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
-
938 F.2d 522·
4th Cir.·
1991-07-12
·cited 14×
The court held that the defendant's sentence did not commence to run on July 31, 1986, but rather on October 1, 1986, as he was not held in a penal institution but in a place of detention awaiting transportation.
-
Time spent in a halfway house under restrictive conditions constitutes 'official detention' for which a defendant must receive credit toward their sentence.
-
927 F.2d 205·
5th Cir.·
1991-03-11
·cited 14×
The court held that the repetitive portions of the habeas petition were properly dismissed under Rule 9(b), and the new claims lacked merit, thus affirming the district court's judgment.
-
920 F.2d 4·
8th Cir.·
1990-11-29
·cited 14×
The court held that the petitioner failed to show that the anti-psychotic drug he was taking rendered his guilty plea unknowing and unintelligent.
-
The court concurs in the result but disagrees with the reasoning that Stone v. Powell does not apply when state appellate courts do not issue opinions.
-
The majority's decision departs from Supreme Court precedent by requiring a petitioner to show only a colorable showing of prejudice, rather than 'actual innocence,' to obtain federal habeas review after procedural default.
-
The court held that the petitioner's Brady claim was meritless as the discrepancy was peripheral and harmless, and his Penry claim failed because he deliberately chose not to present mitigating evidence at trial.
-
561 So. 2d 557·
Fla.·
1990-04-30
·cited 14×
Jesse Tafero, under a third death warrant, appeals the denial of his third motion for postconviction relief seeking a stay of execution. The Florida Supreme Court affirms the trial court's denial, rejecting claims based on Hitchcock v. Dugger, Caldwell v. Mississippi, and the con
-
The court held that claims seeking restoration of good-time credits must generally be brought as habeas corpus petitions, requiring exhaustion of state remedies, while claims for damages or declaratory relief not affecting confinement length may proceed under § 1983.
-
895 F.2d 714·
11th Cir.·
1990-03-01
·cited 14×
The court held that a defendant's request for self-representation made after the jury has been empaneled and sworn is untimely and can be denied. The court also held that the appellant failed to present evidence of being denied the right to file a pro se brief on appeal.
-
The court held that the state waived its procedural default defense by failing to raise it in the district court, and that the jury instructions in the sentencing phase prevented the jury from giving full effect to the defendant's mitigating evidence.
-
The court affirmed the denial of habeas corpus relief, agreeing that the issue was procedurally barred and that the venireman's exclusion was proper on the merits.
-
549 So. 2d 1198·
Fla. 1st DCA·
1989-10-13
·cited 14×
Ronnie Lee Thames sought a belated appeal in 1989 after his trial counsel, W. Paul Thompson, failed to file a notice of appeal despite Thames's request. The court granted the belated appeal and imposed sanctions on Thompson for violating his duty to file the notice of appeal, fin
-
A criminal defendant is constitutionally entitled to the assistance of counsel for a motion for a new trial, even if they previously waived counsel and represented themselves at trial, unless the request is made in bad faith.
-
Failure of trial counsel to advise a defendant of the collateral immigration consequences of a guilty plea, including potential deportation, does not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment.
-
James William Hamblen petitioned for habeas corpus and a stay of execution following his conviction for first-degree murder and death sentence. The Florida Supreme Court rejected four claims of appellate ineffectiveness and error, including challenges to his waiver of counsel, th
-
877 F.2d 1167·
3d Cir.·
1989-06-14
·cited 14×
Section 235(b)(3) of the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 is a 'wind-up' provision that does not guarantee a release date within the guideline range for individuals who will not be under the Parole Commission's jurisdiction by its expiration date. The Parole Commission's sua sponte
-
A defendant arrested on serious felony charges filed a motion for pretrial release after being held in custody for 42 days without formal charging. The court interpreted Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.133(b)(6), which provides for automatic release if a defendant remains un
-
A state prisoner's federal habeas claim is exhausted if the substance of the claim was presented to the state courts in a manner likely to alert them to its federal nature, even if only state precedent was cited.
-
871 F.2d 1483·
9th Cir.·
1989-03-31
·cited 14×
The court held that a sentence of life without parole imposed under a statute that reserved such a penalty only for those who went to trial is unconstitutional under United States v. Jackson. The court also held that the appellant's confession was admissible.
-
The court held that a pro se prisoner's notice of appeal is deemed filed when delivered to prison authorities, and if the delivery date is unclear, the case must be remanded for a factual determination of timeliness.
-
864 F.2d 124·
11th Cir.·
1989-01-25
·cited 14×
A habeas corpus petition is not rendered moot by the petitioner's release from custody if there is a possibility that the challenged conviction could lead to enhanced sentencing in the future.
-
The court held that the defendant's waiver of his right to a jury trial was not knowing and intelligent due to the ambiguity in the trial court's explanation of the consequences of breaching the plea agreement.
-
The court held that California Penal Code § 3041.5(b)(2), which allows for longer delays between parole suitability hearings, violates the ex post facto clause when applied to prisoners like Watson who committed offenses before its enactment, as it materially disadvantages them b
-
854 F.2d 412·
11th Cir.·
1988-09-02
·cited 14×
The court held that a retrial on a lesser included offense is permissible after a conviction on a greater offense is reversed for insufficient evidence, and that federal courts must defer to state court interpretations of state statutes in habeas proceedings.
