MARIO MARTINEZ, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
Mario Martinez, a Cuban refugee who entered the U.S. through the Mariel boat-lift, appeals the summary denial of his post-conviction motion alleging ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to advise him of potential deportation consequences before he entered a guilty plea to multiple serious felonies. The court reversed and remanded, holding that ignorance of deportation consequences can render a guilty plea involuntary and require an evidentiary hearing under established precedent.
The court held that the trial court erred in summarily denying the motion without an evidentiary hearing. Allegations that counsel failed to advise a non-citizen defendant of potential deportation consequences are legally sufficient to require an evidentiary hearing, at which defendant must establish: (1) he was not advised of deportation consequences and was otherwise unaware of them; (2) had he known of the consequence, he would not have pleaded guilty; and (3) deportation would actually result from the conviction.
[1] A defendant's guilty plea may be rendered involuntary if defense counsel fails to advise the defendant of the potential consequence of deportation.
[2] A defendant seeking post-conviction relief based on counsel's failure to advise of deportation must prove they were unaware of the consequence, would not have pleaded gui…
Previewing 2 of 4 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“ignorance of the potential consequence of deportation did not make for an intelligent waiver when the defendant entered a plea of guilty and that defense counsel's failure to inform the defendant of this potential consequence could render the guilty plea involuntary”
Establishes the core legal principle that failure to advise of deportation consequences can invalidate a guilty plea
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMartinez entered the United States as a documented political refugee from Cuba via the Mariel boat-lift. He pleaded guilty to charges including second…
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 Intelligent Waiver Of Rights cases and more on FLexlaw
HENDRY, Judge.
The defendant, Mario Martinez, appeals the summary denial of his motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. In his motion the defendant alleged that defense counsel was ineffective because he failed to advise Martinez of the possible consequence of deportation which might ensue from the entry of a guilty plea to charges of second degree murder, attempted first degree murder, armed robbery, trafficking in cocaine and carrying a concealed firearm. The motion further alleged that the defendant entered this country in the Mariel boat-lift as a documented political refugee from Cuba and that defense counsel was at all times aware of Martinez’ background and status as a non-resident and non-citizen of this country.
Finding the allegations of the motion legally insufficient to support the claim for relief, the trial court entered a summary order of denial without attaching portions of the file or record to conclusively show the defendant is entitled to no relief. We disagree with the trial court’s finding of legal insufficiency. This court held, in Edwards v. State, 393 So. 2d 597 (Fla. 3d DCA), pet. for rev. denied, 402 So. 2d 613 (Fla.1981), that ignorance of the potential consequence of deportation did not make for an intelligent waiver when the defendant entered a plea of guilty and that defense counsel’s failure to inform the defendant of this potential consequence could render the guilty plea involuntary. Edwards required that on remand the trial court hold an evidentiary hearing at which, in order to prevail,
it will ... be incumbent upon ... [defendant] to establish that he was not advised by his counsel and was otherwise unaware of the consequence of his deportation; that had he known of this consequence, he would not have entered the plea of guilty; and that such a consequence will actually flow from the conviction.
Id. at 600. We likewise reverse and remand for further proceedings under Rule 3.850. On remand the trial court may either again summarily deny the motion, attaching to its order those portions of the record which conclusively demonstrate the defendant is not entitled to relief under the above standards enunciated in Edwards, or may conduct further proceedings under Rule 3.850, including an evidentiary hearing, to determine if the defendant is entitled to relief under the applicable Edwards standards.
Reversed and remanded.
DANIEL S. PEARSON, J., concurs.
SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge
(specially concurring).
Although I disagree with Edwards, see, contra, e.g., Government of Virgin Islands v. Pamphile, 604 F.Supp. 753, 756-59 (D.V.I.1985); Hahn v. State, 421 So. 2d 710 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), I concur because of its binding authority.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ginebra v. State, 498 So. 2d 467 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)…ssistance of counsel, his pleas were entered involuntarily. This court has previously held that these may be valid claims if, in fact, Gine-bra’s attorney did fail to so advise him and the conviction actually leads to deportation. Martinez v. State, 475 So. 2d 1292 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); Edwards v. State, 393 So. 2d 597 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 402 So. 2d 613 (Fla.1981). The trial court summarily denied Gine-bra’s motion for legal insufficiency, without attaching those portions of the file or record which…
-
Villavende v. State, 504 So. 2d 455 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)…ant to the matter before us.) Villavende relies heavily upon Edwards v. State, 393 So. 2d 597 (Fla. 3d DCA), petition for review denied, 402 So. 2d 613 (Fla.1981). See also, Rodriguez v. State, 487 So. 2d 1224 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986); Martinez v. State, 475 So. 2d 1292 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). As recognized by the trial court in its order, Florida courts are not unanimous on this question. In Hahn v. State, 421 So. 2d 710 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), the court found as a matter of law that a Pensacola attorney was not ineffec…
-
State v. Sallato, 508 So. 2d 1256 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)…to vacate his guilty plea is affirmed on the authority of Edwards v. State, 393 So. 2d 597 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). See also Ginebra v. State, 498 So. 2d 467 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); Rodriguez v. State, 487 So. 2d 1224 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986); Martinez v. State, 475 So. 2d 1292 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). We acknowledge that our decision, as well as the authorities cited in support of it, [*1257] conflicts with Hahn v. State, 421 So. 2d 710 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). Affirmed.…
Authorities Cited
- Clement Lemmon Edwards v. State, 393 So. 2d 597 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- Hahn v. State, 421 So. 2d 710 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)