Wallace v. State
264 So. 3d 389
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2019Background
- In 2006 Wallace (a Nigerian national) pled guilty to possession of >20g cannabis (third-degree felony) and to possession of drug paraphernalia; plea form warned noncitizens "may be deported." Judgment became final January 2007.
- Court withheld adjudication on the cannabis count, convicted on paraphernalia; one-day sentence with credit for time served.
- In September 2016 federal authorities initiated removal proceedings after rejecting Wallace's green card application based on the 2006 plea.
- Wallace filed a Rule 3.850 postconviction motion in January 2017 claiming trial counsel misadvised him about immigration consequences; he argued timeliness measured from initiation of removal proceedings.
- The postconviction court held an evidentiary hearing where Wallace testified counsel told him withholding of adjudication would not affect immigration; counsel testified he would not have told a client that.
- The court denied relief as untimely under Rule 3.850 and Green, and alternatively found Wallace failed to prove deficient performance or prejudice under Strickland.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of 3.850 motion based on counsel's alleged misadvice about deportation | Wallace: Motion timely because filed within two years of initiation of removal proceedings (2016) | State: Motion must be filed within two years of judgment becoming final (2007) | Motion untimely; Rule 3.850 two-year clock runs from final judgment under Green |
| Applicability of Green/Peart framework to counsel misadvice claims | Wallace relied on Johnson and Rodriguez to allow later filing based on discovery of deportation risk | State relied on Green to require due diligence and bar delayed claims | Green controls; defendant must allege and prove inability to ascertain immigration consequences within two years with due diligence |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel (Strickland) — deficient performance | Wallace: Counsel misadvised him about immigration effects and he wouldn't have pled otherwise | State: Counsel credibly denied giving such advice; Wallace pled to care for child, undermining prejudice claim | Court found competent substantial evidence to deny ineffective assistance — no deficient performance or prejudice proven |
| Prejudice from plea (immigration consequence) | Wallace: Deportation risk was not known until 2016, causing prejudice | State: Deportation consequence was objectively ascertainable at plea; no Strickland prejudice shown | No prejudice shown; plea’s immigration consequence is an existing fact at time of plea under Green |
Key Cases Cited
- Gomez v. State, 126 So.3d 444 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (timeliness of misadvice-based 3.850 claims)
- State v. Johnson, 615 So.2d 179 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993) (pre-Green Third DCA approach to misadvice claims)
- Rodriguez v. State, 824 So.2d 328 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002) (pre-Green Third DCA decision on discovery-based timeliness)
- State v. Green, 944 So.2d 208 (Fla. 2006) (Florida Supreme Court: two-year Rule 3.850 clock runs from final judgment; due diligence requirement)
- Peart v. State, 756 So.2d 42 (Fla. 2000) (prior rule allowing filing within two years of discovery of deportation risk; receded by Green)
- Bee v. State, 132 So.3d 857 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (applies Green to counsel misadvice claims)
- Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (U.S. 2010) (counsel must advise about immigration consequences in some cases)
- Blanco v. State, 702 So.2d 1250 (Fla. 1997) (standard for reviewing postconviction factual findings)
- Keith v. State, 46 So.3d 85 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010) (application of Strickland in Florida postconviction context)