FRANKLIN PEREZ, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 3d DCA | 2005-03-30
No. 3D05-217
Before FLETCHER, WELLS, and SUAREZ, JJ.
934 So. 2d 495 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (2005) Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases

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.


Holding

The court held that the trial court's warning about potential deportation consequences was sufficient to satisfy Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.172(c)(8).


Facts & Procedural History

Franklin Perez, a non-citizen, pleaded guilty to a felony and was warned by the trial court that deportation was a possible consequence. Years later, …

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.


Opinion of the Court
FLETCHER, Judge.

[*496] FLETCHER, Judge.

Franklin Perez appeals from the trial court’s denial of postconviction relief pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We affirm.

On June 30, 1997, Perez, a citizen of Nicaragua, pleaded guilty to the third degree felony of accessory after the fact. Prior to taking the plea the trial court advised Perez that “[T]he law requires that I advise you that it is possible that the immigration authorities could take some action against you, such as throwing you out of the country. I doubt that will happen, but the possibility exists. Do you understand that?” [January 27, 1997 Plea Colloquy at 6; Appellant’s Motion to Vacate, Exhibit C at 6]. Perez answered, ‘Tes,” and went on to voluntarily and intelligently take the plea.

Several years later, in August 2004, the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service served Perez with a Notice to Appear, citing his status as an alien and his 1997 conviction. Perez then moved to vacate his plea in state court, claiming that the trial court gave him insufficient warning of possible deportation consequences of his plea. We conclude, however, that the trial court’s deportation warning fulfilled the requirements of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.172(c)(8).1 The warning did not use vague language; although the trial court did not use the exact wording of the rule, the warning clearly apprised Perez that one of the possible consequences of his plea was deportation.

Affirmed.

. The rule requires that a trial court, when determining the voluntariness of the plea, shall inform the defendant "that if he or she pleads guilty or nolo contendere the trial judge must inform him or her that, if he or she is not a United States citizen, the plea may subject him or her to deportation pursuant to the laws and regulations governing the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service.”


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Sundaram v. State, 970 So. 2d 412 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)
    …PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. See Perez v. State, 934 So. 2d 495 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005); Zelaya v. State, 891 So. 2d 1192 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005). PALMER, C.J., PLEUS and ORFÍNGER, JJ., concur.…

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw