3,651 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 2,273 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort
-
The court held that the petitioner failed to show that the state court's denial of his claims was contrary to or involved an unreasonable application of federal law, or was based on an unreasonable factual determination.
-
Fla. 5th DCA·
2025-01-03
A pro se litigant whose filings are abusive, repetitive, malicious, or frivolous may be cautioned that further such filings will result in sanctions including a bar on pro se filing and referral for prison disciplinary proceedings.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-01-02
The court held that a second federal habeas petition filed without prior authorization from the court of appeals is successive and must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
-
The court held that the petition for writ of habeas corpus was untimely filed under AEDPA, and equitable tolling and actual innocence exceptions did not apply.
-
Fla. 1st DCA·
2024-12-23
A habeas corpus petition may be dismissed rather than transferred when it raises untimely, successive, or frivolous postconviction challenges that could have been raised earlier or constitute a second or successive motion under rule 3.850.
-
Fla. 5th DCA·
2024-12-20
Matthew Brodman filed a habeas corpus petition claiming ineffective assistance of appellate counsel after his conviction and sixteen-year prison sentence. The court dismissed the petition with prejudice because Brodman's twenty claims were conclusory and lacked sufficient support
-
The court held that the federal habeas petition was untimely under AEDPA and that the petitioner's claims lacked merit.
-
The court held that the petitioner's habeas corpus petition was untimely filed under AEDPA, and dismissed the case with prejudice.
-
Fla. 1st DCA·
2024-12-04
The petition for writ of habeas corpus was dismissed.
-
Fla. 1st DCA·
2024-12-04
The petition for writ of habeas corpus was dismissed.
-
Fla. 1st DCA·
2024-11-27
The petition for writ of habeas corpus was dismissed.
-
Fla. 1st DCA·
2024-11-27
A petition for writ of habeas corpus that does not meet the requirements established in Baker v. State must be dismissed.
-
The federal habeas petition is dismissed as time-barred because it was filed outside the one-year limitations period established by AEDPA, and no tolling or equitable exceptions apply.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2024-11-25
The district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to review the denial of an adjustment of status application under INA § 245(a) due to the jurisdictional bar in INA § 1252(a)(2)(B).
-
Fla. 1st DCA·
2024-11-15
The Florida First District Court of Appeal dismissed C.S.'s appeal from a circuit court decision regarding his minor child as untimely filed under the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, directing him to pursue a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the circuit court if he see
-
Fla. 1st DCA·
2024-11-15
The Florida First District Court of Appeal dismissed J.L.'s appeal from a Circuit Court decision regarding the Department of Children and Families, finding the appeal was untimely filed. The court directed the appellant to seek relief through a petition for writ of habeas corpus
-
Fla. 1st DCA·
2024-11-13
The Florida District Court of Appeal, First District, denied William Lawrence's petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging his pretrial detention order. The court found that the detention order was not based exclusively on inadmissible hearsay evidence and that petitioner f
-
Fla. 2d DCA·
2024-11-13
Alton T. McDaniel appeals orders striking his petition for writ of habeas corpus and motion for appointment of regional conflict counsel following his commitment to the Department of Children and Families after acquittal by reason of insanity for first-degree arson. The appellate
-
Fla. 1st DCA·
2024-11-13
Charity Noelle Wood appealed an order transferring her petition for writ of habeas corpus from Gadsden County to the committing court in Pinellas County. The First District Court of Appeal affirmed the transfer order, finding that only the committing court has jurisdiction to det
-
The court held that the petitioner's federal habeas corpus petition was time-barred under AEDPA because it was filed more than three years after the one-year limitations period expired.
-
The court held that the petitioner's federal habeas corpus petition was untimely filed after the one-year limitations period expired, and therefore, it should be dismissed with prejudice.
-
Fla. 1st DCA·
2024-11-06
The petition for writ of habeas corpus was dismissed.
-
A state prisoner seeking release on bond pending a habeas corpus decision must demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits of a substantial constitutional claim and extraordinary and exceptional circumstances. Petitioner failed to meet this standard.
-
The court dismissed the case without prejudice because the petitioner failed to use the required standard forms, combine claims improperly, and did not pay the filing fee or seek in forma pauperis status.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2024-10-29
The Court held that Petitioner's amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus is moot because he has been restored to competency and has new counsel, rendering the requested relief unnecessary.
-
The Eleventh Circuit held that a state court's explicit designation of an amended sentence as nunc pro tunc requires deference, preventing it from restarting the federal habeas limitations period, but an amended judgment not designated nunc pro tunc does restart the period.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2024-10-25
The court denied the motion for rehearing because the petitioner failed to present extraordinary circumstances and raised issues already decided or procedurally barred.
-
The federal habeas petition is dismissed as time-barred because it was filed more than one year after the petitioner's judgment became final, and neither statutory tolling, equitable tolling, nor the actual innocence exception applies.
-
Jesse Alonso, a Florida prisoner, filed a pro se petition for federal habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his conviction for resisting an officer with violence. The district court dismissed the petition as premature because Alonso had not exhausted available state co
-
The court held that the petitioner's habeas corpus petition was untimely filed and dismissed it because he failed to demonstrate actual innocence or any other basis for equitable tolling.
-
Fla. 1st DCA·
2024-10-16
-
Fla. 3d DCA·
2024-10-16
Johnny William McIntyre filed an original habeas corpus petition challenging his habitual felony offender sentences imposed in 1997. The Third District Court of Appeal dismissed the petition, holding that habeas corpus cannot be used to relitigate issues that could have been or w
-
Fla. 3d DCA·
2024-10-16
A petition for writ of habeas corpus based on manifest injustice fails when the petitioner merely reiterates previously litigated claims regarding DNA evidence reliability with additional documentation, as such claims are successive rather than newly discovered and do not meet th
-
Roosevelt Kirk, a juvenile offender sentenced to life with parole for a 1983 murder, sought federal habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, arguing his resentencing violated the Eighth Amendment under Miller v. Alabama. The federal court denied relief, holding that Miller does not
-
N.D. Fla.·
2024-10-08
A district court lacks jurisdiction to consider a second or successive habeas corpus petition that was not previously authorized by an appellate court.
-
The court held that the petitioner's habeas corpus petition was untimely filed and dismissed it with prejudice.
-
Fla. 1st DCA·
2024-10-02
The petition for writ of habeas corpus was dismissed.
-
The court held that certain claims were procedurally defaulted and unexhausted, and that the remaining claims did not meet the standard for federal habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).
-
Former FBI Special Agent John Joseph Connolly challenged his second-degree murder conviction for his role in the 1982 killing of John B. Callahan, arguing that Florida prosecutors committed a Brady violation by withholding a 2006 email from his trial in which an FBI supervisor st
-
The court held that the federal habeas petition was time-barred because the state post-conviction motion did not toll the limitations period, and the petitioner failed to establish actual innocence.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2024-09-26
The court held that it lacks jurisdiction to review the denial of bond or parole, as these are discretionary decisions by the Attorney General under the Immigration and Nationality Act, and the petitioner failed to establish the illegality of his detention.
-
Fla. 3d DCA·
2024-09-25
A habeas corpus petition filed by a civilly committed sexually violent predator must be filed in the county where the facility in which the petitioner is confined is located, not in the county where the judgment was rendered, and the trial court in the judgment county lacks autho
-
Rashane Jones, a Florida inmate convicted of three counts of attempted second-degree murder and one count of felon in possession of a firearm, filed a federal habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his 2014 state court conviction. The District Court for the Mid
-
A freestanding claim of actual innocence based on newly discovered evidence is not cognizable on federal habeas corpus review under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in non-capital cases.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2024-09-20
A federal prisoner must exhaust administrative remedies before seeking a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to challenge the execution of his sentence.
-
Federal habeas relief is denied because the petitioner's claims are either not cognizable in federal court as they involve state law issues or fail to demonstrate that the state court's adjudication was contrary to or an unreasonable application of federal law.
-
The court held that the petitioner received all the due process he was entitled to under Wolff v. McDonnell, and the state court's decision was not contrary to federal law or based on an unreasonable determination of facts.
-
The court held that the petitioner failed to show the state court's decision denying his due process and double jeopardy claims was contrary to or an unreasonable application of federal law, or based on an unreasonable determination of facts.
-
The court held that the petitioner's arguments did not meet the high standard required for federal habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) and that the arguments were frivolous.
-
Fla. 5th DCA·
2024-09-13
A prisoner's repeated pro se filings asserting identical claims stemming from the same conviction may be summarily dismissed with prejudice and subject to sanctions when determined to be abusive, repetitive, malicious, or frivolous.