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 federal habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is not available to challenge alleged deficiencies in state post-conviction proceedings, as such claims are collateral to the underlying detention and do not directly dispute the fact or duration of confineme
-
791 F.2d 590·
7th Cir.·
1986-05-27
·cited 14×
An inculpatory statement obtained in violation of Miranda/Edwards, if voluntary, may be used for impeachment purposes. Prosecutor's comments on the uncontradicted nature of the state's case did not violate the defendant's Fifth Amendment rights.
-
The court held that the defendant's claim of incompetency due to PTSD is barred by the doctrine of abuse of the writ, and other claims are without merit or foreclosed by precedent.
-
A federal court may not grant habeas corpus relief for violations of state procedural rules unless the violation renders the trial fundamentally unfair under federal due process standards.
-
787 F.2d 230·
7th Cir.·
1986-03-26
·cited 14×
The court held that the deputy sheriff's communication to the jury was harmless because the jury had already reached verdicts on the petitioners' guilt before the communication occurred, and therefore, the petitioners' due process rights were not violated.
-
485 So. 2d 25·
Fla. 1st DCA·
1986-03-18
·cited 14×
The appellate court affirmed the trial court's denial of the inmate's petition, finding he failed to exhaust administrative remedies.
-
Roy Harich, sentenced to death for first-degree murder, petitioned for habeas corpus relief and a stay of execution, raising three issues: the constitutionality of death-qualified juries, ineffective appellate counsel for failing to raise a voluntary intoxication defense, and imp
-
The court held that the state failed to establish a knowing and intelligent waiver of Miranda rights by the petitioner.
-
The court held that the petitioner failed to establish a broken plea bargain or ineffective assistance of counsel, and thus was not entitled to habeas corpus relief.
-
The military gave full and fair consideration to the petitioner's ineffective assistance of counsel claim, thus the federal court was not required to grant the writ.
-
780 F.2d 14·
7th Cir.·
1985-12-26
·cited 14×
The court held that the petitioner failed to exhaust state remedies by not seeking a writ of mandamus in the lower Illinois courts, despite seeking it in the Illinois Supreme Court.
-
484 So. 2d 595·
Fla. 4th DCA·
1985-11-06
·cited 14×
A prisoner petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus to belatedly appeal the denial of his post-conviction relief motion, claiming he did not receive the trial court's order for seven months due to a mailing delay. The Florida District Court of Appeal granted the petition, finding t
-
774 F.2d 309·
8th Cir.·
1985-10-02
·cited 14×
A federal court reviewing a state conviction via habeas corpus must afford a high measure of deference to state court factual findings, and a guilty plea is valid if it is knowing, intelligent, and voluntary, even if the defendant does not fully grasp every nuance of the law.
-
770 F.2d 876·
9th Cir.·
1985-09-09
·cited 14×
The court held that the appellant failed to exhaust his state judicial remedies by not properly utilizing Idaho's Uniform Post-Conviction Procedure Act before seeking federal habeas corpus relief.
-
476 So. 2d 654·
Fla.·
1985-08-29
·cited 14×
Ernest Charles Downs, convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death, petitioned for habeas corpus alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel and improper appellate review. The Florida Supreme Court denied his petition, holding that Downs failed to demonstrate
-
763 F.2d 250·
7th Cir.·
1985-05-17
·cited 14×
The court held that the State is estopped from contesting Zellers' assertion of cause for his procedural default due to systemic failures in providing due process rights. The court also found sufficient prejudice to justify a hearing.
-
A violation of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act's (IADA) 180-day speedy trial provision is not a fundamental defect entitling a prisoner to habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 unless prejudice is shown.
-
The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to grant the extraordinary relief sought by the petitioners and that none of the extraordinary writs provided a remedy.
-
The court held that the identity of trial and appellate counsel from the same firm constitutes sufficient 'cause' to overlook a procedural default regarding an ineffective assistance of counsel claim.
-
750 F.2d 438·
5th Cir.·
1985-01-14
·cited 14×
A federal habeas corpus petition may be dismissed under Rule 9(a) if the state demonstrates prejudice due to the petitioner's delay in filing, and the petitioner cannot show diligence or grounds for the delay.
-
The court held that the admission of a witness's deposition did not violate the defendant's Sixth Amendment confrontation rights, and the exclusion of the victim's old prior convictions was not an abuse of discretion.
-
749 F.2d 84·
1st Cir.·
1984-11-28
·cited 14×
The court held that the joint enterprise jury instruction, despite omitting the element of intent, did not violate due process given the specific context of the trial and the jury charge as a whole. The court also expressed doubts about whether the petitioner adequately exhausted
-
A state prisoner is not required to seek discretionary review in the state supreme court if that court's jurisdiction is limited, nor must they seek collateral review of issues already raised on direct appeal.
-
The court affirmed the denial of habeas relief regarding sufficiency of evidence and jury instructions but remanded for further consideration of the Eighth Amendment issue concerning the sentence's proportionality.
-
The court held that the Parole Commission's substantive decisions to grant or deny parole are committed to agency discretion and are not subject to judicial review, and that the parole guidelines do not violate the PCRA or improperly intrude on sentencing functions.
