HYTHAM ALKANAN, 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.
Hytham Alkanan appealed the denial of his petition for writ of error coram nobis, claiming he did not understand the immigration consequences of his 1991 drug plea and offering newly discovered evidence that his fiancée planted the drugs. The court affirmed the denial, finding the petition legally insufficient and the claims either conclusively disproved or lacking requisite due diligence.
The court affirmed the denial of relief. The petition was legally insufficient because it was unsworn and omitted information required by Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850(c). The immigration consequence claim was conclusively disproved by the plea hearing transcript showing the trial court's warnings. The newly discovered evidence claim failed because Alkanan did not allege or prove due diligence, though the court allowed him thirty days to file a properly sworn motion explaining why the information could not have been discovered through due diligence.
[1] A petition for writ of error coram nobis must comply with Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 if filed after the rule's amendment to allow noncustodial defendants to…
[2] A post-conviction motion is legally insufficient if it is unsworn and omits information required by Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850(c).
Previewing 2 of 5 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“Misinformation provided by a third party is not a reason to vacate a plea, especially where it was expressly disavowed by the court.”
Establishes that counsel's lack of knowledge about immigration consequences, when provided by non-judicial actors rather than the court or defense counsel, is insufficient grounds for post-conviction relief.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAlkanan pleaded guilty to drug charges in 1991. He claimed he did not understand the immigration consequences of his plea and believed misinformation …
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
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, Hytham Alkanan, appeals the denial of his petition for writ of error coram nobis. He claimed that he did not understand the immigration consequences of his 1991 plea to drug charges and alleged newly discovered evidence that his fiancee (now wife) planted the drugs. He had completed his probationary term and was in the custody of the Immigration and Naturalization Service when he filed the petition.
Because Alkanan’s petition was filed after Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 was amended by Wood v. State, 750 So. 2d 592 (Fla.1999), to allow noncustodial defendants to seek post-conviction relief, he was required to comply with that rule. His petition was legally insufficient because it was unsworn and omitted information required by rule 3.850(c).
Even if Alkanan had filed a legally sufficient post-conviction motion, his first allegation was conclusively disproved by the pages from the transcript of his change of plea hearing that he attached. The transcript shows that despite the trial court’s warnings that no promises could be made about his immigration status, he chose to believe that he could not be deported for his crime. The source of that misinformation was a family friend who was not involved in the criminal proceedings. Misinformation provided by a third party is not a reason to vacate a plea, especially where it was expressly disavowed by the court.
We affirm the decision on that claim. Alkanan’s newly discovered evidence claim was rejected because he did not allege or prove due diligence. See Stano v. State, 708 So. 2d 271, 275 (Fla.1998)(“In order to qualify as newly discovered evidence, ‘the asserted facts must have been unknown by the trial court, by the party, or by counsel at the time of trial, and it must appear that defendant or his counsel could not have known them by the use of diligence.’ ”).
We affirm the denial of relief on this ground, but do so without prejudice to file a sworn, legally sufficient post-conviction motion that includes an explanation of why this information could not have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence. Any such motion must be filed in the trial court no later than thirty days from the issuance of the mandate in this appeal.
STONE, GROSS, and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Valentine v. State, 820 So. 2d 376 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)…f the record. While Appellant may have a claim for relief on the merits of his motion, see Dougherty v. State, 785 So. 2d 1221 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001), his motion in this case was legally deficient. Rule 3.850(c), Fla. R.Crim. P. See Alkanan v. State, 786 So. 2d 1275 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). For the reasons above, it also appears insufficient under rule 3.800(a). [*378] Therefore, we affirm the trial court’s order of dismissal, without prejudice to Appellant’s right to file a new motion for post-conviction relief wh…
-
Cooper v. State, 821 So. 2d 1162 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)…denial of relief, but do so without prejudice to file a sworn, legally sufficient post-conviction motion that includes an explanation of why this information could not have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence. See Alkanan v. State, 786 So. 2d 1275 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). Any such motion must be filed in the trial court no later than thirty days from the issuance of the mandate in this appeal. POLEN, C.J., STONE and SHAHOOD, JJ., concur.…
-
Griffith v. State, 861 So. 2d 1233 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)…ed to allege that he could not have discovered the evidence through the exercise of due diligence or that withdrawal of his plea is necessary to prevent a manifest injustice. See Daniel v. State, 740 So. 2d 1179 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999); Alkanan v. State, 786 So. 2d 1275 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). Therefore, we affirm the trial court’s order of denial without prejudice to Griffith to file a legally sufficient motion based on newly discovered evidence within thirty days of the issuance of the mandate in this appeal. See Al…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Wood v. State, 750 So. 2d 592 (Fla. 1999)
- Stano v. State, 708 So. 2d 271 (Fla. 1998)