JHONATHAN RAMIREZ, 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.
Ramirez appealed the summary denial of his Rule 3.850 postconviction motion alleging ineffective assistance of counsel regarding failure to advise him of deportation consequences of his guilty plea to DUI Manslaughter. The court affirmed the denial without prejudice, allowing him to file a facially sufficient motion meeting the Padilla standard within sixty days.
The court affirmed the summary denial of the postconviction motion without prejudice, finding Ramirez raised colorable claims but must establish all six Padilla factors in a facially sufficient amended motion to proceed. The six required elements are: (1) lawful presence at time of plea; (2) plea as sole basis for deportation; (3) virtually automatic deportation under law at time of plea; (4) presumptively mandatory consequence clear from immigration statute; (5) counsel's failure to accurately advise; and (6) movant would not have entered plea if properly advised.
[1] A defendant may be permitted to file a facially sufficient postconviction motion within sixty days of the issuance of a mandate, even if the initial motion was summarily…
[2] To state a claim for relief regarding deportation consequences after a guilty plea, a movant must establish that they were lawfully present at the time of the plea, the p…
Previewing 2 of 4 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“Because the defendant raises color-able claims, our denial is without prejudice to his right to file a facially sufficient motion consistent with Cano v. State”
Establishes that while the motion was summarily denied, the defendant may amend and refile because his claims had sufficient facial plausibility under Padilla
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRamirez entered a negotiated guilty plea to DUI Manslaughter on April 30, 2008, receiving one year in jail followed by 15 years' probation. The charge…
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
The defendant appeals the summary denial of his postconviction motion. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850. We affirm the denial without prejudice to his right to file a facially sufficient motion within sixty days of the issuance of the mandate in this case.
The defendant entered a negotiated guilty plea to one count of DUI Manslaughter on April 30, 2008. He was sentenced to one year in jail, followed by 15 years’ probation. The charges arose from allegations that the defendant was racing another motorist, whose car crashed. The passenger in the other vehicle died.
The defendant alleged that his counsel failed to advise him of the deportation consequences of entering the plea, and that the trial court indicated only that the defendant could be subject to deportation, not that he would be subject to deportation. Hernandez v. State, 124 So.3d 757, 761, 2012 WL 5869660, *3 (Fla. Nov. 21, 2012).
Because the defendant raises color-able claims, our denial is without prejudice to his right to file a facially sufficient motion consistent with Cano v. State, 112 So.3d 646, 648 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013):
Where a movant has received the standard “may” or “could” deportation warning required by rule 3.172(c)(8), to state a claim for relief under Padilla, a movant must establish the following: (1) that the movant was present in the country lawfully at the time of the plea; (2) that the plea at issue is the sole basis for the movant’s deportation; (3) that the law, as it existed at the time of the plea, subjected the movant to “virtually automatic” deportation; (4) that the “presumptively mandatory” consequence of deportation is clear from the face of the immigration statute; (5) that counsel failed to accurately advise the movant about the deportation consequences of the plea; and (6) that, if the movant had been accurately advised, he or she would not have entered the plea.
Id. (citations omitted).
We therefore affirm the summary denial of the defendant’s postconviction motion without prejudice to his right to amend, in good faith, consistent with this Court’s opinion. Should he do so, we remind the trial court to either attach portions of the record conclusively refuting his claims or to hold an evidentiary hearing on the matter.
WARNER, GROSS and MAY, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Abel Alonso Huerta v. State, 228 So. 3d 626 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017)…n consequences of entering the plea, he would have instead proceeded to trial. The postconviction court, denied Huerta’s amended motion as facially insufficient, citing Agent v. State, 19 So. 3d 1114, 1115 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009), and Ramirez v. State, 124 So. 3d 967, 968 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013), in .support. In Agent, this court explained that the defendant’s postconviction motion was facially insufficient because the defendant failed to allege that he would not have entered his plea but for counsel’s error. 19 So.…
Authorities Cited
- Hernandez v. State, 124 So. 3d 757 (Fla. 2012)
- Cano v. State, 112 So. 3d 646 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)