¶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 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 →