FISEPE VAVAL, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 3d DCA | 2001-08-29
No. 3D01-1729
Before JORGENSON, GODERICH, and SORONDO, JJ.
792 So. 2d 649 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (2001) Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases

Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

[*650] PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals from the denial of his motion for postconviction relief. We affirm. See Saldana v. State, 786 So. 2d 643 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001) (“Advising a defendant that he or she is under investigation is not the same thing as being threatened with deportation.”); see also Kindelan v. State, 786 So. 2d 599 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001); Rodriguez v. State, 789 So. 2d 548 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001). This affirmance is without prejudice to defendant refiling his 3.850 motion should the investigation lead to the threat of deportation.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Curiel v. State, 795 So. 2d 180 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)
    ….2000). Here, defendant received notice that a de-tainer will be placed on him; the notice does not state why he is subject to being detained. Accordingly, defendant has failed to make the showing necessary for the relief sought. See Vaval v. State, 792 So. 2d 649 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001); Rodriguez v. State, 789 So. 2d 548 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001); Saldana v. State, 786 So. 2d 643 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001) (concluding that advising a defendant that he or she is under investigation is not the same thing as being threatened with…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw