ANTHONY ROSAS A/K/A ANTHONY GARCIA-ROCHA, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the denial of Rosas's postconviction motion challenging his plea based on alleged failure to advise him of deportation consequences. The court found that Rosas failed to demonstrate that his conviction caused his deportation, as his removal was based on illegal entry rather than the crime of conviction.
The trial court did not prejudice Rosas by failing to advise of deportation consequences because the evidence showed he was being deported due to illegal entry, not because of the conviction itself. Rosas failed to establish that he was subject to removal solely because of the plea, and his speculation that he might have received adjustment of status in his immigration status is insufficient to merit relief.
“Appellant is not prejudiced by the trial court's failure to advise him of deportation consequences before accepting the plea in this case. See State v. Green, 944 So. 2d 208 (Fla.2006).”
Establishes the standard that to challenge a plea based on deportation consequences, a defendant must show prejudice by demonstrating the conviction caused the deportation.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRosas entered a plea in a criminal case and later filed a postconviction motion claiming he was not advised of deportation consequences. Documents att…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Deportation Consequences cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The order denying appellant’s postcon-viction motion is affirmed. Appellant is not prejudiced by the trial court’s failure to advise him of deportation consequences before accepting the plea in this case. See State v. Green, 944 So. 2d 208 (Fla.2006). The documents attached to appellant’s motion show he is being deported because he illegally entered the country, not because of the conviction in this case. Appellant has not shown that he is subject to removal solely because of the plea in this case. Forrest v. State, 988 So. 2d 38 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008).
Appellant’s allegation that, but for the conviction in this case, he might be entitled to an adjustment in his alien status is too speculative to merit relief. A state court is not a proper forum to litigate whether appellant would have received an adjustment in his immigration status. This determination is within the exclusive discretion of federal officials. 8 U.S.C. § 1255 (2000).
Further, appellant has filed a postcon-viction motion in an unrelated case which alleges that the conviction in that case subjects him to deportation. This refutes his claim of prejudice from this plea. See State v. Oakley, 715 So. 2d 956 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); Prieto v. State, 824 So. 2d 924 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002); Pena v. State, 837 So. 2d 495 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003).
Affirmed.
WARNER, FARMER and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State v. Owran Green, 944 So. 2d 208 (Fla. 2006)
- Forrest v. State, 988 So. 2d 38 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)
- Prieto v. State, 824 So. 2d 924 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)
- State v. Fernanda Oakley, 715 So. 2d 956 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)
- Pena v. State, 837 So. 2d 495 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)