Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

862 So. 2d 771

State v. Morales

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided November 5, 2003

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 2003-11-05

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

Decided 2003-11-05

FLETCHER, Judge.

¶1The State of Florida seeks to reverse an order vacating the judgment of conviction and sentence of Julio A. Morales. We reverse.

¶2In February of 1989, Morales pleaded guilty to possession of cocaine. Morales subsequently moved to withdraw his plea and to vacate the conviction, but because he was not under present threat of deportation, the motion was withdrawn. Morales then voluntarily advised the INS that he was amenable to deportation. The INS issued a Notice to Appear [NTA], after which Morales renewed his motion to withdraw plea and vacate conviction, now that he was presently “under threat” of deportation. At the evidentiary hearing on Morales’ renewed motion, the court heard testimony of Robert Sheldon, an immigration law specialist who indicated that the NTA provided two grounds for Morales’s deportation — the guilty plea and his undocumented status. Sheldon testified that, of those two grounds, the guilty plea was the only viable reason for deportation, as Morales’ undocumented status could be remedied under the Cuban Adjustment Act. At the hearing’s conclusion the trial court granted Morales’ motion to vacate his conviction and sentence.

¶3The record reflects that Morales applied for permanent residency which was denied because of the 1989 conviction. It is evident from testimony that Morales, a Cuban national, was not in fact amenable to deportation but was attempting to obtain permanent resident status by using the NTA as a means to obtain a favorable ruling on his motion to vacate his conviction. Testimony indicated it is highly speculative as to whether the INS would have actually instituted an action against Morales had he not requested such proceedings himself. Volunteering for deportation does not establish the requisite prejudice (from failure to advise of the immigration consequences of one’s plea) and “threat” of deportation necessary to trigger Peart and its progeny. See Peart v. State, 756 So.2d 42 (Fla.2000). In this case the prejudice and threat was created by Morales and does not stem from the circumstances surrounding his prior plea.

¶4Reversed and remanded.

/862/so2d/771 · .json · Public domain