EDWARD CISNEROS, 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.
Edward Cisneros appealed the trial court's summary denial of his motions to vacate his guilty pleas to drug possession and burglary charges, claiming his counsel failed to advise him of the immigration consequences of his pleas. The Fourth District affirmed the denial, finding that the trial judge had expressly informed Cisneros of potential deportation consequences and that Padilla v. Kentucky does not apply retroactively, but certified a conflict with another district court on whether Florida's standard deportation warning satisfies constitutional requirements.
The court affirmed the denial of relief, holding that Padilla v. Kentucky does not apply retroactively to Cisneros's case and that the trial judge's express warning to Cisneros about potential deportation consequences precluded an ineffective assistance of counsel claim on this ground. However, the court certified a conflict between districts regarding whether Florida's standard immigration warning is constitutionally sufficient under Padilla.
[1] The decision in Padilla v. …
[2] A trial court's summary denial of a motion to vacate a plea and sentence is affirmed when the record demonstrates the judge expressly informed the appellant of potential…
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“Appellant's reliance on Padilla v. Kentucky, — U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 1473, 176 L.Ed.2d 284 (2010), recognizing ineffective assistance of trial counsel claims where a defendant is misadvised on deportation consequences of a plea, is misplaced because that decision does not apply retroactively.”
The court's primary basis for rejecting Cisneros's claim—that Padilla does not apply retroactively to his case.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCisneros entered no contest pleas to possession of cocaine, possession of marijuana, and home burglary in two separate cases. After his pleas, he clai…
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
This case is sua sponte consolidated with Cisneros v. State, case no. 4D11-2689, as the two appeals concern the same appellant, the same plea challenge and same trial court order of summary denial.
We affirm the trial court’s summary denial of appellant’s motions to vacate plea and sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, following his no contest pleas to possession of cocaine and possession of marijuana in case 08-4070CF10A, and his no contest pleas to home burglary in case 08-495CF10A. After his pleas, he alleges he was informed that he was in imminent danger of removal proceedings and subject to a detainer by immigration authorities. He claims that counsel did not advise him about the immigration consequences of his pleas and that had he been properly advised, he would not have entered the pleas.
Appellant’s reliance on Padilla v. Kentucky, — U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 1473, 176 L.Ed.2d 284 (2010), recognizing ineffective assistance of trial counsel claims where a defendant is misadvised on deportation consequences of a plea, is misplaced because that decision does not apply retroactively. See Smith v. State, 85 So.3d 551 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (citing McCalla v. State, 77 So.3d 845 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012), and other authorities).
Further, the record attachment to the State’s response filed in the trial court, which the trial court attached and incorporated as the basis for its summary denial of relief, demonstrated that the trial judge expressly informed appellant that if he was not a U.S. citizen, taking the pleas could result in deportation. Appellant told the judge he understood this. This precludes a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel on this ground. See Flores v. State, 57 So.3d 218 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010). As in Flores, we note that this decision expressly and directly conflicts with Hernandez v. State, 61 So.3d 1144, 1145 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011), review granted, 81 So.3d 414 (Fla.2012), in which the third district held that Padilla rendered Florida’s existing standard deportation warning “constitutionally deficient” under its circumstances. We certify the conflict and certify a question of great public importance:
*279DOES THE IMMIGRATION WARNING IN FLORIDA RULE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 3.172(c)(8) BAR IMMIGRATION-BASED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF TRIAL COUNSEL CLAIMS BASED ON THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT’S DECISION IN Padilla v. Kentucky, — U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 1473, 176 L.Ed.2d 284 (2010)?
Affirmed; Conflict and Question Certified.
WARNER, TAYLOR and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Beckford v. State, 98 So. 3d 666 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)…her adverse immigration proceedings, no prejudice sufficient to support a finding of ineffective assistance of counsel will be found. Thus, we affirm the trial court’s summary denial of the defendant’s 3.850 motion. However, as in Cisneros v. State, 92 So. 3d 278, 279 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012), we certify the following question as being of great public importance: DOES THE IMMIGRATION WARNING IN FLORIDA RULE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 3.172(C)(8) BAR IMMIGRATION-BASED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL CLAIMS BASED ON…
Authorities Cited
- Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (U.S. 2010)
- Hernandez v. State, 61 So. 3d 1144 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011)
- Gandy v. State, 81 So. 3d 414 (Fla. 2012)
- Flores v. State, 57 So. 3d 218 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)
- Smith v. State, 85 So. 3d 551 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)
- McCALLA v. State, 77 So. 3d 845 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)