RAMON HERNANDEZ, 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.
Hernandez challenged the trial court's denial of his Rule 3.850 motion alleging his pleas were involuntary due to lack of deportation advisement and counsel's misadvice about use as prior convictions. The court affirmed, holding that the deportation advisement rule was not retroactive to his 1988 pleas and that misadvice about prior convictions is not a cognizable Rule 3.850 claim.
The pleas were not involuntary on either ground. First, because the deportation advisement rule was not effective until January 1, 1989, after Hernandez's August 1988 pleas, the lack of such advisement does not render the pleas involuntary absent positive misadvice. Second, misadvice regarding use as prior convictions is not a cognizable Rule 3.850 claim.
[1] A defendant's plea is not rendered involuntary solely because the trial court failed to advise of potential deportation consequences if the plea was entered before the ef…
[2] A defendant's claim that counsel provided misadvice regarding the potential use of offenses as prior convictions is not a cognizable claim for postconviction relief.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“Rule 3.178(c)(8) requires that when a trial court accepts a defendant's plea, it must advise the defendant that the plea could subject him to deportation if he or she is not a United States citizen. However, this subsection of rule 3.178(c) was not effective until January 1, 1989, which was subsequent to the entry of Hernandez's pleas.”
Establishes the basis for the non-retroactive application of the deportation advisement rule to Hernandez's 1988 pleas.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHernandez entered pleas to grand theft and uttering a forged instrument on August 29, 1988. He later filed a Rule 3.850 motion claiming the pleas were…
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
WHATLEY, Judge.
Ramon Hernandez challenges the order of the trial court summarily denying his motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Hernandez raised two claims in his motion. We affirm.
In his first claim, Hernandez alleged that his August 29, 1988, pleas to grand theft and uttering a forged instrument were involuntarily entered because the trial court failed to comply with Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.172(c)(8) in that it did not advise him that he may be subject to deportation as a result of the pleas. He also alleges that his attorney failed to advise him that the entering of the pleas may subject him to deportation. Rule 3.178(c)(8) requires that when a trial court accepts a defendant’s plea, it must advise the defendant that the plea could subject him to deportation if he or she is not a United States citizen. However, this subsection of rule 3.178(c) was not effective until January 1, 1989,1 which was subsequent to the entry of Hernandez’s pleas. Because Hernandez entered his pleas prior to the effective date of rule 3.178(c)(8), the fact that he was not affirmatively advised of the deportation consequences of the pleas does not render them involuntary. See Ghanavati v. State, 820 So. 2d 989 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002); State v. Richardson, 785 So. 2d 585 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001). The pleas may have been involuntarily entered if Hernandez received positive misadvice regarding the deportation consequences of the pleas. See id. However, Hernandez did not so allege, and we affirm the trial court’s denial of this claim.
In his second claim, Hernandez alleged that counsel misadvised him that the offenses to which he was pleading could not be used against him as a prior eonvic tion in federal or state courts.2 This is not a cognizable rule 3.850 claim. See Stansel v. State, 825 So. 2d 1007 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). Accordingly, we affirm the denial of this claim and certify the same question that we certified in Stansel.
Affirmed.
PARKER and ALTENBERND, JJ„ Concur. . See In re Amendments to Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, 536 So. 2d 992, 992-94 (Fla.1988).
. Hernandez did not allege that he had any potential pending charges at the time he received this misadvice.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- In re Amendments to Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, 536 So. 2d 992 (Fla. 1988)
- Stansel v. State, 825 So. 2d 1007 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)
- State v. Richardson, 785 So. 2d 585 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)
- Assadollah Ghanavati v. State, 820 So. 2d 989 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)