JOSE F. SANCHEZ, 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.
Jose Sanchez appeals the summary denial of his Rule 3.850 postconviction motion alleging ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to advise of deportation consequences before accepting a guilty plea. The Fourth District reverses, holding that the trial court erred in summarily denying the motion without allowing Sanchez an opportunity to amend his allegations regarding whether his current conviction alone subjects him to deportation.
The court reversed and remanded, holding that the trial court erred in summarily denying the motion because the record did not establish whether the Alachua County conviction constitutes an independent basis for deportation under federal immigration law, and the trial court should have afforded Sanchez an opportunity to amend his motion to allege that his plea in the current case alone subjects him to deportation.
[1] A defendant is entitled to an opportunity to amend a postconviction motion alleging ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to advise of deportation consequences of…
[2] The appellate court should not determine for the first time whether a defendant's other convictions independently constitute a basis for deportation.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The record does not establish whether appellant's other conviction constitutes an independent basis for deportation under federal immigration law; that is not an issue to be decided first in the appellate court.”
Establishes that the trial court erred in relying on an unproven assertion that an alternative basis for deportation existed from another conviction
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSanchez entered a guilty plea without being advised of the deportation consequences. The trial court denied his Rule 3.850 motion, reasoning that Sanc…
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 Of Plea cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Jose F. Sanchez appeals an order summarily denying his rule 3.850 motion for postconviction relief, and the order denying his motion for rehearing. We reverse.
The state did not dispute that the motion, alleging appellant was not advised of the deportation consequences of his plea before entering it, is timely under State v. Green, 944 So. 2d 208 (Fla.2006). The trial court denied the motion based on the state’s argument that the challenged plea is not the sole reason why appellant is deportable, asserting that he also is deportable based on a conviction in Alachua County, entered shortly after the challenged conviction. See State v. Oakley, 715 So. 2d 956 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (holding the defendant failed to show he was prejudiced by the trial court’s failure to advise of the deportation consequences of a plea where the record showed he was deportable based on a prior conviction). In a reply filed after the trial court denied the motion, in his motion for rehearing, and on appeal, appellant disputes the conclusion that, under federal immigration law, he would be subject to deportation for the Alachua County offense.
The record does not establish whether appellant’s other conviction constitutes an independent basis for deportation under federal immigration law; that is not an issue to be decided first in the appellate court. See Buton v. State, 995 So. 2d 1130 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008). The trial court should have afforded Defendant at least one opportunity to amend his motion to allege that the plea in this case alone subjects him to deportation. See Buton; Forrest v. State, 988 So. 2d 38 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008); Spera v. State, 971 So. 2d 754 (Fla.2007).
Reversed and Remanded for further proceedings.
GROSS, C.J., FARMER and SHAHOOD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Spera v. State, 971 So. 2d 754 (Fla. 2007)
- State v. Owran Green, 944 So. 2d 208 (Fla. 2006)
- Forrest v. State, 988 So. 2d 38 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)
- State v. Fernanda Oakley, 715 So. 2d 956 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)
- Bergeron v. State, 995 So. 2d 1130 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)
- Ehoud Buton v. State, 995 So. 2d 1130 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)