Cifuentes v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Cifuentes v. State

96 So. 3d 1097, 2012 WL 3826033, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 14862

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 5, 2012

DocketNo. 4D11-3972

StatusPublished

This text of 96 So. 3d 1097 (Cifuentes v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cifuentes v. State, 96 So. 3d 1097, 2012 WL 3826033, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 14862 (Fla. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the summary denial of appellant’s motion for postconviction relief, which challenged his 1996 no contest plea to charges of resisting with violence and battery. His claims are procedurally [1098]*1098barred as untimely. Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.850(b). We reject his claim that Padilla v. Kentucky, — U.S. —, 130 S.Ct. 1473, 176 L.Ed.2d 284 (2010), is retroactive. Hernandez v. State, 61 So.3d 1144 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011), rev. granted, 81 So.3d 414 (Fla.2012); Davis v. State, 69 So.3d 315 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011).

Further, even if Padilla is found to be retroactive, appellant does not allege that the court failed to give the standard deportation warning of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.172(c)(8), and his claim is insufficient to merit relief. See Flores v. State, 57 So.3d 218 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010), petition for review pending, No. SC11-989.

Affirmed.

STEVENSON, TAYLOR and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the summary denial of appellant’s motion for postconviction relief, which challenged his 1996 no contest plea to charges of resisting with violence and battery. His claims are procedurally [1098]*1098barred as untimely. Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.850(b). We reject his claim that Padilla v. Kentucky, — U.S. —, 130 S.Ct. 1473, 176 L.Ed.2d 284 (2010), is retroactive. Hernandez v. State, 61 So.3d 1144 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011), rev. granted, 81 So.3d 414 (Fla.2012); Davis v. State, 69 So.3d 315 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011).

Further, even if Padilla is found to be retroactive, appellant does not allege that the court failed to give the standard deportation warning of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.172(c)(8), and his claim is insufficient to merit relief. See Flores v. State, 57 So.3d 218 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010), petition for review pending, No. SC11-989.

Affirmed.

STEVENSON, TAYLOR and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

96 So. 3d 1097, 2012 WL 3826033, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 14862, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cifuentes-v-state-fladistctapp-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack