Goddard v. State, 217 So. 3d 1105

Robert Goddard, a lawful permanent resident from Barbados, pleaded guilty in August 2015 pursuant to a negotiated plea to multiple drug offenses; the trial court withheld adjudication, imposed 24 months probation and ten days in jail.
After the plea, DHS detained Goddard and initiated removal proceedings based on the controlled-substance convictions.
Goddard filed a Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion alleging trial counsel twice told him a withheld adjudication would prevent deportation and that, but for that advice, he would have gone to trial.
The postconviction court summarily denied relief, relying on the trial court’s plea colloquy statement that noncitizens “are subject to deportation” to cure any misadvice.
The Second District reversed, holding the record does not conclusively refute Goddard’s claim that counsel’s advice was deficient under Padilla and that the plea colloquy was insufficiently clear to negate prejudice.
The case was remanded for further proceedings, including an evidentiary hearing if necessary.

Issue	Goddard's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether counsel provided ineffective assistance by affirmatively advising that a withheld adjudication would avoid deportation	Counsel told Goddard twice a withhold would prevent deportation; had he known deportation was likely he would not have pleaded	The trial court’s on-the-record advisement that noncitizens “are subject to deportation” cured any counsel error	Reversed: counsel’s affirmative misadvice was potentially deficient under Padilla; the record does not conclusively refute deficiency
Whether Goddard showed prejudice from counsel’s misadvice (i.e., reasonable probability he would have insisted on trial)	Goddard swore he would have gone to trial if properly advised about likely deportation	The court’s brief colloquy admonition refutes lack of knowledge and negates prejudice	Reversed: the plea colloquy was equivocal and, given counsel’s alleged assurances, did not conclusively eliminate prejudice

Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010) (counsel must advise noncitizen defendants of clear deportation consequences of a plea)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong ineffective-assistance test: deficiency and prejudice)
Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (1985) (prejudice standard in plea context: reasonable probability defendant would have gone to trial)
Hernandez v. State, 124 So. 3d 757 (Fla. 2012) (plea colloquy cannot cure counsel’s Padilla-level misadvice unless it is equally clear and accurate)
Gomez v. State, 126 So. 3d 444 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (withholding adjudication can constitute a conviction for immigration purposes)
Jennings v. State, 123 So. 3d 1101 (Fla. 2013) (standard for reviewing summary denials of 3.850 claims)