827 So. 2d 342 | Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2002
The State of Florida appeals the lower court’s ruling granting the defendant, Martin Carmona’s, Motion to Vacate and Set Aside Conviction.
Defendant was charged with two counts of aggravated battery on November 1, 1993. On April 4, 1994, he entered a plea of no contest to the charges. The trial court entered a finding of guilt, withheld adjudication of guilt, and placed defendant on probation for eighteen months with special conditions.
Defendant filed the motion which is the subject of this appeal on October 5, 2001. In it he claimed that the trial court had failed to advise him during the course of his plea colloquy that his plea could result in his ultimate deportation from this country.
On July 11, 2001, the United States Department of Justice Office of Immigration Litigation, informed defendant that the Government was going to initiate proceedings to revoke his naturalization.
The law is clear that to obtain the sought after relief in this case defendant must demonstrate prejudice. See Vacarean v. State, 810 So.2d 1055 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). In this case, defendant has failed to prove that he is presently facing deportation. The very scant record before us establishes only that the federal government is seeking to denaturalize him. Although defendant argues in his brief that the reason for the denaturalization proceeding is based on his convictions in the present case, nothing in the record supports this contention.
Accordingly, we reverse the decision of the lower court. This decision is without prejudice to defendant to pursue a remedy at the appropriate time.
Reversed.
. The transcript of defendant's plea colloquy is unavailable.
. Such proceedings have been instituted in United States of America v. Martin Carmona, Case No. 01-4286 CIV-SEITZ.
. The only two documents in the record that address the issue of the denaturalization proceeding, are defendant's affidavit and the federal government’s letter to defendant advising him that it was instituting the same and offering him an opportunity to settle the matter without litigation.
. We are compelled to observe that at the time the motion in question was filed, defendant was a naturalized citizen of the United States.