REINALDO ORELLANES, 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 a defendant is not entitled to relief based on the failure to advise of immigration consequences at the time of a guilty plea if the plea occurred before the relevant rule amendments. The court also noted the procedural vehicle used was incorrect but treated it as if filed properly.
Reinaldo Orellanes pleaded guilty in 1981 to firearm and cannabis charges. He later sought a writ of error coram nobis to withdraw his plea due to pot…
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 Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.172 cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Reinaldo Orellanes appeals an order summarily denying his petition for writ of error coram nobis.1 We affirm.
Orellanes entered a guilty plea on July 28, 1981 to charges of carrying a concealed firearm and unlawful possession of cannabis. The trial court withheld adjudication and placed him on probation for eighteen months. Apparently, Immigration and Naturalization Services has recently placed a detainer on Orellanes which seeks his deportation, thus creating the necessity for Orellanes’ petition below. The trial court denied the petition because at the time of 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 Court explained in Peart v. State, 756 So. 2d 42, 48 (Fla.2000) that for claims filed on and after May 27, 1999, the defendant should proceed by motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, rather than petition for writ of error coram nobis. The present proceeding was apparently filed in May 2000 and therefore should have been instituted by a 3.850 motion, rather than a petition for writ error coram nobis. We treat the matter as if a 3.850 motion had been filed.
. With respect to the immigration consequences of a plea, Ginebra has been superseded by amendment to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.172 for sentences imposed after January 1, 1989. See Peart v. State, 756 So. 2d 42 (Fla.2000); State v. De Abreu, 613 So. 2d 453 (1993).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Perdomo v. State, 837 So. 2d 1089 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)…observed, post-conviction relief is not available for 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 un…
-
Evelio Rodriguez-Grave v. State, 847 So. 2d 564 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)…nce of which the trial court was not required to advise [prior to January 1, 1989]), still controls with respect to pleas entered prior to the change in rule 3.172”); see also Perdomo v. State, 837 So. 2d 1089 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003); Orellanes v. State, 790 So. 2d 613 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001); Diaz v. State, 790 So. 2d 581 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001); Contino v. State, 790 So. 2d 576 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001); State v. Paniagua, 789 So. 2d 1199 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001); Del Pino v. State, 785 So. 2d 1263 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001). Affirmed.…
Authorities Cited
- Roan Peart v. State, 756 So. 2d 42 (Fla. 2000)
- State v. Ginebra, 511 So. 2d 960 (Fla. 1987)
- State v. de Abreu, 613 So. 2d 453 (Fla. 1993)
- State v. Richardson, 785 So. 2d 585 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)
- State v. Paniagua, 789 So. 2d 1199 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)
- Mattier v. State, 711 So. 2d 256 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)