STATE OF FLORIDA v. DANE STEPHENSON
21-0332
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | Jun 23, 2021Background
- In 2014 Stephenson (pro se) pled no contest to misdemeanor cannabis possession; the court withheld adjudication and ordered court costs. The court did not conduct an adequate plea colloquy.
- The State offered either a withheld adjudication with costs or misdemeanor diversion; Stephenson accepted the withheld adjudication option.
- In 2015 Stephenson was detained by immigration authorities and learned his plea had deportation consequences.
- In 2018 Stephenson filed a Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850(b)(2) motion to vacate his plea, alleging the plea was not knowing, intelligent, and voluntary because he had not been advised of immigration consequences.
- The county court granted the motion and vacated the plea; the State appealed.
- The Fourth District reversed, holding the 3.850 motion was time-barred and that Stephenson failed to show an applicable exception (failed to plead due diligence/newly discovered facts), and that a deficient colloquy does not erase the fact a plea was entered.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Stephenson) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Stephenson's Rule 3.850 motion was timely or fits an exception to the 2-year bar | The motion is untimely and no exception applies | The motion alleges manifest injustice due to lack of plea advisement of immigration consequences and cites rule 3.850(b)(2) | Motion untimely; no applicable exception shown (reversed trial court) |
| Whether failure to advise of immigration consequences during plea qualifies as "newly discovered" facts excusing the time bar | Even if immigration consequences exist, defendant did not exercise due diligence to discover them within two years | The lack of colloquy and later discovery during deportation proceedings justify relief | Not newly discovered for purposes of rule 3.850(b)(1); defendant failed to plead or prove affirmative due diligence |
| Whether a manifest injustice exception can overcome 3.850(b) time limits | Time limits apply; there is no free-standing "manifest injustice" exception to the two-year rule | The plea was involuntary because the court failed to advise of consequences, creating manifest injustice | No manifest-injustice escape hatch to the 2-year limit; courts have enforced the time bar |
| Whether an inadequate or absent plea colloquy means no valid plea was entered | A deficient colloquy can be remedied only via timely postconviction relief; a plea remains an entered plea | The complete absence of a plea colloquy means the plea is void/invalid | Deficient colloquy does not nullify that a plea was entered; prejudice or manifest injustice must be shown in timely motion |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Green, 944 So. 2d 208 (Fla. 2006) (establishes due-diligence requirement for discovering immigration consequences and newly discovered evidence exception to rule 3.850 time bar)
- Wallace v. State, 264 So. 3d 389 (Fla. 5th DCA 2019) (applies Green; defendant must show inability to discover immigration consequences with due diligence)
- State v. Lorenzo, 271 So. 3d 77 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019) (supports application of Green’s due-diligence requirement)
- Jules v. State, 233 So. 3d 1196 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) (motion time-barred where defendant failed to show due diligence in discovering immigration consequences)
- Cuffy v. State, 190 So. 3d 86 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (recognizes rule 3.850 contains no separate "manifest injustice" exception to the time limitation)
- State v. Manning, 121 So. 3d 1083 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (rejects attempt to evade 3.850(b) time limits by invoking nature of allegations)
- Hall v. State, 94 So. 3d 655 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (construing error as "manifest injustice" does not relieve time bar)
- State v. Fox, 659 So. 2d 1324 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (a deficient plea colloquy alone is not a sufficient basis to withdraw a plea after sentencing; defendant must show prejudice or manifest injustice)