STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE,
v.
FERNANDA OAKLEY, APPELLEE/CROSS-APPELLANT
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 reversed the grant of post-conviction relief on one ground and affirmed the denial of relief on another ground.
Appellee sought post-conviction relief, arguing non-compliance with a rule and an involuntary plea due to changed immigration law. The trial court gra…
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 Aggravated Felony cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal and cross-appeal from a summary disposition, granting appel-lee/eross-appellant’s rule 3.850 motion for post-conviction relief. We reverse the main appeal and affirm the cross-appeal.
Appellee does not seriously challenge the state’s argument that the trial court erred in finding non-compliance with rule 3.172(c)(8), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. However, she contends that if we reverse, the trial court should be directed on remand to address her claim of involuntary plea due to a change in federal immigration law since the time of her plea, which now subjects her to automatic deportation. This latter claim was not addressed in the trial court’s order although contained in appellee’s motion.
Appellee’s argument is not persuasive. She would be subject to deportation under the amended federal law regardless of her plea and adjudication in this case. Aliens convicted of an aggravated felony are conclusively presumed to be deportable from the United States. 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii). 8 U.S.C. Section 1101(a)(43)(B), defines aggravated felony as including drug trafficking. Before her plea in this case, appellee had been convicted of trafficking in cocaine.
GLICKSTEIN, DELL and FARMER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (15 total)
-
Roan Peart v. State, 756 So. 2d 42 (Fla. 2000)…on based on the plea was sufficient to show prejudice); Spencer v. State, 608 So. 2d 551 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)(holding that appellate immigration court decision that defendant was deportable was sufficient to show prejudice); see also State v. Oakley, 715 So. 2d 956, 957 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)(holding that defendant failed to show prejudice, despite rule 3.172(c)(8) violation, where defendant was deportable based on previous drug trafficking conviction).…
-
Forrest v. State, 988 So. 2d 38 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)…sufficient as it failed to allege that the plea in this case was the sole basis upon which Forrest was subject to deportation. Alternatively, however, the court concluded Forrest could be deported based on two other convictions. See State v. Oakley, 715 So. 2d 956 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (finding that movant failed to establish prejudice where the record showed he could be deported based on other convictions). Unlike the situation in Oakley, however, the record does not establish that Forrest has prior conviction…
-
Prieto v. State, 824 So. 2d 924 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)…ice required under Peart. See Saldana v. State, 786 So. 2d 643, 644 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)(holding that to establish a prima facie case for relief the defendant must show he is being threatened with deportation resulting from the plea); State v. Oakley, 715 So. 2d 956, 957 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)(holding that the defendant failed to show prejudice, despite rule 3.172(c)(8) violation, where defendant was deportable based on previous drug trafficking conviction). See also Ashley v. State, 814 So. 2d 515 (Fla. 3d DCA 20…
Previewing 3 of 15 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence