EDUARDO MACIAS, 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.
Eduardo Macias appealed the denial of motions to vacate his pleas of no contest in two separate cases based on lack of immigration warnings. The court reversed and remanded both cases, finding the trial court's denials were procedurally improper because it failed to consider relief from both pleas together, and directed Macias to file amended motions complying with State v. Green requirements.
The court reversed the trial court's orders on procedural grounds, holding that the defendant may prevail under Green if he demonstrates entitlement to relief from pleas in both cases considered together. The court remanded for Macias to file amended motions conforming to Green's pleading requirements, with both motions to be consolidated and heard by a single judge.
[1] A defendant seeking to vacate a plea based on the lack of an immigration warning must demonstrate an entitlement to relief from the plea in all relevant cases.
[2] Motions to vacate pleas based on the lack of an immigration warning must allege that the defendant could not have ascertained the immigration consequences with due dilige…
Previewing 2 of 6 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“Under Green, however, the defendant may prevail if he demonstrates an entitlement to relief from plea in both cases.”
Establishes the correct legal standard—the defendant must show entitlement to relief in both cases, not just one case standing alone.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMacias was convicted in two separate felony cases (1991 and 1994) and entered pleas of no contest in each. He filed motions to vacate both pleas alleg…
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 Motion To Vacate Plea cases and more on FLexlaw
ON MOTIONS FOR REHEARING AND CONSOLIDATION
Upon consideration of the appellant’s *1183motions for rehearing1 and for consolidation of the same appellant’s Case No. 8D09-837 with Macias v. State, Case No. 3D09-656, we withdraw the per curiam affirmance filed June 10, 2009 in the higher-numbered case and substitute the opinion which follows. For the reasons detailed below, we also grant the motion for consolidation and remand both cases to the circuit court for further proceedings.
The issue involved in both cases2 is whether the trial court erred in denying motions to vacate pleas of no contest under State v. Green, 944 So.2d 208 (Fla.2006). The motions in each of the circuit court cases alleged that the defendant was not given an immigration warning as required by applicable law, and that he is now subject to removal from the United States by immigration authorities as a result of his pleas in those cases. Each motion was filed within the two-year window prescribed in Green.
In an inadvertent judicial variation of “Catch 22,” each motion was denied by the trial court because of the decisional law precluding relief if the challenged plea is not the only basis for removal of the defendant under the immigration laws. Although motions to vacate plea were filed and pending in both cases, the first court determined that the existence of the plea in the second case would subject the defendant to removal even if relief were to be granted in the first case, and vice versa. Under Green, however, the defendant may prevail if he demonstrates an entitlement to relief from plea in both cases.
In fairness to the trial courts and this Court, the defendant’s motions are responsible for the confusion. Neither identified the other case or included (under oath) an allegation that the defendant was also entitled to vacate his plea in the other felony case. Neither motion contains the allegation that the defendant “could not have ascertained the immigration consequences of the plea with the exercise of due diligence within the two-year period [following entry of the plea].” Green, 944 So.2d at 219. Nor has the defendant stated how he intends to prove that the immigration warning was not given (as, for example, by referring to a transcript or other evidence). Id. at 218.
For these reasons, we reverse each of the circuit court orders (on procedural grounds only) and remand the cases to the circuit court with the following directions:
1. The defendant is to be given leave to file and serve an amended motion in each case to conform to the pleading requirements in Green;
2. If a transcript of the plea colloquy is available in either case, it should be attached to the applicable amended motion or the State’s response to that motion; and
3. The amended motions should be consolidated, heard, and ruled upon by a single judge.
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings in each case.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Alfonso v. State, 35 So. 3d 978 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010)…on the conviction he or she is challenging. Sabnani v. State, 5 So. 3d 808, 809 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009); Dumenigo v. State, 988 So. 2d 1201, 1202 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008). It should also be pointed out, however, that we clarified this rule in Macias v. State, 29 So. 3d 1182 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010). By way of background, in Prieto v. State, 824 So. 2d 924 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002), this court held that a defendant cannot obtain relief from a plea on account of a lack of deportation warnings unless the defendant shows that he was p…1 / 2
Authorities Cited
- State v. Owran Green, 944 So. 2d 208 (Fla. 2006)