Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

837 So. 2d 1089

Perdomo v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided February 19, 2003

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 2003-02-19

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently June 2003

1 state decisions

Relies on 756 So. 2d 42 - Peart v. State · State v. Paniagua · Orellanes v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2003-02-19

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

PER CURIAM.

¶1Defendant appeals the order denying his motion for relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. He cites to Peart v. State, 756 So.2d 42 (Fla.2000), and claims he is about to be deported based on a 1984 plea, where he was not informed of the immigration consequences of that plea. As previously observed, post-conviction relief is not available for the failure to advise a defendant of the immigration consequences of entering a plea prior to the time that the court was placed under a duty to render such an advisement. See Orellanes v. State, 790 So.2d 613 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001); State v. Paniagua, 789 So.2d 1199 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001). Here, by defendant’s own admission, the plea at issue occurred several years before the rule providing for notification of deportation consequences. Accordingly, the order under review is affirmed.

/837/so2d/1089 · .json · Public domain