EDGAR BALTODANO, 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.
Edgar Baltodano appealed the denial of his Rule 3.850 postconviction motion challenging the voluntariness of his guilty plea. The court affirmed rejection of his deportation consequences claim but reversed and remanded regarding his ineffective assistance of counsel claim for failure to investigate, allowing him to amend his allegations.
The court held that Baltodano's deportation consequence claim was properly rejected because counsel's advice regarding deportation consequences was sufficient to cure any trial court omission. The court reversed the denial of the failure-to-investigate claim and remanded for the postconviction court to allow Baltodano to amend with more specific factual allegations. The court affirmed the denial of the interpreter claim as not entitling Baltodano to relief.
[1] A defendant's claim that a plea was involuntary due to lack of notice of deportation consequences is properly rejected when counsel advised the defendant of such conseque…
[2] A trial court's omission in advising a defendant of the immigration consequences of a plea does not prejudice the defendant if counsel provided such advice.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“Counsel's advice to Baltodano regarding the deportation consequences of his plea is sufficient to establish that Baltodano was not prejudiced by the trial judge's omission.”
Establishes the standard that trial counsel's warnings about deportation consequences cure the trial court's failure to warn, satisfying the constitutional requirement.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBaltodano entered a guilty plea and subsequently filed a postconviction motion claiming his plea was involuntary because he was not informed of potent…
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 Failure To Investigate cases and more on FLexlaw
CANADY, Judge.
Edgar Baltodano appeals the nonsum-mary denial of his motion for posteonviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
Baltodano claimed that his plea was involuntary because he was not informed of the potential deportation consequences of his plea, either by the trial court or by trial counsel. The posteonviction court properly rejected this claim. Counsel’s testimony at the evidentiary hearing supported the postconviction court’s finding that counsel advised Balto-dano of the possible deportation consequences of his plea. See Blanco v. State, 702 So. 2d 1250, 1252 (Fla.1997) (“As long as the trial court’s findings are supported by competent substantial evidence, ‘this [c]ourt will not substitute its judgment for that of the trial court on questions of fact, likewise of the credibility of the witnesses as well as the weight to be given to the evidence by the trial court.’ ”) (quoting Demps v. State, 462 So. 2d 1074, 1075 (Fla.1984)).
Counsel’s advice to Baltodano regarding the deportation consequences of his plea is sufficient to establish that Baltodano was not prejudiced by the trial judge’s omission. See State v. Luders, 768 So. 2d 440, 441 (Fla.2000) (holding that a defendant is not prejudiced “by the trial court’s failure to advise him of the immigration consequences of entering his plea” pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.172(c)(8) when the defendant’s “counsel advised him thereof and [the defendant] decided to accept the risk”); Fernandez v. State, 780 So. 2d 336, 337 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001) (“If counsel properly advised defendant of the [deportation] consequences [of his plea], any error on the part of the trial court with respect to the plea colloquy would not prejudice defendant.”).
In his motion, Baltodano raised two additional claims which the postconviction court concluded were not supported by “sufficient facts.” One of the claims — that counsel failed to investigate the case— could provide a basis for postconviction relief if Baltodano can allege more specific facts that support the claim and establish a legal basis for relief. In addition, the limited record before this court does not indicate that Baltodano could not state a facially sufficient claim regarding counsel’s failure to investigate the case. Therefore, in accordance with Spera v. State, 971 So. 2d 754, 761 (Fla.2007), we reverse the postconviction court’s order of denial as to this claim and remand for the postconviction court to strike this claim with leave to amend within a reasonable period of time.
Baltodano’s other claim — that counsel failed to provide an interpreter for his mother at the sentencing hearing— would not entitle Baltodano to postconviction relief even if supported by more specific facts. We therefore affirm the denial of this claim.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
NORTHCUTT, C.J., and FULMER, J., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Spera v. State, 971 So. 2d 754 (Fla. 2007)
- Blanco v. State, 702 So. 2d 1250 (Fla. 1997)
- Bennie Demps v. State, 462 So. 2d 1074 (Fla. 1984)
- State v. Luders, 768 So. 2d 440 (Fla. 2000)
- Cooper v. Florida Unemployment Appeals, 780 So. 2d 336 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)
- Fernandez v. State, 780 So. 2d 336 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)