Citation network
Lambrix Vs. Singletary
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- May 12, 1997
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
- Relied / Followed
-
U.S. 518 (1997) October Term, 1996 Syllabus Lambrix V. SingletarySearch
-
rejected all of his claims. While his appeal was pending before the Eleventh Circuit, this Court decided in Espinosa v. FloridaSearch
-
which cannot be applied retroactively on federal habeas under Teague v. LaneSearch
-
a claim of Teague bar has not previously been presented, the Court's opinions-most particularly, Coleman v. ThompsonSearch
-
that Espinosa, supra, at 1082, cited only a single case in support of its central conclusion, Baldwin v. AlabamaSearch
-
in circumstances not present in that case. The decisions relied on most heavily by Lambrix-Godfrey v. GeorgiaSearch
-
and Clemons v. MississippiSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
in Espinosa. Rather, a close examination of the Florida death penalty scheme, in light of cases such as Proffitt v. FloridaSearch
-
and Spaziano v. FloridaSearch
-
became final could have reached a result different from Espinosa. That conclusion is confirmed by Walton v. ArizonaSearch
-
as a per curiam without oral argument is insignificant, since the decision followed by just three weeks Sochor v. FloridaSearch
-
nor prohibits the imposition of capital punishment on a particular 520 class of persons. E. g., Saffle v. ParksSearch
-
implicating the criminal proceeding's fundamental fairness and accuracy-applies to Espinosa errors, and Sawyer v. SmithSearch
-
certiorari in this case to consider whether a prisoner whose conviction became final before our decision in Espinosa v. FloridaSearch
-
as defined in Teague v. LaneSearch
-
on both counts. Lambrix's conviction and sentence were upheld on direct appeal by the Florida Supreme Court. Lambrix v. StateSearch
-
So. 2d 1143 (1986). After the Florida courts denied his repeated efforts to obtain collateral relief, Lambrix v. DuggerSearch
-
Lambrix v. StateSearch
-
While Lambrix's appeal was pending before the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, this Court decided Espinosa v. FloridaSearch
-
s Espinosa claim without considering its merits on the ground that the claim was procedurally barred. Lambrix v. SingletarySearch
-
that Espinosa announced a new rule which cannot be applied retroactively on federal habeas under Teague v. LaneSearch
-
Brief for Respondent 30, citing Chandler v. DuggerSearch
-
So. 2d 1066, 1069 (Fla. 1994), Jackson v. DuggerSearch
-
So. 2d 1051, 1055 (Fla. 1993), and Henderson v. SingletarySearch
-
So. 2d 313 (Fla.), cert. denied, 507 U. S. 1047 (1993). In Coleman v. ThompsonSearch
-
See also Harris v. ReedSearch
-
is sufficient to sustain the decree, any opinion of this Court on the federal question would be purely advisory. Herb v. PitcairnSearch
-
see also Sochor v. FloridaSearch
-
see also Wainwright v. SykesSearch
-
U. S. 72 ,81,82 (1977), discussing Brown v. AllenSearch
-
Penry v. LynaughSearch
-
Gaspari v. BohlenSearch
-
infra), the Teague inquiry requires a detailed analysis of federal constitutional law. See, e. g., Sawyer v. SmithSearch
-
are more familiar than we with the procedural practices of the States in which they regularly sit, see, e. g., Rummel v. EstelleSearch
-
County Court of Ulster Cty. v. AllenSearch
-
in the trial court's determination, Tedder v. StateSearch
-
So. 2d 908, 910 (Fla. 1975), but the court has an independent obligation to determine the appropriate punishment, Ross v. StateSearch
-
appeal, the Florida Supreme Court agreed with the trial court's findings as to the aggravating circumstances. Lambrix v. StateSearch
-
present case) that the trial court's independent weighing did not cure this error. Prior to our opinion in Espinosa v. FloridaSearch
-
in a three-step process. First, it determines the date upon which the defendant's conviction became final. See Caspari v. BohlenSearch
-
the legal landscape as it then existed,' Graham v. CollinsSearch
-
seeks was required by the Constitution,' Saffle v. ParksSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial