MARLON ANTONIO RUIZ, 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.
Motion for rehearing of Rule 3.850 postconviction relief denial is denied because appellant failed to establish that the challenged conviction was the sole cause of deportation risk, and speculative claims about potential immigration relief are not cognizable in state court.
A defendant's speculative claim that but for a conviction he might be entitled to immigration relief is too speculative for state court relief and presents a question within exclusive federal jurisdiction.
[1] A defendant seeking postconviction relief based on alleged deportation consequences must establish that the challenged conviction was the sole cause of deportation risk,…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“A state court is not a proper forum to litigate whether appellant would have received an adjustment in his immigration status. This determination is within the exclusive discretion of federal officials.”
Court explaining why speculative immigration relief claims cannot be litigated in state postconviction proceedings.
Ruiz sought postconviction relief under Rule 3.850 based on an arguably invalid conviction that he claimed would result in his deportation.…
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 Rule 3.850 Motion cases and more on FLexlaw
On Motion for Rehearing
Ruiz’s motion for rehearing of the per curiam affirmance of the denial of his Peart 3.850 motion is itself denied because (1) he did not carry his burden of establishing that the arguably invalid conviction challenged in this proceeding was the sole cause of his potential deportation, see Prieto v. State, 824 So.2d 924 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002), review denied, 842 So.2d 845 (Fla.2003); Buton v. State, 995 So.2d 1130 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008), and (2) the contention that other convictions which would also have had that effect might be excused by the immigration authorities is not cognizable under what we believe to be the now-controlling authority in this district, State v. Tabuteau, 16 So.3d 991 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009), in which the court recently held that
[ defendant’s claim that, but for the conviction in this case, he might be entitled to an adjustment in his immigration status is too speculative to merit relief. A state court is not a proper forum to litigate whether appellant would have received an adjustment in his immigration status. This determination is within the exclusive discretion of federal offi*661cials. 8 U.S.C. § 1255 (2000). Rosas [v. State, 991 So.2d 1003, 1003-04 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) ].
But cf. Dumenigo v. State, 988 So.2d 1201 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008); Ojurongbe v. State, 973 So.2d 621 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008).
Rehearing denied.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Prieto v. State, 824 So. 2d 924 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)
- Dumenigo v. State, 988 So. 2d 1201 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)
- Bieger v. State, 991 So. 2d 1003 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)
- Bergeron v. State, 995 So. 2d 1130 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)
- Ehoud Buton v. State, 995 So. 2d 1130 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)
- Carr v. State, 973 So. 2d 621 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)
- State v. Ernst Tabuteau, 16 So. 3d 991 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009)