Benitez v. State

Sigifredo BENITEZ, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided January 31, 1996.

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1996-01-31

Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently May 2006

16 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“collateral consequence of the plea which was not required to be covered in the plea colloquy”

quoted by 2 later decisions, including 773 So. 2d 1264 - Donovan v. State, 742 So. 2d 464 - Oce v. State

Relies on 645 So. 2d 91 - State v. Will · 405 So. 2d 758 - Polk v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1996-01-31

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Sigifredo Benitez, in pro. per.

¶2Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, and Cynthia A. Greenfield, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

¶3Before JORGENSON, COPE and GREEN, JJ.

¶4PER CURIAM.

¶5Sigifredo Benitez appeals an order denying his motion for postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. He contends that in the plea colloquy in which he pled guilty to two counts of attempted capital sexual battery and one count of kidnapping, he should have been advised that he would thereby become subject to the Florida Sexual Predators Act and its registration requirements. See §§ 775.21-.23, Fla. Stat. (1993). We conclude that this was a collateral consequence of the plea which was not required to be covered in the plea colloquy. See State v. Will,645 So.2d 91, 94-95 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); Polk v. State,405 So.2d 758, 761-62 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981).

¶6Affirmed.