¶1Affirmed without prejudice to file a sworn, legally sufficient motion for post-conviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. See Peart v. State, 756 So.2d 42, 47 (Fla.2000); Orduno v. State, 800 So.2d 669, 669 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)(“[Orduno] asserted that the trial court did not advise him of the deportation consequences of his plea as required under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.172, that he did not know he could be deported if he pleaded no contest, and that he would not have entered the plea if he had known he could be deported. Orduno has stated a facially sufficient claim for relief’).
826 So. 2d 524
Estime v. State
District Court of Appeal of Florida
Decided September 25, 2002
District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 2002-09-25
Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently August 2018
3 state decisions
Relies on 756 So. 2d 42 - Peart v. State · Orduno v. State
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 2002-09-25
View the full empirical analysis of this case →