MATELIV M. ALEXIS, 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.
Alexis challenged the summary denial of his postconviction motion seeking to withdraw guilty pleas based on the trial court's failure to inform him of deportation consequences as required by Florida law. The appellate court affirmed the denial but on different grounds, finding the motion facially insufficient for failure to allege when he learned of the deportation threat, while clarifying that preprinted plea forms alone cannot satisfy the statutory requirement.
Preprinted plea forms alone are insufficient to satisfy Rule 3.172(c)(8)'s requirement to inform a defendant of deportation consequences. However, Alexis's motion was facially insufficient because it failed to allege when he had or should have had notice of the threat of deportation, which is required under the two-year filing deadline established in Peart v. State.
[1] A preprinted plea form advising a defendant of the possibility of deportation is insufficient to satisfy Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.172(c)(8).
[2] A defendant seeking to withdraw a plea based on a violation of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.172(c)(8) must allege in their motion when they had or should have had…
Previewing 2 of 4 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“the fact that a preprinted plea form advises a person of the possibility of deportation is insufficient to satisfy rule 3.172(c)(8)”
Establishes that preprinted forms alone cannot fulfill the statutory requirement to inform defendants of deportation consequences
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAlexis entered no contest pleas to drug-related charges in 1997 and 2000. The trial court relied on preprinted plea forms that informed him of the pos…
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 Facial Sufficiency cases and more on FLexlaw
STRINGER, Judge.
Mateliv M. Alexis challenges the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. In the motion, he sought to withdraw his 1997 no contest plea to sale of cocaine, possession of drug paraphernalia, and possession of cocaine, and his 2000 no contest plea to possession of cocaine and possession of drug paraphernalia. The basis of the motion was that the trial court did not inform him of the possibility of deportation as required by Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.172(c)(8). The trial court summarily denied the motion, finding that Alexis was not entitled to relief because he signed preprinted plea forms in 1997 and 2000 that informed him of the possibility of deportation based on the pleas. This is incorrect. In Benelhocine v. State, 787 So. 2d 38, 39-40 (Fla. 2d DCA), review denied, 796 So. 2d 535 (Fla.2001), this court held that the fact that a preprinted plea form advises a person of the possibility of deportation is insufficient to satisfy rule 3.172(c)(8).
However, Alexis is not entitled to relief at this time because his motion is facially insufficient. In Peart v. State, 756 So. 2d 42, 46 (Fla.2000), the Florida Supreme Court held that defendants shall have two years to file pleadings alleging a rule 3.172(c)(8) violation as measured from when the defendant has or should have knowledge of the threat of deportation. Alexis does not allege in his motion when he had notice of the threat of deportation. We therefore affirm the decision of the trial court without prejudice to Alexis’ filing a facially sufficient 3.850 motion.
Affirmed.
ALTENBERND, C.J., and KELLY, J., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Owran Green, 944 So. 2d 208 (Fla. 2006)…sful attempt to reconstruct the record. Id. at 600. Further, one court has held that inclusion of the immigration warning on a preprinted plea form signed by the defendant is an insufficient basis for denial of relief on this claim. Alexis v. State, 845 So. 2d 262, 262 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); Benelhocine v. State, 787 So. 2d 38, 39-40 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). Therefore, too often, the filing delay required by Peart deprives defendants of the means by which they could conclusively meet their burden of demonstrating tha…
-
Orduno v. State, 933 So. 2d 1266 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)…at of deportation based on his plea, his motion is facially insufficient. See Peart, 756 So. 2d at 46. We therefore affirm the dismissal of Orduno’s motion without prejudice to his filing a facially sufficient rule 3.850 motion. See Alexis v. State, 845 So. 2d 262 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). Any such motion shall not be considered successive. Affirmed. CASANUEVA and WALLACE, JJ., Concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Roan Peart v. State, 756 So. 2d 42 (Fla. 2000)
- Rabah Benelhocine v. State, 787 So. 2d 38 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)