THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
JORGE PANIAGUA, 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.
Florida's Third District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's vacation of a conviction, holding that post-conviction relief based on failure to advise of immigration consequences is unavailable when the plea was entered before the rule requiring such advisement became effective.
Post-conviction relief is unavailable for failure to advise of immigration consequences when the plea was entered before the rule requiring such advice became effective.
[1] A trial court has no duty to advise a defendant of immigration consequences of a plea when the plea was entered before the effective date of the rule requiring such advis…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDefendant entered a no-contest plea on January 26, 1987, to possession of cocaine and carrying a concealed weapon, and was sentenced to time served wi…
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 Duty To Advise cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The state appeals the trial court’s order vacating defendant’s judgment of conviction and sentence.
On January 26, 1987, defendant entered a plea of no contest to the charges of possession of cocaine and carrying a concealed weapon. He was sentenced to the time he had served and adjudication of guilt was withheld. On July 7, 2000, he filed a motion for writ of error coram nobis, also invoking rules 3.850 and 3.172(c)(8) of the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. The trial court granted this motion on July 18, 2000, and the state filed this timely appeal.
The facts in the present case are almost identical to those in Medina v. State, 711 So. 2d 256 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998). As in Medina, defendant entered his plea two years before rule 3.172(c)(8), which requires the trial court to inform defendants of the possible immigration consequences of their plea, became effective. Post conviction relief is unavailable “on a claimed failure to advise of immigration consequences, because there was no duty to render such advice at that time.” Id. at 257. See also State v. Ginebra, 511 So. 2d 960 (Fla.1987); State v. Richardson, 785 So. 2d 585 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001).
We reverse the lower court’s order and remand with directions to reinstate the judgment and sentence below.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Orellanes v. State, 790 So. 2d 613 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)…time of [*614] the plea in this case, there was no requirement that the defendant be advised of the immigration consequences of a guilty plea. We agree and affirm on the authority of State v. Ginebra, 511 So. 2d 960 (Fla. 1987);2 State v. Paniagua, 789 So. 2d 1199 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001); State v. Richardson, 785 So. 2d 585 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001); Medina v. State, 711 So. 2d 256 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998). Affirmed. . As we pointed out in State v. Richardson, 785 So. 2d 585, 587 n. 2 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001), the Florida Supreme…
-
Diaz v. State, 790 So. 2d 581 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)…v. State, 750 So. 2d 592 (Fla.1999). We affirm the denial of relief. At the time Diaz entered his pleas, there was no duty to advise a defendant of possible immigration consequences. State v. Ginebra, 511 So. 2d 960 (Fla.1987)2; State v. Pan-iagua, 789 So. 2d 1199 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001); State v. Richardson, 785 So. 2d 585 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001); Medina v. State, 711 So. 2d 256 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998). While Diaz is not entitled to state court relief, he may be able to obtain relief through federal immigration procedures…
-
Perdomo v. State, 837 So. 2d 1089 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)…the failure to advise a defendant of the immigration consequences of entering a plea prior to the time that the court was placed under a duty to render such an advisement. See Orellanes v. State, 790 So. 2d 613 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001); State v. Paniagua, 789 So. 2d 1199 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001). Here, by defendant’s own admission, the plea at issue occurred several years before the rule providing for notification of deportation consequences. Accordingly, the order under review is affirmed.…
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
- State v. Ginebra, 511 So. 2d 960 (Fla. 1987)
- State v. Richardson, 785 So. 2d 585 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)
- Mattier v. State, 711 So. 2d 256 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)