Cano v. State
112 So. 3d 646
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2013Background
- Appellant timely filed postconviction motion seeking to withdraw his June 18, 2010 plea to attempted robbery and assault on a person 65 years of age or older.
- Claim centers on Padilla v. Kentucky: counsel failed to advise about potential immigration consequences, including a deportation order allegedly based on the convictions.
- Appellant did not provide a copy of the alleged deportation order supporting his claim.
- Trial court denied relief because the plea colloquy and form warned that the plea could result in deportation; this equivocal warning was relied upon to deny relief.
- Florida Supreme Court later held that an equivocal warning is not sufficient to refute truly clear deportation consequences and abrogated Flores’ contrary ruling.
- Matter was affirmed without prejudice to refiling a legally sufficient claim within 60 days of the appellate mandate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| What must movant show for Padilla relief when warning is present? | Appellant (Padilla-based) argues he was prejudiced by inadequate advice. | State contends warning suffices and Flores cures prejudice in most cases. | Movant may proceed only if multiple stringent requirements are met; need proper refiling if good faith. |
Key Cases Cited
- Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (U.S. 2010) (ineffective assistance for not advising about deportation consequences)
- Forrest v. State, 988 So.2d 38 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (cites limitations on may/could warnings curing prejudice)
- Joseph v. State, 107 So.3d 492 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (Padilla framework applied to postconviction claims)