-
853 F.2d 593·
8th Cir.·
1988-08-04
·cited 14×
Incarcerated aliens cannot use a petition for a writ of habeas corpus to compel the INS to provide an immediate hearing and disposition of deportation proceedings based solely on the filing of an INS detainer.
-
851 F.2d 612·
2d Cir.·
1988-07-14
·cited 14×
The court held that the petitioner had exhausted state remedies to the extent they were available and effective, and that the state's delay in deciding his appeal violated his due process rights.
-
848 F.2d 149·
11th Cir.·
1988-06-27
·cited 14×
The court held that a motion for a certificate of probable cause can constitute a timely notice of appeal and that the district court erred in denying a habeas corpus petition without an adequate record or evidentiary hearing on the ineffective assistance of counsel claim.
-
846 F.2d 1355·
11th Cir.·
1988-06-14
·cited 14×
A violation of Article III(a) of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers (IAD) does not support post-conviction relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 unless the petitioner alleges facts casting substantial doubt on the trial's reliability regarding guilt.
-
525 So. 2d 486·
Fla. 1st DCA·
1988-05-20
·cited 14×
Court affirmed denial of habeas corpus petition where appellant, incarcerated in New Mexico, failed to show his sentence was enhanced by the Florida conviction he sought to challenge, thus lacking the custody requirement under Rule 3.850.
-
The court held that dismissal for delay under Rule 9(a) was improper because the state failed to make a particularized showing of prejudice in responding to the petition, and that the merits of the ineffective assistance of counsel claim must be addressed.
-
845 F.2d 610·
6th Cir.·
1988-04-26
·cited 14×
The Sixth Circuit held that the district court erred in granting a writ of habeas corpus because the state trial court's exclusion of former testimony, based on the proponent's failure to independently demonstrate witness unavailability under state rules, did not violate due proc
-
Failure by appellate counsel to strictly conform to Anders v. California requirements for filing a brief is not excused by the Strickland v. Washington prejudice standard, as such failure presumptively denies effective assistance of counsel.
-
841 F.2d 359·
11th Cir.·
1988-03-28
·cited 14×
The court held that the appellant was not compelled to wear prison attire, the prosecutor's comments did not deprive him of a fair trial, and his sentence for criminal mischief did not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause.
-
The court held that an unconstitutional jury instruction shifting the burden of proof on intent was not harmless error given evidence of a dissociative attack, but that the introduction of a state psychiatrist's testimony did not violate the defendant's right to counsel. The cour
-
523 So. 2d 620·
Fla. 2d DCA·
1988-02-26
·cited 14×
The court held that a defendant's motion to correct sentence based on alleged guideline scoresheet errors was properly denied, as the sentence was the result of a plea bargain and lawful at the time it was imposed.
-
A federal inmate challenging prior state convictions is not 'in custody' for habeas corpus purposes if the state probation period has expired and cannot be revoked under state law.
-
831 F.2d 811·
8th Cir.·
1987-10-27
·cited 14×
The court held that the Parole Commission could properly consider a dismissed federal charge as a basis for parole revocation and that any variance in the charges listed was technical and nonprejudicial, thus affirming the district court's dismissal of the habeas corpus petition.
-
The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the habeas corpus petition for lack of personal jurisdiction, as the respondents waived the issue and failed to respond to a show cause order.
-
The court held that placing the burden on the defendant to prove duress is constitutional, state appellate review for plain error bypasses procedural default, and a sentencing judge may consider facts related to a contemporaneous acquittal.
-
827 F.2d 1469·
11th Cir.·
1987-09-21
·cited 14×
The court held that the failure to inform a defendant of the potential benefits of the Alabama Youthful Offender Act before accepting a guilty plea violates federal due process, requiring the plea to be set aside.
-
-
827 F.2d 599·
9th Cir.·
1987-09-09
·cited 14×
The court held that the prospective application of revised parole guidelines based on the initial hearing date, rather than the sentencing date, did not violate equal protection, and that the guidelines themselves are not subject to the ex post facto clause.
-
821 F.2d 158·
2d Cir.·
1987-06-17
·cited 14×
The court held that a defendant denied effective assistance of appellate counsel on his first appeal as of right is entitled to a conditional writ of habeas corpus.
-
The court held that a five-year sentence for possession of a small amount of hashish, given the petitioner's prior convictions, does not violate the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.
-
808 F.2d 578·
7th Cir.·
1986-12-17
·cited 14×
The exclusion of expert testimony regarding the sobering effects of trauma, even if admissible under state law, did not violate the defendant's constitutional right to a fair trial or due process.
-
498 So. 2d 857·
Fla.·
1986-09-22
·cited 14×
The court held that the petitioner failed to demonstrate ineffective assistance of appellate counsel and that his claim regarding racially discriminatory imposition of the death penalty was procedurally barred.
-
801 F.2d 252·
6th Cir.·
1986-09-18
·cited 14×
A jury instruction that impermissibly shifts the burden of proof on mens rea, violating Sandstrom v. Montana, is subject to the Chapman harmless error standard and is not automatically reversible if the defendant contested intent.
-
The court held that the petitioner failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a federal right, and therefore, his motion for a certificate of probable cause and stay of execution were denied.
-
The court held that the pretrial identification was not impermissibly suggestive and the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel had not attached at the time of the identification, and even if it had, the identification constituted harmless error.