GARY HYDE, 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.
The court held that the denial of the appellant's untimely and successive postconviction motion was proper because Padilla v. Kentucky is not retroactive and the appellant was advised of the possibility of deportation.
Appellant challenged his 1996 plea via an untimely postconviction motion, alleging he was not advised of potential deportation. The plea form and coll…
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
We affirm the summary denial of appellant’s untimely and successive postconviction motion which attempted to challenge his 1996 plea. Padilla v. Kentucky, — U.S. —, 130 S.Ct. 1473, 176 L.Ed.2d 284 (2010), is not retroactive. Hernandez v. State, 61 So.3d 1144 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011), rev. granted, 81 So.3d 414 (Fla.2012); Davis v. State, 69 So.3d 315 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011). Appellant, a habitual felony offender, has other convictions subjecting him to deportation, and he has not shown that the plea in this case alone subjects him to deportation. See Forrest v. State, 988 So.2d 38, 40 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008); Buton v. State, 995 So.2d 1130, 1132 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008).
Further, contrary to appellant’s sworn allegation that he was not advised, appellant signed a plea form which advised of the possibility of deportation, and he acknowledged on the record during the plea colloquy that he had read and understood the form. See Flores v. State, 57 So.3d 218 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010); Peart v. State, 754 So.2d 723 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999).
Appellant has initiated numerous untimely and meritless postconviction challenges and appeals. He appears to have brought false information before the court. He is cautioned that abuse of postconviction relief procedures may result in sanctions. See State v. Spencer, 751 So.2d 47 (Fla.1999); § 944.279(1), Fla. Stat. (2012); § 944.28(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (2012); Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.850(m). The bringing of false information before a court may result in a perjury prosecution or other sanctions. Oquendo v. State, 2 So.3d 1001, 1007 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008).
Affirmed.
WARNER, TAYLOR and DAMOORGIAN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited (11 total)
- State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 1999)
- 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)
- Emerson Davis v. State, 69 So. 3d 315 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)
- Forrest v. State, 988 So. 2d 38 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)
- Oquendo v. State, 2 So. 3d 1001 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)
- Roan Peart v. State, 754 So. 2d 723 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)
- Bergeron v. State, 995 So. 2d 1130 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)