Levoyant v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided April 20, 1990

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1990-04-20

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently July 1991

2 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“... there was no showing that as a result thereof he continued to be held in state custody and was in such custody at the time his 3.850 motion was filed (emphasis added).”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 571 So. 2d 78 - Gallo v. State

Relies on 520 So. 2d 562 - State v. Bolyea · 710 F. Supp. 269 - D'Ambrosio v. Immigration & Naturalization Service · 508 So. 2d 457 - Bolyea v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1990-04-20

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

PER CURIAM.

¶1We affirm the denial of defendant’s motion for post-conviction relief under Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.850. We agree with the trial court that the defendant was not shown to have standing to file the motion. The term of incarceration to which he had been sentenced had been completed. While he apparently was subject to a detainer issued by the Immigration and Naturalization Service, the trial court having recommended his deportation following his incarceration, there was no showing that as a result thereof he continued to be held in state custody and was in such custody at the time his 3.850 motion was filed. See Bolyea v. State, 508 So.2d 457, 458 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987), approved, State v. Bolyea, 520 So.2d 562 (Fla.1988). See also D’Ambrosio v. Immigration & Naturalization Service, 710 F.Supp. 269 (N.D.Cal.1989).

¶2Affirmed.

RYDER, A.C.J., and LEHAN and PARKER, JJ., concur.