MARTIN IOSELLI, 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 a defendant is not entitled to postconviction relief based on insufficient advice about deportation consequences if the defendant was already subject to removal for other immigration violations.
Appellant pleaded guilty to drug offenses and later sought postconviction relief, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to advise him…
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 Padilla V. Kentucky cases and more on FLexlaw
ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
We grant appellant’s motion for rehearing, withdraw our previous opinion, and substitute the following opinion in its place.
On July 1, 2009, appellant, a citizen of Argentina, entered a negotiated guilty plea to possession of oxycodone and possession of a Schedule IV controlled substance. In August 2011, he filed a timely motion for postconviction relief claiming, among other things,1 that the court did not advise him about the deportation consequences of his plea and that, pursuant to Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356, 130 S.Ct. 1473, 176 L.Ed.2d 284 (2010), counsel was ineffective in failing to advise him about deportation.
The trial court denied the motion after an evidentiary hearing. The court found that the plea colloquy was sufficient and that the plea was voluntarily entered. The trial court did not, however, address appellant’s Padilla claim in its order.
We affirm the denial of appellant’s motion. We agree with the trial court that appellant’s claim that he was not advised about the possibility of deportation is refuted by the record and without merit. Appellant signed and initialed a plea form that advised him about the possibility of deportation. See Fla. R.Crim. P. *3903.172(c)(8). During the plea colloquy, appellant, who has no difficulty with the English language, acknowledged under oath that he had read and understood the plea form. Peart v. State, 754 So.2d 723 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999).
It is unnecessary for us to decide whether Padilla applies in this case because appellant was illegally in this country prior to his arrest. At the evidentiary hearing, appellant’s immigration attorney testified that appellant entered the United States in May 2000 under a visa waiver that permitted him to remain in the country for ninety days. Appellant overstayed and illegally remained in the United States. In 2010, he married a United States citizen and later attempted to obtain an adjustment in his immigration status to that of lawful permanent resident. Immigration authorities denied his request and advised him that he was in the country illegally and must depart. According to his counsel on appeal, appellant has returned to Argentina.
Thus, at the time he entered his plea, appellant was removable because he overstayed his visa waiver for nearly a decade. He has not shown that his guilty plea to the drug offenses is the only basis for his removal. Forrest v. State, 988 So.2d 38 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008). Appellant has not demonstrated that, at the time he entered his plea, he had a legitimate expectation that he would be allowed to remain in this country. Accordingly, appellant is not entitled to postconviction relief based on insufficient advice about the deportation, consequences of the plea.
Affirmed.
MAY, C.J., TAYLOR and CONNER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rosario v. State, 165 So. 3d 672 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015)…ges lack of knowledge of the risk of deportation, prejudice cannot be established if the defendant was present in the country unlawfully or was otherwise subject to removal. Ibarra v. State, 125 So. 3d 820, 821 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013); Ioselli v. State, 122 So. 3d 388, 390 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013); Joseph v. State, 107 So. 3d 492 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013); see also Garcia v. State, 425 S.W. 3d 248, 261 n. 8 (Tenn.2013) (“[C]ourts have consistently held that an illegal alien who pleads guilty cannot establish prejudice, even…
-
Ibarra v. State, 125 So. 3d 820 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)…124 So. 3d 757 (Fla. Nov. 21, 2012). Further, as argued by the State in its response below, appellant is not subject to deportation based solely on his plea in this case, which is a requirement for obtaining relief under Padilla. Ioselli v. State, 122 So. 3d 388, 2013 WL 611781 (Fla. 4th DCA Feb.20, 2013) (citing Forrest v. State, 988 So. 2d 38 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)); see also Diez v. State, 102 So. 3d 19, 20 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012). The Department of Homeland Security’s Notice to Appear for removal proceedings…
-
Stacy-Ann Sinclair v. State, 127 So. 3d 838 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Ioselli v. State, 122 So. 3d 388, 390 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013); Ibarra v. State, 125 So. 3d 820 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013); Joseph v. State, 107 So. 3d 492 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013); Rosas v. State, 991 So. 2d 1003 [*839] (Fla. 4th DCA 2008); Peart v. State, 754 So. 2d 723 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). GRO…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Adkins, 96 So. 3d 412 (Fla. 2012)
- Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (U.S. 2010)
- Maestas v. State, 76 So. 3d 991 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)
- Mackle Vincent Shelton v. Sec'y, Dep't OF Corr., Attorney Gen., State of Fla., 691 F.3d 1348 (11th Cir. 2012)
- Forrest v. State, 988 So. 2d 38 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)
- Roan Peart v. State, 754 So. 2d 723 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)