Jules v. State, 17-1337

John Jules, a Haitian native and lawful permanent resident, pleaded guilty in 1995 to seven felonies and received concurrent ten-year terms; he was released in 2001.
The 1995 plea colloquy included only the question “Are you a United States citizen?” to which Jules answered “Yes”; the court did not advise noncitizens that a plea may result in deportation.
Jules renewed his LPR status in 2003 and 2014 (records use an alternate name), and traveled internationally in 2008–09 without immigration problems.
In June–August 2015 Jules was detained on reentry and placed into removal proceedings based on the 1995 convictions; in March 2017 he filed a Florida Rule 3.850 motion claiming the plea was involuntary because he was not advised of immigration consequences.
The State moved to dismiss as time‑barred under Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850(b); the trial court held an evidentiary hearing and denied relief as untimely; Jules appealed.
The court applied Florida Supreme Court precedent (Green) requiring a 3.850 motion based on omission of immigration admonition to be filed within two years of the judgment becoming final (or within two years of Green for already-final cases), unless the movant pleads and proves due diligence and affirmative steps to discover immigration consequences.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Jules’ plea was involuntary because the court failed to advise noncitizens of deportation risk	Jules: omission rendered plea involuntary; he would not have pled guilty if warned	State: merits not reached because motion is time‑barred	Court did not reach merits because motion was untimely (procedural bar)
Whether Jules’ 2017 3.850 motion is timely under Rule 3.850(b) / Green due‑diligence exception	Jules: he learned of deportation consequences only in June 2015 and thus filed within two years of discovery; he was misled by lack of detainer, status renewals, and prior travel	State: per Green, Jules had to plead and prove affirmative due‑diligence steps within the two‑year window after Green (to Oct. 26, 2008); he failed to do so	Motion is time‑barred: Jules failed to allege or prove affirmative due diligence; waiting until removal proceedings was insufficient

Peart v. State, 756 So. 2d 42 (Fla. 2000) (recognized right to seek withdrawal of plea when court omits immigration admonition and tied limitations to knowledge of deportation threat)
State v. Green, 944 So. 2d 208 (Fla. 2006) (recinded Peart’s timing rule; two‑year rule runs from finality of judgment or from date of Green for already‑final cases; defendant must plead and prove due diligence and affirmative steps taken)
Canseco v. State, 52 So. 3d 575 (Fla. 2010) (applies Green’s due‑diligence/affirmative‑steps standard)
Aparicio v. State, 893 So. 2d 630 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) (applied pre‑Green Peart standard; later abrogated by Green)
Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (U.S. 1985) (standard for prejudice in plea‑related ineffective‑assistance claims)