From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Oakley

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District
May 27, 1998
715 So. 2d 956 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)

Summary

holding that defendant failed to show prejudice, despite rule 3.172(c) violation, where defendant was deportable based on previous drug trafficking conviction

Summary of this case from State v. Seraphin

Opinion

No. 97-1043

May 27, 1998

Appeal and cross-appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Marc H. Gold, Judge; L.T. Case No. 93-832CF10.

Robert Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and David M. Schultz, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellant/cross-appellee.

Richard Jorandby, Public Defender, and David McPherrin, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellee/cross-appellant.


This is an appeal and cross-appeal from a summary disposition, granting appellee/cross-appellant's rule 3.850 motion for post-conviction relief. We reverse the main appeal and affirm the cross-appeal.

Appellee does not seriously challenge the state's argument that the trial court erred in finding non-compliance with rule 3.172(c)(8), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. However, she contends that if we reverse, the trial court should be directed on remand to address her claim of involuntary plea due to a change in federal immigration law since the time of her plea, which now subjects her to automatic deportation. This latter claim was not addressed in the trial court's order although contained in appellee's motion.

Appellee's argument is not persuasive. She would be subject to deportation under the amended federal law regardless of her plea and adjudication in this case. Aliens convicted of an aggravated felony are conclusively presumed to be deportable from the United States. 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2), (A)(iii). 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(B), defines aggravated felony as including drug trafficking. Before her plea in this case, appellee had been convicted of trafficking in cocaine.

GLICKSTEIN, DELL and FARMER, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

State v. Oakley

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District
May 27, 1998
715 So. 2d 956 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)

holding that defendant failed to show prejudice, despite rule 3.172(c) violation, where defendant was deportable based on previous drug trafficking conviction

Summary of this case from State v. Seraphin

holding that the defendant had failed to show prejudice, despite a rule 3.172(c) violation, where the defendant was deportable based upon a previous drug trafficking conviction

Summary of this case from State v. Seraphin

holding that defendant failed to show prejudice, despite rule 3.172(c) violation, where defendant was deportable based on previous drug trafficking conviction

Summary of this case from Peart v. State

holding that defendant failed to show prejudice, despite rule 3.172(c) violation, where defendant was deportable based on previous drug trafficking conviction

Summary of this case from Peart v. State

holding that the defendant failed to show prejudice, despite rule 3.172(c) violation, where defendant was deportable based on previous drug trafficking conviction

Summary of this case from Prieto v. State

finding that movant failed to establish prejudice where the record showed he could be deported based on other convictions

Summary of this case from Jules v. Florida Dept. of Corr.

finding that movant failed to establish prejudice where the record showed he could be deported based on other convictions

Summary of this case from Forrest v. State
Case details for

State v. Oakley

Case Details

Full title:STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v. FERNANDA OAKLEY…

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District

Date published: May 27, 1998

Citations

715 So. 2d 956 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)

Citing Cases

State v. Seraphin

We subsequently acknowledged that our old case law was superseded by the new rule in State v. De Abreu, 613…

Vacarean v. State

Further, even if he did face deportation, he must show that such a consequence resulted from this conviction.…