RAMIRO J. FERNANDEZ, JR., 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 the trial court's admonishment regarding potential deportation consequences was insufficient and reversed the denial of the motion for post conviction relief.
Defendant pleaded guilty to second-degree murder and was informed by the court that his plea could affect his status in the United States. He later so…
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 Involuntary Plea cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Ramiro J. Fernandez, Jr. (defendant) appeals from an order summarily denying his motion for post conviction relief alleging that his plea was involuntary because he was not informed that it could subject him to deportation. See Peart v. State, 756 So. 2d 42 (Fla.2000). We reverse and remand for an evidentiary hearing.
On September 2, 1994, defendant entered a guilty plea to a reduced charge of second degree murder and was sentenced to forty years in state prison. During the plea colloquy, the trial court inquired about defendant’s citizenship, and informed him that “[w]hen you’re not a citizen of the United States, taking a plea of guilty in this case could affect your status in the United States.” Recently in Labady v. State, 26 Fla. L. Weekly D194, — So. 2d -[2001 WL 20790] (Fla. 3d DCA Jan.10, 2001), this Court held that such an admonishment does ndt satisfy the mandate of rule 3.172(c)(8), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure.
The state contends that defendant has not demonstrated that he was prejudiced as a result where the record does not indicate whether he was informed by counsel of the potential deportation consequences of his plea. If counsel properly advised defendant of the consequences, any error on the part of the trial court with respect to the plea colloquy would not prejudice defendant. See State v. Luders, 768 So. 2d 440 (Fla.2000). Accordingly, we reverse the order under review and remand this matter for an evidentiary hearing.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Baltodano v. State, 981 So. 2d 679 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)…re to advise him of the immigration consequences of entering his plea” pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.172(c)(8) when the defendant’s “counsel advised him thereof and [the defendant] decided to accept the risk”); Fernandez v. State, 780 So. 2d 336, 337 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001) (“If counsel properly advised defendant of the [deportation] consequences [of his plea], any error on the part of the trial court with respect to the plea colloquy would not prejudice defendant.”). In his motion, Baltodano r…
Authorities Cited
- Roan Peart v. State, 756 So. 2d 42 (Fla. 2000)
- State v. Luders, 768 So. 2d 440 (Fla. 2000)