122 So. 3d 388
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2013Background
- Appellant, an Argentine citizen, pled guilty on July 1, 2009 to possession of oxycodone and a Schedule IV substance.
- In August 2011, he moved for postconviction relief arguing lack of Padilla-based deportation advice and ineffective assistance.
- The trial court denied after an evidentiary hearing, noting the plea colloquy was sufficient and voluntary but not addressing Padilla specifically.
- The appellate court affirmed, holding the record refuted lack of deportation advisement because the plea form warned of possible deportation and appellant acknowledged understanding it.
- Evidence showed appellant entered the U.S. in 2000 on a visa waiver, overstayed, married a U.S. citizen, and was advised he was unlawfully in the country and must depart.
- At the time of the plea, appellant was removable due to his overstayed visa; he did not demonstrate a legitimate expectation to remain.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Padilla claim on deportation consequences | Appellant argues Padilla requires deportation warning and ineffective counsel. | State contends warnings were provided and Padilla not necessary given illegal presence. | Not entitled to relief; warnings in record; Padilla not required given illegal presence. |
Key Cases Cited
- Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (U.S. 2010) (deportation advisement required for counsel's advice on pleas)
- Forrest v. State, 988 So.2d 38 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (removal may be independent of plea validity)
- Adkins v. State, 96 So.3d 412 (Fla.2012) (addressed related constitutional challenges to drugs laws)
- Maestas v. State, 76 So.3d 991 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (concerning postconviction bases where law challenged)
- Shelton v. Secretary, Dept. of Corrections, 802 F. Supp. 2d 1289 (M.D. Fla.2011) (federal challenge to state drug laws; later reversed)