MARK VAILLANCOURT, 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 trial court did not err in summarily denying the motion because it was facially insufficient.
Vaillancourt moved to set aside his sentence, alleging his plea was based on misadvice from counsel regarding deportation consequences and his own dim…
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 Motion To Set Aside Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Mark Vaillancourt brought a motion to set aside sentence pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Vail-lancourt alleged his no contest pleas to misdemeanor counts of assault and battery were the result of misadvice from his counsel regarding deportation consequences and that he did not understand the negative consequences of his plea. Vaillancourt claims he was suffering from a lack of mental acuity at the time because he was undergoing medical treatment and was on medication for a brain tumor that was excised approximately six months earlier. The trial court summarily denied the motion without requiring a state response.
The motion was filed beyond the two-year time limitation set forth by Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.850(b). The rule provides an exception for newly discovered facts that could not have been learned through due diligence. Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.850(b)(1). In this case, the previously unknown fact would be the deportation consequences. Vaillancourt’s motion fails to expressly allege that he is faced with deportation or any immigration consequences and why this could not have been discovered through due diligence. Similarly, the motion does not allege what misadvice he received from his attorney. Prejudice resulting from counsel’s alleged misadvice is not demonstrated.
The trial court did not err in summarily denying the motion as it is facially insufficient. Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.850(d). The order denying the motion is affirmed, without prejudice to Vaillancourt filing a legally sufficient motion. Perez v. Moore, 767 So. 2d 1170 (Fla.2000); Mendez v. State, 805 So. 2d 905 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001).
POLEN, C.J., STONE and MAY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Marshall v. State, 983 So. 2d 680 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)…e about deportation consequences may have been untimely where the movant failed to show why the deportation consequences could not have been discovered, through due diligence, within two years of the conviction becoming final. Vaillancourt v. State, 845 So. 2d 983 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850(b)(1) provides an exception to the two-year time limitation when the facts upon which the claim is based could not have been discovered with due diligence, not when the movant discovers…
Authorities Cited
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Grove, 767 So. 2d 1170 (Fla. 2000)
- Mended v. State, 805 So. 2d 905 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)