SCOTT JOHNSON, 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.
Scott Johnson, a British citizen who did not know his own citizenship, appealed the denial of his postconviction relief motion challenging his guilty plea to armed trafficking in methamphetamine. The court reversed and remanded because the trial judge failed to warn him of deportation risks, and recent Florida Supreme Court precedent (Peart) changed the legal standard for evaluating such failures.
The court reversed and remanded, holding that under the newly established Peart standard, Johnson need not prove he would probably have prevailed at trial; instead, he must show only that the failure to advise of deportation risk was prejudicial error. The case must be remanded for further proceedings because it is unclear whether warning Johnson of deportation risk would have mattered when he mistakenly believed he was a U.S. citizen.
[1] A defendant seeking postconviction relief based on a trial court's failure to warn of deportation risk must establish prejudice from the omission.
[2] A defendant's mistaken belief that they are a United States citizen does not, in itself, establish prejudice from a trial court's failure to warn of deportation risk.
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“After the supreme court's decision in Peart, however, Mr. Johnson does not need to establish that he probably would have prevailed at any trial; he must establish merely that the failure to advise him of the risk of deportation was a prejudicial error.”
Establishes the change in legal standard from proving probable acquittal to simply proving prejudicial error from the failure to warn of deportation consequences.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJohnson entered an open guilty plea to armed trafficking in methamphetamine in December 1995 and received a 72-month sentence. The trial judge failed …
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 Open Guilty Plea cases and more on FLexlaw
ALTENBERND, Judge.
Scott Johnson appeals the denial of his motion for postconviction relief pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We reverse and remand for further proceedings in light of the supreme court’s recent decision in Peart v. State, 756 So. 2d 42 (Fla.2000).
Mr. Johnson entered an open guilty plea to armed trafficking in methamphetamine in December 1995, and received a sentence of seventy-two months’ incarceration, followed by probation. There is no dispute that the trial judge failed to comply with Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.172(c)(8) at the time the plea was accepted and did not warn Mr. Johnson of the risk of deportation. There is also no dispute that Mr. Johnson is a British citizen and that the Immigration and Naturalization Service is now attempting to deport him.
At the time of the hearing in the trial court on the postconviction motion, the trial judge reasonably believed that Mr. Johnson had the obligation to prove that he would probably have been found not guilty if he had not entered the plea. See Peart v. State, 705 So. 2d 1059 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998), quashed, 756 So. 2d at 44 (Fla.2000). As a result, the pleadings and the evidentiary hearing centered on whether trial counsel was ineffective for failure to warn his client of this risk. Apparently, Mr. Johnson has lived in the United States since he was a small child, has no noticeable accent, and both of his parents had become United States citizens. The record suggests that at the time of his plea hearing, Mr. Johnson did not realize he was British and did not inform his counsel about his citizenship. His trial counsel never realized that deportation was a risk in this case. The trial court determined, and we believe correctly, that Mr. Johnson’s counsel was not ineffective under the facts of this case.
After the supreme court’s decision in Peart, however, Mr. Johnson does not need to establish that he probably would have prevailed at any trial; he must establish merely that the failure to advise him of the risk of deportation was a prejudicial error. See Peart, 756 So. 2d at 47 (citing Perriello v. State, 684 So. 2d 258, 259 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Marriott v. State, 605 So. 2d.985, 987 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992); De Abreu v. State, 593 So. 2d 233, 234 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)).
We cannot rule, as a matter of law, that the error was prejudicial in this case. The motion will need to be amended to allege prejudice from the omission in the plea hearing. This is particularly true in this case because it is not clear that Mr. Johnson realized at the time of the plea hearing that he was British. If the trial court had warned him of the risk of deportation when he believed he was a United States citizen, there is no reason to think that the warning would have altered his decision. Any prejudice he would have sustained in that circumstance would relate to his own lack of knowledge about his own citizenship, and not to a failure of the trial court to give him correct legal information. See State v. Rajaee, 745 So. 2d 469 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999) (holding defendant’s mistaken belief he was American citizen did not entitle him to withdraw plea).
Reversed and remanded.
THREADGILL, A.C.J., and DAVIS, J., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Seraphin, 818 So. 2d 485 (Fla. 2002)…LEWIS, J. We have for review Seraphin v. State, 785 So. 2d 608 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001), in which the Fourth District certified conflict with Johnson v. State, 760 So. 2d 992 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000).1 See Seraphin v. State, 792 So. 2d 526 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (granting the State’s motion for certification of conflict). This Court has jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. MATERIAL FACTS The respondent, Peter B. Ser…1 / 3
-
ST. Preux v. State, 769 So. 2d 1116 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)…e.g., State v. Luders, 768 So. 2d 440, 441 (Fla.2000) (holding that a defendant was not prejudiced by a rule 3.172(c)(8) violation because counsel had advised him of the risk of deportation and he had decided to accept that risk); Johnson v. State, 760 So. 2d 992, 993 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (holding that a rule 3.172(c)(8) violation was not prejudicial even though the defendant was subject to deportation because he did not realize he was British at the time of sentencing).…
-
Griffiths v. State, 776 So. 2d 280 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)…specially concurring). I agree with Judge Levy’s dissent in Elharda v. State, 775 So. 2d 321 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000), State v. Rajaee, 745 So. 2d 469 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999), review denied, 763 So. 2d 1044 (Fla.2000), and the statement in Johnson v. State, 760 So. 2d 992 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000), all to the effect that, [i]f the trial court had warned him of the risk of deportation when he believed he was a United States citizen, there is no reason to think that the warning would have altered his decision. Any prejudice…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Roan Peart v. State, 756 So. 2d 42 (Fla. 2000)
- Roan Peart v. State, 705 So. 2d 1059 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)
- Albino Perriello v. State, 684 So. 2d 258 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)
- State v. Hossain Rajaee, 745 So. 2d 469 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)
- de Abreu v. State, 593 So. 2d 233 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)