From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

FICA v. STATE

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
Oct 13, 1989
549 So. 2d 206 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1989)

Opinion

No. 88-2237.

August 8, 1989. Rehearing Denied October 13, 1989.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Dade County; Ellen J. Morphonios, Judge.

Frank Fica, in pro. per.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., and Jacqueline M. Valdespino, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before BARKDULL, HUBBART and COPE, JJ.


This is an appeal from denial of defendant Fica's second motion for post-conviction relief under Rule 3.850, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. On Fica's prior appeal from denial of his motion, we remanded for further proceedings in light of State v. Sallato, 519 So.2d 605 (Fla. 1988). Fica v. State, 523 So.2d 615 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988).

Fica contended that he had been given incorrect advice about the potential deportation consequences of entering a guilty plea. On remand the trial court conducted an evidentiary hearing, found the defendant's testimony not to be credible, and found "no evidence that would indicate there was positive misadvice given to the defendant." As there is substantial competent evidence to support the finding, we affirm. See State v. Sallato, 519 So.2d at 606.

There is a typographical error in the order under review, which states, in part, "This Court accepts trial counsel's . . . testimony under oath that he never advised defendant he would be deported." The transcript states, "I accept counsel's testimony under oath that he did not ever advise him that he wouldn't be deported."

Affirmed.


Summaries of

FICA v. STATE

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
Oct 13, 1989
549 So. 2d 206 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1989)
Case details for

FICA v. STATE

Case Details

Full title:FRANK FICA, APPELLANT, v. THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District

Date published: Oct 13, 1989

Citations

549 So. 2d 206 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1989)

Citing Cases

Machin v. State

Given this credibility determination, it was appropriate to deny the postconviction motion insofar as it…