FRANCISCO MARTINEZ, 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.
A trial court's failure to warn a defendant of immigration consequences other than deportation (such as inadmissibility upon reentry) does not entitle the defendant to postconviction relief where Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.172(c)(8) requires only a warning about possible deportation.
[1] A trial court's plea colloquy compliance is measured against the specific warnings mandated by Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.172(c)(8), and failure to warn of immi…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“The rule is worded so as to require a warning about possible deportation. The rule does not require a warning regarding any other possible consequence, such as inadmissibility if the defendant should leave the country.”
Judge Cope's concurrence explaining why the affirmance was proper based on the specific language of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.172(c)(8)
Francisco Martinez entered a guilty plea to burglary of a structure and grand theft in Miami-Dade County Circuit Court. The defendant later sought pos…
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 cases and more on FLexlaw
Affirmed.
(concurring).
This is an appeal of an order denying a motion for postconviction relief, based on a claim that defendant-appellant Francisco Martinez was not warned of the deportation consequences of a plea in Miami-Dade County Circuit Court case number 89-8769A. The defendant entered a plea to the offenses of burglary of a structure and grand theft. The State argued that the defendant was not entitled to postconviction relief because these particular offenses did not fall into the category of “deportable crimes” under 8 U.S.C. § 1227. The trial court agreed with the State and denied relief, saying that “[t]he defendant is not subject to deportation as a result of his plea to the crimes charged in F89-08769A.”
On this appeal, counsel for the defendant concedes that the defendant is not subject to deportation as a result of the plea. The defense argues, however, that the challenged convictions render the defendant inadmissible into the United States pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(I). The defense explains that if the defendant were to leave this country for any reason, he would be ineligible to reenter the country. The defense contends that the defendant has been prej*841udiced by the immigration consequences of his plea.
I concur in denying relief because of the wording of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.172(c)(8). That rule specifies the warning which a trial judge must give in conducting a plea colloquy. As relevant here, the rule requires a warning that “the plea may subject him or her to deportation pursuant to the laws and regulations governing the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service.” (Emphasis added).
The rule is worded so as to require a warning about possible deportation. The rule does not require a warning regarding any other possible consequence, such as inadmissibility if the defendant should leave the country. That being so, I concur in the affirmance of the trial court’s order.
COPE, J.
(concurring).
This is an appeal of an order denying a motion for postconviction relief, based on a claim that defendant-appellant Francisco Martinez was not warned of the deportation consequences of a plea in Miami-Dade County Circuit Court case number 89-8769A. The defendant entered a plea to the offenses of burglary of a structure and grand theft. The State argued that the defendant was not entitled to postconviction relief because these particular offenses did not fall into the category of “deportable crimes” under 8 U.S.C. § 1227. The trial court agreed with the State and denied relief, saying that “[t]he defendant is not subject to deportation as a result of his plea to the crimes charged in F89-08769A.”
On this appeal, counsel for the defendant concedes that the defendant is not subject to deportation as a result of the plea. The defense argues, however, that the challenged convictions render the defendant inadmissible into the United States pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(I). The defense explains that if the defendant were to leave this country for any reason, he would be ineligible to reenter the country. The defense contends that the defendant has been prej udiced by the immigration consequences of his plea.
I concur in denying relief because of the wording of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.172(c)(8). That rule specifies the warning which a trial judge must give in conducting a plea colloquy. As relevant here, the rule requires a warning that “the plea may subject him or her to deportation pursuant to the laws and regulations governing the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service.” (Emphasis added).
The rule is worded so as to require a warning about possible deportation. The rule does not require a warning regarding any other possible consequence, such as inadmissibility if the defendant should leave the country. That being so, I concur in the affirmance of the trial court’s order.