F.2d 732·
10th Cir.·
1970-08-11
·cited 20×
The court held that the allegations made did not demonstrate a violation of the appellant's right to a speedy trial, nor actual prejudice to his defense due to delay.
-
The dissenting judge would reverse the grant of habeas corpus relief, finding the gun was properly received into evidence.
-
425 F.2d 845·
3d Cir.·
1970-04-28
·cited 20×
The court held that the district court properly dismissed the civil rights complaint, affirming the dismissal.
-
The court held that the local board's refusal to reopen the petitioner's classification lacked a basis in fact, entitling him to consideration of his conscientious objector claim.
-
423 F.2d 224·
3d Cir.·
1970-03-16
·cited 20×
The court held that the District Court had jurisdiction to consider the habeas corpus petition, and that the relator's contentions regarding denial of counsel for appeal and ineffective assistance of counsel were without merit.
-
423 F.2d 1183·
9th Cir.·
1970-02-24
·cited 20×
The court held that the district court did not err in denying the habeas corpus petition because the appellant was mentally competent when he entered his guilty plea.
-
Federal courts may grant habeas corpus relief to prisoners claiming denial of speedy trial rights due to detainers, provided state remedies are exhausted, allowing prosecution to be barred.
-
420 F.2d 373·
10th Cir.·
1969-12-31
·cited 20×
The court held that an ambiguous record regarding counsel representation necessitates an evidentiary hearing to determine the validity of a prior conviction used for sentence enhancement.
-
419 F.2d 1134·
8th Cir.·
1969-12-30
·cited 20×
The court held that the trial court's findings were supported by substantial evidence and affirmed the denial of the habeas corpus petition.
-
420 F.2d 1204·
10th Cir.·
1969-12-09
·cited 20×
A federal court's attempt to order its sentence to run concurrently with a state sentence is ineffective and surplusage, but does not invalidate the federal sentence.
-
The court affirmed the denial of the habeas corpus petition without reaching the merits, to allow New York courts to adjudicate the appellant's Bruton claim.
-
The court held that the District Court did not err in denying a federal evidentiary hearing on the habeas corpus petition, as the state record was adequate and the appellant's claims lacked sufficient credible evidence.
-
411 F.2d 661·
7th Cir.·
1969-05-23
·cited 20×
The dissenting judge would have reversed the district court's denial of a new trial, finding that the Indiana courts violated the defendant's due process rights by refusing a psychiatric examination and sanity hearing.
-
410 F.2d 1349·
5th Cir.·
1969-05-02
·cited 20×
The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the habeas corpus petition without a hearing, as factual issues regarding the knowing use of perjured testimony by state authorities needed to be resolved.
-
409 F.2d 555·
9th Cir.·
1969-03-28
·cited 20×
An alien paroled into the United States has not made an 'entry' and is not entitled to a deportation hearing upon revocation of parole, nor is a hearing before a special inquiry officer required for persecution claims under these circumstances.
-
409 F.2d 1042·
2d Cir.·
1969-02-26
·cited 20×
A habeas corpus petition must allege facts showing not only that a confession was coerced, but also that the guilty plea was involuntary due to the confession.
-
The court held that the state did not lose jurisdiction over the appellant when he was transferred to federal custody, and his claims regarding sentence commencement and credit are matters for state courts.
-
402 F.2d 813·
9th Cir.·
1968-09-05
·cited 20×
The court held that the Selective Service Board's reclassification of the appellant from III-A to I-A lacked a basis in fact, as the evidence presented by the appellant established a prima facie case for extreme hardship to a dependent, and the government failed to provide affirm
-
399 F.2d 311·
10th Cir.·
1968-07-26
·cited 20×
Federal courts cannot summarily dismiss state prisoner habeas corpus petitions based solely on state court findings without an evidentiary hearing if material issues of fact are raised.
-
The court affirmed the district court's grant of habeas corpus relief, finding that the petitioner was entitled to credit for time served under vacated sentences.
-
384 F.2d 811·
10th Cir.·
1967-11-01
·cited 20×
The court held that the appellant had not exhausted his available state remedies, and the Kansas post-conviction procedure was adequate.
-
The court affirmed the denial of habeas corpus relief, finding no evidence of religious or racial discrimination by prison officials.
-
379 F.2d 106·
D.C. Cir.·
1967-05-01
·cited 20×
The court held that the District Court erred in ruling it lacked jurisdiction to inquire into the suitability of a juvenile's detention facility, even for interim custody.
-
369 F.2d 688·
10th Cir.·
1966-12-08
·cited 20×
A mandatory releasee is subject to the same conditions as a parolee, and a violator's warrant issued during the term of parole may be served after the sentence expiration if good reason is shown.
-
368 F.2d 9·
10th Cir.·
1966-10-31
·cited 20×
The court held that the lower court erred in summarily denying the habeas corpus application without an evidentiary hearing, as the allegations regarding speedy trial raised a substantial question.
-
188 So. 2d 684·
Fla. 4th DCA·
1966-07-13
·cited 20×
The Florida District Court of Appeal held that a state attorney has the implied common law power to request issuance of a grand jury subpoena before the grand jury is formally impaneled and sworn, rejecting petitioner Martin's challenge to a subpoena issued for a grand jury not y
-
The Florida Supreme Court discharged a petition for a writ of habeas corpus because the petitioner was attacking a consecutive sentence he had not yet begun to serve, and was currently serving a different sentence.
-
A defendant is entitled to counsel when changing a plea to guilty, and waiving counsel at arraignment does not waive this right.
-
351 F.2d 217·
6th Cir.·
1965-09-22
·cited 20×
The court held that the appellant was not denied due process or the right to counsel, as any potential errors or deprivations did not affect his substantial rights.
-
344 F.2d 463·
8th Cir.·
1965-05-03
·cited 20×
The court held that a federal prisoner must exhaust remedies under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 in the sentencing court before seeking habeas corpus relief, and that courts will not interfere with discretionary prison discipline absent exceptional circumstances.
-
The court held that the district court did not err in denying the inmate's application for a writ of habeas corpus, as he had not exhausted his state remedies and the accusations of prejudice were unsupported.
-
342 F.2d 679·
5th Cir.·
1965-02-09
·cited 20×
-
334 F.2d 524·
3d Cir.·
1964-06-30
·cited 20×
The court held that Palumbo had a federal constitutional right to counsel at the time he changed his plea to guilty, and he did not effectively waive this right, thus violating his due process guarantee.
-
Escape from lawful confinement for civil contempt is a punishable offense under common law, even if the contempt statute does not apply.
-
Ray Cash sought habeas corpus relief from his 15-year burglary sentence, claiming he was denied due process by being refused a continuance to obtain private counsel after his court-appointed attorney withdrew on the eve of trial. The Florida Supreme Court held that while there is
-
The court held that statements made by a defendant during a lengthy detention, after being denied counsel and witnessing the brutal treatment of a co-defendant, were coerced and thus involuntary, violating due process.
-
262 F.2d 778·
9th Cir.·
1958-12-15
·cited 20×
The court held that the petitioner's allegations regarding pre-conviction confinement, attorney conduct, and perjured testimony did not present a federal question or demonstrate a denial of constitutional rights sufficient to warrant federal habeas corpus relief.
-
248 F.2d 737·
7th Cir.·
1957-10-02
·cited 20×