JORGE ALBERTO CASTILLO, 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.
Jorge Alberto Castillo appealed the trial court's summary denial of his Rule 3.850 postconviction motion seeking relief from a 1995 plea based on deportation consequences. The appellate court reversed and remanded for an evidentiary hearing, finding the trial court failed to provide record excerpts conclusively refuting his claim despite prior remand instructions.
The trial court improperly summarily denied the motion without attaching record excerpts conclusively refuting the defendant's claim, as required by prior appellate instructions. The matter is reversed and remanded for an evidentiary hearing where the State may introduce documentation of any convictions it claims independently render the defendant subject to deportation.
[1] A trial court must conduct an evidentiary hearing on a motion for postconviction relief when the postconviction record does not conclusively refute the defendant's claim.
[2] A trial court's summary denial of a motion for postconviction relief is improper if it fails to attach record excerpts conclusively refuting the defendant's claim.
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“If the trial court again enters an order summarily denying the post-conviction motion, the court shall attach record excerpts conclusively showing that the appellant is not entitled to any relief.”
This establishes the specific appellate mandate that the trial court failed to follow, requiring record excerpts to support a summary denial.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCastillo filed a Rule 3.850 motion challenging his 1995 plea based on deportation consequences under State v. Green. The trial court summarily denied …
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 Deportation Consequences Of Plea cases and more on FLexlaw
Jorge Alberto Castillo appeals an order denying his motion for postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We reverse and remand for an evi-dentiary hearing.
Defendant-appellant Castillo filed his Rule 3.850 motion, whereby he sought relief from a 1995 plea on account of the deportation consequences of the plea. He alleged that he was entitled to relief under State v. Green, 944 So.2d 208 (Fla.2006). The trial court denied the Rule 3.850 motion and this court reversed on appeal, as the postconviction record did not conclusively refute the defendant’s claim. Castillo v. State, 990 So.2d 564 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008). We remanded “for an evidentiary hearing or other appropriate relief. If the trial court again enters an order summarily denying the post-conviction motion, the court shall attach record excerpts conclusively showing that the appellant is not entitled to any relief.” Id. at 565.
When the matter returned to the trial court, the court again summarily denied the Rule 3.850 motion, but did not attach any record excerpts conclusively refuting the claim. We reverse the order now before us, and remand for an eviden-tiary hearing. See Tatum v. State, 994 So.2d 1231 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008).
The State’s response filed in this court argues that the defendant has an additional conviction for purchase or possession of cannabis and that this offense independently makes the defendant subject to deportation. The defendant’s brief argues that the defendant’s Florida conviction does not render the defendant subject to deportation under federal law. The trial court did not attach the Florida conviction and sentence to the summary denial order. The question whether that conviction does, or does not, independently subject the defendant to deportation should be addressed at the evidentiary hearing on remand.
The State attempts to rely on a computer printout which was attached to the defendant’s motion, which shows two other offenses. In one 1996 case the State took no action, and in the other 1996 case, the printout indicates that there was a violation of a municipal ordinance. If the State believes that the latter 1996 conviction renders the defendant independently subject to deportation, the State may introduce the judgment and sentence at the evidentiary hearing.
Reversed and remanded with directions to conduct an evidentiary hearing.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Garcia v. State, 103 So. 3d 865 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010)…ure 3.850. On appeal from a summary denial, this Court must reverse unless the postconviction record, see Fla. R.App. P. 9.141(b)(2)(A), shows conclusively the appellant is entitled to no relief. See Fla. R.App. P. 9.141(b)(2)(D); Castillo v. State, 13 So. 3d 67 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009). As a result of our disposition, Appellant’s motion for enlargement of time to file an initial brief is denied as moot. Reversed and remanded for further proceedings. Prior report: — So. 3d-.…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Owran Green, 944 So. 2d 208 (Fla. 2006)
- Castillo v. State, 990 So. 2d 564 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)
- C.C. v. Dep't OF Child. & Families & The Guardian Ad Litem Program, 994 So. 2d 1231 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)
- Tatum v. State, 994 So. 2d 1231 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)