ROBERTO SAMPEDRO, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
Roberto Sampedro appealed an order denying his Rule 3.850 motion to vacate a guilty plea for robbery, claiming the trial court and his attorney failed to warn him of deportation consequences. The court affirmed the denial, holding that Sampedro's claim was time-barred because he received actual notice of deportation proceedings more than two years before filing his motion.
Sampedro's motion was time-barred and untimely. The two-year period for bringing a Rule 3.850 motion runs from when the defendant has or should have knowledge of the threat of deportation based on the plea. Since Sampedro received actual notice of deportation proceedings on April 10, 2003, his claim became time-barred before the Green decision on October 26, 2006, and he could not benefit from Green's two-year window.
[1] A defendant seeking postconviction relief based on a failure to warn of deportation consequences of a plea is not entitled to the benefit of the two-year window created by State v. …
[2] State v. …
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“Green did not revive ... unadjudicated claims that unquestionably were time-barred at the time Green was announced.”
Establishes that State v. Green does not restore time-barred claims that were already time-barred when Green was decided
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSampedro entered a guilty plea to robbery without a weapon in Miami-Dade County Circuit Court in 1993, with adjudication withheld and probation impose…
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 Timeliness Of Postconviction Motions cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an appeal of an order denying a motion for postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, seeking relief on a claim of failure to warn of deportation consequences of a plea. We conclude that defendant-appellant Roberto Sampedro is not entitled to relief under State v. Green, 944 So.2d 208 (Fla.2006).
According to the postconviction record now before us, the defendant entered a guilty plea to the charge of robbery without a weapon in Miami-Dade County Circuit Court case number 93-1633. Adjudication was withheld and he was placed on probation. The defendant alleges that the trial court failed to provide the defendant with the required warnings regarding possible deportation consequences of the plea. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.172(c)(8). The defendant alleges that his attorney also failed to inform him of the possible deportation consequences.
According to the State, on April 10, 2003, the United States Department of Homeland Security ordered the defendant to be removed. On February 8, 2008, the defendant moved to vacate his plea to the 1993 robbery case.* The trial court denied the motion as being (among other things) untimely. The defendant has appealed.
The defendant argues that the motion was timely because it was filed within the two-year window created by State v. Green, 944 So.2d at 219. Green’s two-year time period runs from October 26, 2006, to October 25, 2008. Id.
Our court has held that “Green did not revive ... unadjudicated claims that unquestionably were time-barred at the time Green was announced.... ” State v. Freijo, 987 So.2d 190, 191 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008). In this case the defendant was ordered to be removed on April 10, 2003. Under Peart v. State, 756 So.2d 42 (Fla.2000), receded from in part, State v. Green, 944 So.2d at 217, 219, the two-year time period for bringing a Rule 3.850 motion ran “from when the defendant has or should have knowledge of threat of deportation based on the plea.” Peart, 756 So.2d at 46. That being so, the defendant’s claim is time-barred. We certify that we have passed on the same question of great public importance that was stated in Freijo:
WHETHER A DEFENDANT MAY OBTAIN THE BENEFIT OF A NEW TWO-YEAR WINDOW PERIOD UNDER STATE V. GREEN, 944 So.2d 208 (Fla.2006), IF THE CLAIMANT RECEIVED ACTUAL NOTICE OF A DEPORTATION PROCEEDING MORE THAN TWO YEARS BEFORE THE MOTION TO WITHDRAW PLEA?
Affirmed; question certified.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Manning, 121 So. 3d 1083 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)
Authorities Cited
- State v. Owran Green, 944 So. 2d 208 (Fla. 2006)
- Roan Peart v. State, 756 So. 2d 42 (Fla. 2000)
- State v. Freijo, 987 So. 2d 190 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)