159 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 552 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · browse and sort
-
The court held that the district court did not err in denying the habeas petition without an evidentiary hearing, as the state court post-conviction proceedings adequately addressed the ineffective assistance of counsel claim.
-
The court held that the district court properly denied the habeas corpus petition because the petitioner procedurally defaulted on most claims and the remaining claims lacked merit or were based on state law errors.
-
The court held that the trial court's decision to allow a potentially biased juror was supported by the record and that the exclusion of certain evidence did not violate due process. However, the district court erred in applying the concurrent sentence doctrine to dismiss a habea
-
The court held that the state court's finding that the petitioner's guilty plea was voluntary and intelligent should be presumed correct, despite language difficulties and temporary contradictions in the plea colloquy.
-
The court held that the district court properly issued a conditional writ of habeas corpus and stay, as there was constitutionally insufficient evidence to support the state court's 1988 recommitment of the petitioner.
-
The court held that where the record is ambiguous regarding the trial court's evaluation of a prosecutor's race-neutral explanations for peremptory strikes, a federal court must defer to the state appellate court's factual findings.
-
The court held that state laws requiring corroboration of accomplice testimony do not raise constitutional issues for federal habeas review, and that the evidence was sufficient to meet federal constitutional standards for guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
-
The court held that the evidence was insufficient to support a finding beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant intended to aid in the killing that occurred.
-
978 F.2d 1073·
8th Cir.·
1992-11-04
The court affirmed the denial of the habeas petition, finding no constitutional violation regarding ex parte jury communications, state suppression of evidence, or ineffective assistance of counsel.
-
977 F.2d 149·
5th Cir.·
1992-10-29
The court held that the petitioner's counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to adequately investigate and present independent psychiatric evidence regarding the petitioner's mental state during the penalty phase of his capital murder trial.
-
The dissenting judge would reverse the denial of the writ of habeas corpus and discharge the petitioners.
-
The court held that the district court did not err in denying the habeas corpus petition, affirming the denial of an evidentiary hearing and upholding the conviction and sentence.
-
The court held that the state courts' denial of Bush's habeas petition rested on an adequate and independent state ground, specifically Bush's procedural default in failing to object to the alibi instruction at trial.
-
963 F.2d 1062·
8th Cir.·
1992-05-05
The court held that a habeas petitioner is barred from contesting identification testimony resulting from an allegedly unlawful arrest if they had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in state court. The exclusion of defense witnesses did not violate Sixth Amendment
-
961 F.2d 1358·
8th Cir.·
1992-04-16
The court held that the district court did not err in denying the petition for a writ of habeas corpus because the appellant failed to prove his claims of perjury, improper admission of prior bad acts testimony, judicial misconduct, and Fifth Amendment violations.
-
The court held that the petitioner's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation was not violated by the admission of a witness's prior sworn deposition testimony, as the prosecution made a good-faith effort to secure the witness's attendance and she was properly declared unavailable.
-
951 F.2d 57·
5th Cir.·
1992-01-06
The court held that a prisoner's belief that supernatural intervention will prevent his execution does not render him incompetent to be executed under the Ford v. Wainwright standard.
-
The court held that the prosecutor's conduct, while reprehensible, was not intended to provoke the defendant into moving for a mistrial, thus double jeopardy does not bar retrial.
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction and that the admission of the defendant's notes did not violate due process.
-
The court held that any error in instructing the jury on an alternative theory of first-degree murder was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, and other claims lacked merit.
-
932 F.2d 713·
8th Cir.·
1991-05-03
The court held that a defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to timely file a motion for a new trial fails if the defendant initially did not wish to appeal, and that a claim of attorney's failure to investigate competency is rejected if the state cour
-
The court held that ineffective assistance of post-conviction counsel can constitute cause to lift a procedural bar, but in this case, counsel's strategic decision not to raise the rape charge issue was reasonable. The court also found the guilty pleas for rape and tampering were
-
The court held that the district court properly denied the petition for habeas corpus relief, affirming the lower court's decision.
-
921 F.2d 214·
9th Cir.·
1990-12-12
The court held that new evidence regarding decibel levels did not prove the officers heard the defendant's requests for counsel, and thus did not render the confession involuntary. The court affirmed the denial of the habeas petition.
-
915 F.2d 892·
4th Cir.·
1990-10-01
The dissenting judge believes a new trial was warranted due to insufficient inquiry into potential racial prejudice among jurors.
-
The court held that a state court's factual findings regarding a guilty plea are presumed correct and that a habeas petitioner's claims contradicting his statements at the plea hearing are insufficient to warrant relief.
-
746 F. Supp. 1492·
N.D. Fla.·
1989-10-24
The court held that the petitioner was denied effective assistance of counsel at the sentencing phase because his trial counsel failed to investigate and present available mitigating evidence, and this deficiency prejudiced the outcome of the sentencing proceeding.
-
A subsequent diagnosis of mental illness does not automatically entitle a habeas petitioner to an evidentiary hearing if the record, including prior competency evaluations and the plea colloquy, does not clearly and substantially raise doubt about competency at the time of the pl
-
The court affirmed the denial of the habeas corpus petition, holding that the in-court identifications were reliable under the totality of the circumstances.
-
The court held that the district court correctly dismissed the habeas corpus petition, finding no denial of effective assistance of counsel, a knowing and voluntary guilty plea, and no entitlement to an evidentiary hearing.
-
831 F.2d 1280·
6th Cir.·
1987-10-28
The court held that the petitioner's claims of actual conflict of interest from joint representation, prosecutorial misconduct, and ineffective assistance of counsel did not warrant habeas corpus relief because he failed to demonstrate prejudice or constitutional violations.
-
The court held that the trial judge's clarification of the plea bargain terms, which the defendant understood and did not object to, resolved any ambiguity and permitted the prosecutor to make a sentencing recommendation.
-
The court held that the lack of notice to the juvenile offender's parents regarding his arrest and arraignment violates due process and renders his guilty plea involuntary, requiring the conviction to be vacated.
-
The court held that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a constitutional violation regarding the grand jury's fair cross-section or due process claims, affirming the denial of his habeas corpus petition.
-
787 F.2d 304·
8th Cir.·
1986-03-20
The court held that the federal district court erred by applying the presumption of correctness under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) to the state court's determination of confession voluntariness, which requires independent federal review.
-
The court held that the petitioner may be entitled to a writ of habeas corpus if, on remand, he can show that his trial counsel's failure to investigate the incapacitating effect of the victim's heart wound was unreasonable and that material facts were not developed due to no ine
-
The court held that the exclusion of the confession testimony, based on the attorney-client privilege, did not violate the defendant's constitutional rights, nor did the attorney's actions constitute ineffective assistance of counsel.
-
The court held that the petitioner's prosecution for aggravated battery after an ex parte judgment on an ordinance violation constituted double jeopardy because the offenses were the same and the ex parte judgment was criminal punishment.
-
721 F.2d 1115·
7th Cir.·
1983-11-21
The court held that trial counsel's representation fell below the minimum professional standards required by the Sixth Amendment, constituting ineffective assistance of counsel.
-
The court held that the district court's dismissal of the habeas petition was proper, affirming the denial of relief on both ineffective assistance of counsel and jury instruction claims.
-
685 F.2d 927·
5th Cir.·
1982-08-26
The court held that the district court properly granted habeas relief because the state's role in the disappearance of a material witness violated due process, and the state court's findings on due diligence were not entitled to deference.
-
The court affirmed the denial of habeas corpus relief, finding sufficient evidence and corroboration for the conviction.
-
The court held that the district court's dismissal of the habeas petition was proper, affirming the denial of relief on the claims of involuntary guilty plea and unconstitutional sentencing statute.
-
The court held that the juvenile court's finding of probable cause, without an adjudication of delinquency, did not violate the petitioner's right against double jeopardy.
-
The dissenting judge argues that the panel erred in finding a Sixth Amendment violation based on dual representation without requiring a showing of actual prejudice and without sufficient state action.
-
The court held that the district court correctly denied the petition for a writ of habeas corpus because the appellant failed to establish any exceptions to the presumption of correctness for state court findings under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).
-
540 F.2d 921·
8th Cir.·
1976-08-09
The court held that the petitioner's claims are frivolous, thus denying his request for appointed counsel and dismissing the appeal.
-
A federal court is not precluded from holding an evidentiary hearing in a habeas corpus proceeding, even if state court findings are presumed correct under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), if the state court did not make a determination after a hearing on the merits of a factual issue.
-
475 F.2d 769·
9th Cir.·
1973-03-12
The court held that the state court's finding of witness unavailability was presumptively correct and that the use of preliminary hearing testimony was permissible.
-
473 F.2d 1371·
5th Cir.·
1973-02-28
The court held that denying habeas corpus relief based solely on a factual dispute with state court findings is not error, especially when the state hearing was adequate.