STATE OF FLORIDA, PETITIONER,
v.
ANDRE LUDERS, RESPONDENT
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.
A defendant is not entitled to postconviction relief for failure to advise of immigration consequences if not prejudiced by the lack of advice.
The State conceded on rehearing that the defendant was not prejudiced by the trial court's failure to advise him of the immigration consequences of hi…
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
[*441] ON REHEARING
PER CURIAM.
Petitioner’s motion for rehearing, directed to the decision issued herein on April 27, 2000, is granted. The previous opinion is withdrawn and the instant opinion is substituted as the opinion of the Court in this matter. We have for review State v. Luders, 731 So. 2d 163 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999), modified, No. 98-00729 (July 7, 1999)(unpublished order certifying conflict with Peart v. State, 705 So. 2d 1059 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)). We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. This Court recently held in Peart v. State, 756 So. 2d 42 (Fla.2000), that a defendant may obtain postconviction relief if he or she was not advised of the immigration consequences of a plea and was prejudiced by the lack of advice. See Peart, 756 So. 2d at 47-48. The State makes clear on rehearing (in an unopposed motion) that Luders was not prejudiced by the trial court’s failure to advise him of the immigration consequences of entering his plea because Luders’ defense counsel advised him thereof and he decided to accept the risk. Because Luders was not prejudiced by the trial court’s error, he was not entitled to relief. Luders is therefore quashed as being inconsistent with our decision in Peart.
It is so ordered.
WELLS, C.J., and SHAW, HARDING, ANSTEAD, PARIENTE, LEWIS and QUINCE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Seraphin, 818 So. 2d 485 (Fla. 2002)…t was deportable based on previous drug trafficking conviction). Peart, 756 So. 2d at 47-48 (emphasis supplied). This Court has not interpreted Peart as establishing that the threat of deportation itself constitutes prejudice. See State v. Luders, 768 So. 2d 440 (Fla.2000) (“The State makes clear on rehearing (in an unopposed motion) that Luders was not prejudiced by the trial court’s failure to advise him of the immigration consequences of entering his plea because Lu-ders’ defense counsel advised him ther…
-
ST. Preux v. State, 769 So. 2d 1116 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)…petition. PARKER, A.C.J., and CASANUEVA and DAVIS, JJ., Concur. . Even though St. Preux has been ordered deported, it is possible for the State to prove that he was not prejudiced by -the rule 3.172(c)(8) violation. See, 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)…
-
State v. Yeomans, 172 So. 3d 1006 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015)…d not put forth the possibility of a non-state prison sanction, we may have been able to conclude Appellee was not prejudiced by the court’s error because he was fully aware of the all the consequences of making the plea. See, e.g., State v. Luders, 768 So. 2d 440, 441 (Fla.2000) (holding defendant “was not prejudiced by the trial court’s failure to advise him of the immigration consequences of entering his plea because [the defendant’s] defense counsel advised him thereof[.]”). But Ap-pellee entered his plea…
Previewing 3 of 10 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)
- State v. Luders, 731 So. 2d 163 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)