MIGUEL ORDUNO, 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.
The court held that the record did not conclusively refute the defendant's claim that he was unaware of potential deportation consequences of his plea, requiring an evidentiary hearing.
Miguel Orduno sought to withdraw his plea, alleging he was not advised of deportation consequences. He signed a waiver form that mentioned deportation…
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
CASANUEVA, Judge.
Miguel Orduno appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. In his motion, Orduno asked to withdraw his plea because he was not advised of the possible deportation consequences. He stated that the Immigration and Naturalization Service has since initiated deportation proceedings against him based on the conviction in this case. He asserted that the trial court did not advise him of the deportation consequences of his plea as required under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.172, that he did not know he could be deported if he pleaded no contest, and that he would not have entered the plea if he had known he could be deported. Orduno has stated a facially sufficient claim for relief. See Peart v. State, 756 So. 2d 42 (Fla.2000).
The trial court denied Orduno’s claim based on the fact that he signed a waiver of rights form that included a clause discussing possible deportation as a result of the plea. The trial court stated that, when asked, Orduno indicated he reviewed and understood the form. The trial court attached a copy of the plea transcript to its order denying this claim.
After reviewing the transcript as well as the other documentary information provided, we do not believe the record conclusively refutes Orduno’s claim. We are not convinced that Orduno understood the terms included in the plea form, or that he understood he could be deported as a result of his plea. See Koenig v. State, 597 So. 2d 256 (Fla.1992) (holding that defendant’s plea was involuntary where the plea colloquy was insufficient and the record did not show the defendant understood the terms in the written plea agreement). Therefore, we reverse and remand for an evidentiary hearing on this claim.
Reversed and remanded.
THREADGILL, A.C.J, and GREEN, J., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Seraphin, 818 So. 2d 485 (Fla. 2002)…tened with deportation in cases involving a violation of the rule. Rather, Peart explicitly requires a showing that, absent the failure to inform the defendant, he or she would not have entered the plea. See Peart, 756 So. 2d at 47; Orduno v. State, 800 So. 2d 669, 669 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (“[Orduno] asserted that the trial court did not advise him of the deportation consequences of his plea as required under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.172, that he did not know he could be deported if he pleaded no co…
-
Jeandis Estime v. State, 826 So. 2d 524 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed without prejudice to file a sworn, legally sufficient motion for post-conviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. See Peart v. State, 756 So. 2d 42, 47 (Fla.2000); Orduno v. State, 800 So. 2d 669, 669 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)(“[Orduno] asserted that the trial court did not advise him of the deportation consequences of his plea as required under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.172, that he did not know he could be deported if he pleaded no con…
-
Gewdat Pikwrah v. State, 829 So. 2d 402 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)…e in Florida. Further, the State presented no evidence to contradict Pikwrah’s testimony. Because the record does not refute Pikwrah’s claim, we are not convinced that he understood the plea form or the consequences of his plea. See Orduno v. State, 800 So. 2d 669 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). See also Koenig v. State, 597 So. 2d 256, 258 (Fla.1992). Accordingly, Pikwrah established that he was prejudiced by the trial court’s failure to advise him of the possibility that his no contest plea could result in his deporta…
Authorities Cited
- Roan Peart v. State, 756 So. 2d 42 (Fla. 2000)
- Koenig v. State, 597 So. 2d 256 (Fla. 1992)