THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
ERNST TABUTEAU, 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.
Florida reversed the trial court's vacation of defendant's guilty plea because his deportation resulted from both his illegal entry and the conviction, not the conviction alone, so he was not prejudiced by the trial court's failure to warn him of deportation consequences.
A defendant is not entitled to vacate a guilty plea based on lack of deportation warnings when his removal is based on multiple independent grounds, including illegal entry, rather than the conviction alone.
[1] A defendant is not entitled to vacate a guilty plea for lack of deportation warnings when removal is based on multiple independent grounds rather than the conviction alon…
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 intelligenceDefendant Tabuteau pleaded guilty to a crime and was subsequently subject to deportation proceedings. During those proceedings, he admitted to illegal…
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
We reverse the trial court’s order granting the defendant’s motion to vacate his plea as the conviction in this case was not the sole ground for deportation. The documents in this case show that defendant *992was being deported not solely because of the conviction in this case, but also because he illegally entered the country, a fact which was admitted to by the defendant during his deportation proceedings. Thus, defendant has not shown that he is subject to removal solely because of the plea in this case. Forrest v. State, 988 So.2d 38 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008). Accordingly, defendant was not prejudiced by the trial court’s failure to advise him of deportation consequences before accepting the plea in this case. Rosas v. State, 991 So.2d 1003 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008); see State v. Green, 944 So.2d 208 (Fla.2006).
Defendant’s claim that, but for the conviction in this case, he might be entitled to an adjustment in his immigration status is too speculative to merit relief. A state court is not a proper forum to litigate whether appellant would have received an adjustment in his immigration status. This determination is within the exclusive discretion of federal officials. 8 U.S.C. § 1255 (2000). Rosas, 991 So.2d at 1003-04.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ruiz v. State, 18 So. 3d 660 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009)…08), and (2) the contention that other convictions which would also have had that effect might be excused by the immigration authorities is not cognizable under what we believe to be the now-controlling authority in this district, State v. Tabuteau, 16 So. 3d 991 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009), in which the court recently held that [ defendant’s claim that, but for the conviction in this case, he might be entitled to an adjustment in his immigration status is too speculative to merit relief. A state court is not a pro…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Owran Green, 944 So. 2d 208 (Fla. 2006)
- Forrest v. State, 988 So. 2d 38 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)
- Bieger v. State, 991 So. 2d 1003 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)