FRANK FICA, 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.
The court held that there was substantial competent evidence to support the trial court's finding that the defendant received no positive misadvice regarding deportation consequences.
The defendant sought post-conviction relief, alleging incorrect advice about deportation consequences of a guilty plea. After remand, the trial court …
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 Florida Rule Of Criminal Procedure 3.850 cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from denial of defendant Fica’s second motion for post-conviction relief under Rule 3.850, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. On Fica’s prior appeal from denial of his motion, we remanded for further proceedings in light of State v. Sallato, 519 So. 2d 605 (Fla.1988). Fica v. State, 523 So. 2d 615 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988).
Fica contended that he had been given incorrect advice about the potential deportation consequences of entering a guilty plea. On remand the trial court conducted an evidentiary hearing, found the defendant’s testimony not to be credible, and found “no evidence that would indicate there was positive misadvice given to the defendant.” 1 As there is substantial com petent evidence to support the finding, we affirm. See State v. Sallato, 519 So. 2d at 606.
Affirmed.
. There is a typographical error in the order under review, which states, in part, "This Court accepts trial counsel’s ... testimony under oath that he never advised defendant he would be deported.” The transcript states, "I accept counsel’s testimony under oath that he did not ever advise him that he wouldn’t be deported.”
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
MacHin v. State, 867 So. 2d 514 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004)…ghbor and close friend.1 Given this credibility determination, it was appropriate to deny the post-conviction motion insofar as it depended on [*515] Mr. Rodriguez’ testimony. See Butler v. State, 807 So. 2d 88, 89 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001); Fica v. State, 549 So. 2d 206 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). The defendant contended that his wife should have been called as an alibi witness. The court found the wife to be a credible witness. However, the court also concluded that the wife could only have testified about the time at wh…
-
J.G. v. State, 555 So. 2d 981 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)…PER CURIAM. Upon the state’s proper confession of error, we reverse the trial court’s adjudication of delinquency on the authority of J.D. v. State, 549 So. 2d 206 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). Reversed.…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Sallato, 519 So. 2d 605 (Fla. 1988)
- Fica v. State, 523 So. 2d 615 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)
- MacAluso v. MacAluso, 523 So. 2d 615 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)