-
739 F.2d 257·
7th Cir.·
1984-07-11
·cited 14×
A prisoner cannot complain about the order in which he serves sentences imposed by different sovereigns.
-
A state prisoner seeking federal habeas corpus relief after a procedural default in state court must demonstrate cause and actual prejudice for the default, and failure to raise identification issues on direct appeal bars relief.
-
451 So. 2d 886·
Fla. 5th DCA·
1984-05-17
·cited 14×
Robert Joseph petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus to obtain belated direct review of his criminal conviction after his trial counsel allegedly failed to timely file a notice of appeal due to a mistaken belief about a procedural rule. The court granted the petition and remanded
-
The court held that the trial court did not err in failing to order a psychiatric examination for competency, nor did it err in other claims raised by the petitioner.
-
733 F.2d 737·
10th Cir.·
1984-05-07
·cited 14×
The court held that the jury instruction did not impermissibly shift the burden of proof, and therefore, no Sandstrom error occurred.
-
The court held that the defendant was grossly misled regarding parole eligibility, despite the sentence imposed being within the predicted range.
-
730 F.2d 953·
4th Cir.·
1984-03-13
·cited 14×
The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding writ abuse, and that equitable grounds did not warrant a stay of execution despite potential emerging constitutional principles.
-
A guilty plea induced by counsel's erroneous advice that the death penalty was applicable, when it was not, renders the plea involuntary and violates the Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel.
-
The court affirmed the denial of the habeas corpus petition, finding no merit in the petitioner's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, perjured testimony, or error in the denial of an evidentiary hearing.
-
722 F.2d 1277·
6th Cir.·
1983-11-28
·cited 14×
The dissenting judge believes the admission of the defendant's statements constituted harmless error, even if obtained unconstitutionally.
-
718 F.2d 484·
D.C. Cir.·
1983-10-04
·cited 14×
A district court's sua sponte transfer of a prisoner's case, without exceptional circumstances and without adequately considering the prisoner's arguments, constitutes an abuse of discretion.
-
712 F.2d 382·
8th Cir.·
1983-07-28
·cited 14×
The court held that the attorney's failure to object to the admission of evidence, which forfeited the defendant's right to appeal the suppression ruling, constituted ineffective assistance of counsel, entitling the defendant to an untimely appeal or habeas corpus relief.
-
712 F.2d 1172·
7th Cir.·
1983-07-18
·cited 14×
The dissenting judge believes there was adequate cause for the appellant's procedural default and that the state waived its right to raise the issue due to delay.
-
The court held that the petitioner procedurally defaulted his claim by failing to object to the jury instruction at trial, barring federal habeas review.
-
705 F.2d 869·
6th Cir.·
1983-05-03
·cited 14×
The court held that the failure to define reasonable doubt, when considered under the totality of the circumstances, did not violate the petitioner's constitutional rights.
-
The court held that the novelty of the constitutional claim at the time of trial constituted cause for failing to raise it on appeal, and prejudice was present, thus satisfying the cause and prejudice exception to the procedural bar rule.
-
703 F.2d 728·
3d Cir.·
1983-03-29
·cited 14×
The court held that the trial court did not sufficiently inform the defendant of his right to counsel and the dangers of self-representation, thus the waiver was not knowing and intelligent.
-
700 F.2d 1333·
11th Cir.·
1983-03-21
·cited 14×
An escape from state custody constitutes a procedural waiver of the right to seek post-conviction relief in state court, thereby precluding exhaustion of state remedies and foreclosing federal habeas corpus review.
-
A federal court need not hold an evidentiary hearing on a habeas corpus petition if the petitioner's allegations are contradicted by the existing record, including prior sworn testimony and affidavits.
-
693 F.2d 16·
1st Cir.·
1982-11-19
·cited 14×
The court held that the state court's review for a substantial risk of miscarriage of justice, even if it examined jury instructions on the merits, did not preclude the application of federal habeas corpus procedural default rules when the federal constitutional claim was not add
-
The court held that the district court must determine whether the petitioner exhausted state remedies, considering potential excuses for non-exhaustion, before ruling on the merits of the habeas petition.
-
687 F.2d 1235·
8th Cir.·
1982-09-09
·cited 14×
The court held that the petitioner failed to demonstrate ineffective assistance of counsel or insufficient evidence for his conviction, and therefore affirmed the denial of his habeas corpus petition.
-
689 F.2d 109·
7th Cir.·
1982-09-08
·cited 14×
The Parole Commission has the statutory authority to revoke the parole of a mandatory releasee after the expiration of his maximum term less 180 days if a violator warrant was issued prior to that date.
-
682 F.2d 786·
9th Cir.·
1982-07-27
·cited 14×
The court held that the petitioner failed to demonstrate ineffective assistance of counsel because his attorney's actions were those of a reasonably competent attorney and were reasonable tactical decisions.
-
682 F.2d 688·
7th Cir.·
1982-07-14
·cited 14×
The court held that the retroactive reclassification of perjury from an indictable misdemeanor to a felony, which carried adverse collateral consequences, violated the ex post facto clause of the Federal Constitution.